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.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...

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