A fundamental issue in Einstein Theory of Relativity is if all motion is relative how can we measure the inertia of a body? Einstein and many others assumed we must measure it with respect to something else. But what if a particle is the only thing in the universe, how can we measure it.

Mach, an Austrian physicist and philosopher developed a principle which some have interpreted as the motion of such a particle’s has no meaning if it was alone in the universe.

In Mach’s words, "the principle is expressed as the investigator must have knowledge of the immediate connections, say, of the masses of the universe. There will hover before him as an ideal insight into the principles of the whole matter, from which accelerated and inertial motions will result in the same way."

Einstein considered Mach prospective so important to the development of General Relativity that he christened it Mach’s principle and used it to explain why inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies.

For example, according to General Relativity, the benchmarks for all motion, and accelerated motion in particular, are freely falling observers who have fully given in to gravity and are being acted on by no other forces. Now, a key point is that the gravitational force to which a freely falling observer acquiesces arises from all the matter (and energy) spread throughout the cosmos.Â In other words, in general relativity, when an object is said to be accelerating, it means the object is accelerating with respect to a benchmark determined by matter spread throughout the universe. That’s a conclusion which has the feel of what Mach advocated. So, in this sense, general relativity does incorporate some of Mach’s thinking.

**However, he provided another way of defining inertia that does not require the existence of any other objects but relies only on the geometric properties of space defined in his General Theory of Relativity. In other words, geometry of space itself provides an absolute baseline for inertia. **

In physics inertia is the resistance a physical object to a change in its velocity. Therefore, one can define a baseline for its measurement if one can find a universal starting point for it based on objects velocity.

One of the most logical ways to do that would be to use the observable differences between the two types of motion; velocities and accelerations.

For example, velocities transverse the same space or distance in a given time frame while accelerations transverse an exponentially increasing distance over that same time period.

This tells us the primary difference between them is a component of space not time because if one uses the same time frame for both the only thing that distinguishes them is the distance they transverse.

However, Einstein defined the geometry of space and our universe in terms of time therefore, because space not time is, the variable that distinguishes velocities from accelerations, we should look for a way to define motion and it energy purely in terms of its spatial properties.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he defined the mathematical relationship between space, time and energy in terms of the constant velocity of light because in doing so, he provided a method of converting a unit of time in a space-time environment to its equivalent unit of space in four *spatial*Â dimensions. Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant, he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words, Einstein’s mathematics actually defines two mathematically equivalent physical models of the universe, one consisting of four-dimensional space-time and one of only four *spatial* dimensions.

This allows one to define the energy associated with both accelerations and velocities, in terms of a displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as well as one in four-dimensional space-time.

In other words, using the spatially equivalent model of Einstein space-time theories one could define the energy associated with velocities in terms of a linear displacement in the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension because it remains constant as an object moves though space.

While one would define accelerations both gravitational and non gravitational in terms of a non-linear displacement or curvature in that "surface" because, as was mentioned earlier it increases as a object move though space.

In other words, if one defines gravitational accelerations in terms of a positive non-linear displacement or curvature in that "surface" one would define all other forms of accelerations in terms of an oppositely directed displacement or curvature in that "surface".

Additionally, the magnitude of the linear displacements associated with relative velocities is dependent on the energies associated with their movement or momentum while the degree of the non-linear displacement associated with accelerations would also be dependent on the magnitude of the energy required to cause them.

In other words, the greater the relative velocities or accelerations the greater the displacement or curvature in the "surface" of the three dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension associated with their motion.

**What makes accelerated motion different from velocities is that they do not create an energy gradient in space necessary to activate the human senses or measuring instruments because, as was just mentioned the displacement they create is linear with respect to the "surface" of the three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension**

Therefore, the reason it only makes sense to say that this is moving with respect something is because referencing it to that something provides an energy gradient or differential which can activate measuring equipment or human senses.

However, because Einstein tells us the displacement in the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial *dimension associated with accelerated motion is non-linear it will intrinsically create an energy gradient between two points space.

