Recent content by anuttarasammyak

Thank you all. I will think about it further.

Thank you so much. Then I should appreciate it if you let me know whether all these theories deal with collapse of entangled wave functions as mentioned in OP or not. May I expect that one of them rescue me ?

If no theories in the direction I have mentioned have been explored in response to the OP’s question, please excuse my oversight.

Collapse of (entangled) wave functions comes from measurement. If not only the concepts of the collapse but also measurement in general are excluded from the theory, I cannot evaluate how useful it is.

It seems that this problem cannot be properly understood without mastering relativity. Until then, however, how about the following compromise? Observers in different inertial frames who were making observations in the vicinity of measurement at A hold a meeting and present their respective...

Einsteins seems just applied the general rule of variation for product H=ABC, i.e., $$\delta H = \delta A\ B\ C+A\ \delta B\ C+A\ B\ \delta C $$

In SR, proper time of the object in motion with velocity v(t) is given by $$\tau = \int_0^T \sqrt{1-\frac{v(t)^2}{c^2}}dt$$ where once $$\tau = T = 0$$ for a common event. In the similar way, proper frame of reference, PFR, of the object couuld be made of succesive (instantaneous and local)...

You use alphabet k to mean two different quantities i.e., spring constant and wave number, which cause the confusion.

Indeed. Next I survey my environment to construct my PFR which might not be defined unikely. That will be a tough work to do.

It seems odd to me too because I think Minkowski coordinate belongs to SR or IFR where we find no problems as for Proper FR.

A proper frame of reference (FR) that is inertial (IFR) does not depend on the observer’s location or size; the observer may be regarded as ubiquitous. However, this is not true for a proper FR that is non-inertial.　For example, in an accelerating rocket with multiple floors, observers on the...

Your thought about two IFRs seems OK. What’s the problem?

@davLev Why we observe more electrons than positrons would become your question then.

The formula for the 2nd and the 3rd case is written as $$\frac{a^2+s^2-as(\sin\theta + \cos\theta)}{2 \sin\theta \cos\theta}$$ which is obviously symmetric between s and a, and also between sin and cos, i.e. symmetric wrt y=x axis.. Thus we observe that the 3rd case solution comes from the 2nd...

The answers for the first case and the 4th case are symmetric for exchange of s and a. May we expect the same for the 2nd and the 3rd cases?