B Why Didn't Einstein Apply the Gamma Factor in the EPR Paradox?

Old Chinaman
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am not a physicist but interested in the decade long debate between Einstein and Niels Bohr, especially in the philosophical implication of the EPR Effect.

I've been wondering if anyone could explain why Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen didn't applied the Lorentz Transformation formula - the Gamma factor for the two complementary light particles that travel in opposite direction at the speed of light when they devised the EPR thought experiment?

When light particles 'travel' at c, gamma factor for time dilation would be infinite which means time stops and those light particles can 'travel' from one end of the Universe to the other in no time. Or they are everywhere at the same time.

If the application of Gamma factor as above is valid, those two complementary particles do not need to communicate to each other. They are not just 'entangled'. They are 'indivisible'. And here Einstein and Bohr would be in the same opinion that Quantum Reality is indivisible.

According Relativity Theory Time and Space are relative. They are so relative, that for a photon that 'travel' at c. time/space simply don't exist. And since speed is a dimension of space/time, at 'the speed of light' there is no 'speed' anymore.

The philosophical implication of this interpretation would be tremendous. It is much worse than turning from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism, that took humanity more than 1800 years to accept.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are implicitly giving a rest frame to light when you talk about time stopping for it. This is self-contradictory in relativity because the speed of light is always the same in inertial reference frames. So in "the rest frame of light", light must be stationary and traveling at c at the same time - which is nonsense. So your approach isn't a valid way to think about anything relativistic, I'm afraid.
 
Old Chinaman said:
When light particles 'travel' at c, gamma factor for time dilation would be infinite which means time stops

No, it doesn't.

Old Chinaman said:
If the application of Gamma factor as above is valid

It isn't.
 
The OP is based on a fundamental misconception. Thread closed.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...

Similar threads

Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Back
Top