**This also allows one to define a universal baseline for the measurement of inertia in terms of the linear displacement in that "surface" because as mentioned earlier it defines the energy level of all constant motion.Â **

As was mentioned earlier, in physics inertia is a measure of the resistance or force (over a given time period) required to the change the velocity of a physical object. Therefore, to define an absolute benchmark for measuring it one must first define a starting point for the energy gradient that, as mentioned earlier is responsible for acceleration.Â Additionally to make it universal benchmark that point must be the same of all objects and particles.

**Therefore, a universal baseline for the measurement of the inertia in all objects is the linear displacement in that "surface" with respect to a fourth spatial dimension associated with their velocity before a measurement was taken .Â In other words, one can measure the inertia of all objects by measuring the energy difference (in a given time frame) between its starting displacement in space and its displacement at the end points.Â In other words, it defines a universal starting point or baseline the measurement of inertia for all objects. **

Some have said that one cannot measure the inertia of a particle or object that exists alone in the universe because one cannot reference its movements to anything.Â However, referencing its velocity with respect to the universe is not relevant to its measurement because Einstein tells us that the energy of velocity is made up of two parts.Â One is the energy of associated with its velocity and the other is that of the energy of it’s rest mass defined by the equation E=mc^2.Â Therefore, because the displacement that defines a object is made up of two parts the energy of its rest mass and that of its velocity does not need to be reference to any other object or particle. In other words the mass of the object provides the displacement or baseline for measuring the inertia of a particle or object at rest. Therefore, its movement or velocity or lack of it with respect to the entire universe will not effect that measurement because it is determined only by the energy required to produce a change in its velocity or the displacement the "surface" of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that is responsible for that change.

* This shows how one can derive a universal baseline for measuring the inertia of all particles and objects in terms of the physical geometry of space as defined by Einstein*.

It should be remembered that Einstein, by defining the universe’s geometry in terms of the constant velocity of light allows us to choose whether to define inertia either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension.

Latter Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020

The Road to Unifying | The Road to Unifying | The Road to Unifying |

15

Is it an intrinsic property of space that cause velocities to make sense only by saying that this is moving with respect to something while accelerations or changes in velocity don’t require comparisons to give them meaning?

Newton came to conclusion it was based an experiment involving a bucket of water.

Greene, Brian describes his book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group) why he though space

this by observing a spinning of a bucket hanging from rope filled with water. At first, after it is allowed to unwind the bucket starts to spin but the water inside remains fairly stationary; the surface of the stationary water stays nice and flat. As the bucket picks up speed, little by little its motion is communicated to the water by friction, and the water starts to spin too. As it does, the water’s surface takes on a concave shape, higher at the rim and lower in the center,

"Why does the water’s surface take this shape? Well, because it’s spinning, you say, and just as we feel pressed against the side of a car when it takes a sharp turn, the water gets pressed against the side of the bucket as it spins. And the only place for the pressed water to go is upward. This reasoning is sound, as far as it goes, but it misses the real intent of Newton’s question. He wanted to know what it means to say that the water is spinning: spinning with respect to what? Newton was grappling with the very foundation of motion and was far from ready to accept that accelerated motion such as spinning is somehow beyond the need for external comparisons.

A natural suggestion is to use the bucket itself as the object of reference. As Newton argued, however, this fails. You see, at first when we let the bucket start to spin, there is definitely relative motion between the bucket and the water, because the water does not immediately move. Even so, the surface of the water stays flat. Then, a little later, when the water is spinning and there isn’t relative motion between the bucket and the water, the surface of the water is concave. So, with the bucket as our object of reference, we get exactly the opposite of what we expect: when there is relative motion, the water’s surface is flat; and when there is no relative motion, the surface is concave.

Newton explained the terrestrial bucket experiment in the following way. At the beginning of the experiment, the bucket is spinning with respect to absolute space, but the water is stationary with respect to absolute space. That is why the water’s surface is flat. As the water catches up with the bucket, it is now spinning with respect to absolute space, and that is why its surface becomes concave. As the bucket slows because of the tightening rope, the water continues to spin spinning with respect to absolute space”and that is why its surface continues to be concave."

However, Einstein demonstrated, in his Theory of Relativity that absolute space does not exist, therefore their must exist another reason for the concavity of the water in Newton’s

Bucket.

