A question about quantum entanglement

[Matterwave]

Well, there are always debates about the best way to formulate a theory from basic principles (see the reference above to Höhn's article).

Lucas.

You can certainly debate anything, but SR is generally formulated on the constancy of the speed of light and the equal validity of all inertial frames of reference ("relativity principle"). This was given by Einstein in 1905 and I don't see a ton of debate on trying to change that. Time dilation is a consequence of those 2 postulates.

 

[Fra]

I disagree: we do understand why there is the phenomena of time dilation in special relativity.

You can certainly debate anything, but SR is generally formulated on the constancy of the speed of light and the equal validity of all inertial frames of reference ("relativity principle"). This was given by Einstein in 1905 and I don't see a ton of debate on trying to change that. Time dilation is a consequence of those 2 postulates.

Of course, we can explain time dilation, cleanly and logically from the postulates, since 1905. Few theories are as clear and clean as SR.

But the conceptual problem still today is that while the no preferred observer is extremely intuitive. The light postulate, while technically simple, is by no means obvious or intuitive. But any debate on that, would not be of the form that the postulated is "wrong" in the validated experimental domains, it would likely be that maybe it can be formally relaxed and that it's "status" of postulate or axiom, could be REPLACED by some evolutionary principle or some attractor, based on some other principles that are in fact as intutive as the no preferred observer principle. That would bring deeper understanding, not just a reformulation into "new variables". But so far this is not existing as mature science. This is what i referred to.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

and maybe Barandeis "spooky action at a time" (indivisible non-markovian processes). Though I don't know how "well established" they are.

I agree with this hook. This was discussed in other threads. Barandes is making good contributions, but the picture he provides is critically incomplete still to serves as a resolution. The specific part is a missing first principle new reconstruction of the transition probabilitites (gamma). So far, they are only inferred from the hilbert picture via the correspondence. The gamma matrices hides the mystery, to complete the resolution, I think we need to explain how the gamma matrices evolve; my I see all possibilities for his program to be completed in that way. But that is also not on the table yet.

/Fredrik