One of the most logical ways to find it would be to use the observable differences between the two types of motion; velocities and accelerations.

For example, velocities transverse the same space or distance in a given time frame while accelerations transverse an exponentially increasing distance over that same time period.

This tells us the primary difference between them is a component of space not time because if one uses the same time frame for both the only thing that distinguishes them is the distance they transverse.

However, Einstein defined the geometry of space and our universe in terms of time therefore, because space not time is, as was just mentioned the variable that distinguishes velocities from accelerations, we should look for a way to define motion purely in terms of its spatial properties.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he defined the mathematical relationship between space, time and energy in terms of the constant velocity of light because in doing so, he provided a method of converting a unit of time in a space-time environment to its equivalent unit of space in four *spatial* dimensions.Â Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant, he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words, Einstein’s mathematics actually defined two mathematically equivalent physical models of the universe, one consisting of four-dimensional space-time and one of only four *spatial* dimensions.

This allows one to define the energy associated with both accelerations and velocities, in terms of a displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as well as one in four-dimensional space-time.

In other words, using the spatially equivalent model of Einstein space-time theories one could define energy associated with velocities in terms of a linear displacement in the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension because it remains constant for a given time interval.

While one would define accelerations both gravitational and non gravitational in terms of a non-linear displacement or curvature in that "surface" because, as was mentioned earlier it increases for as it moves through time.

In other words, if one defines gravitational accelerations in terms of a positive non-linear displacement or curvature in that "surface" one would define all other forms of accelerations in terms of an oppositely directed displacement or curvature in that "surface".

Additionally the magnitude of the these displacements for both accelerations or a those associated with relative velocities is dependent on there energies associated with there movement.

In other words, the greater the relative velocities or accelerations the greater the displacement in the "surface" of the three dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial *dimension

associated with their motion

**What makes accelerated motion different from velocities is that they do not create an energy gradient in space necessary to activate senses because, as was just mentioned the displacement they create on the "surface" of the three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* ***dimension is linear.*

Therefore, the reason it only makes sense to say that this is moving with respect something is because referencing it to that something provides an energy gradient or differential which can activate measuring equipment or human senses.

However, because Einstein tells us the displacement in the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial *dimension associated with accelerated motion is non-linear its movement will intrinsically create an energy gradient between two points space which can activate measuring equipment or human senses.

In other words, the reasons it only make sense to say that this is moving with respect something while changes in velocity or accelerations don’t is because acceleration intrinsically cause energy gradients between different points in space where as velocities do not.

This would also explain the observations Newton made in his bucket experiment because the energy or velocity of the water is different at each point in the bucket. In others word, because the water near the bucket’s edge is moving faster or is accelerated with respect its center it has more energy and therefore will create a larger displacement in the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension resulting in its "surface" becoming a concave. In other words, the concavity of the surface of the water in Newton bucket is not caused by an interaction with space or the bucket but due to direct effects Einstein showed the energy associated with the velocity of the water has of the geometry of space. * *

However, this also tells us that what makes space space is energy.

For example, what makes the space in a house and its rooms is not a property of that space but is a property of the geometric structure created by its foundation and walls

Similarly, Einstein tells us that what makes space space in our universe is not a property of space but of the geometric structure created by energy.

Latter Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020

The Road to Unifying | The Road to Unifying | The Road to Unifying |

One question that has yet to be answer regarding Einstein relativistic theories is how time and space interact to create the past, present and future.

Einstein side step this question by assuming, as he put it "there exists in this four-dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears Therefore, more natural to think of physical reality as a four-dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three-dimensional existence."

Marina Cort’s, a cosmologist from the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh defined what has come to be called the block universe to help us understand how Einstein may have viewed the past present and future.

Basically, she asks us to imagine a regular chunk of cement. It has three dimensions but we live in four dimensions: the three spatial dimensions plus one time dimension. A block universe is a four-dimensional block, but instead of being made of cement, it is made of space-time. And all of the space and time of the Universe are there in that block."

We can’t see this block, we’re not aware of it, as we live inside the cement of space-time. And we don’t know how big the block universe we live in is: "We don’t know if space is infinite or not. Or time – we don’t know whether it has a beginning or if it will have an end in the future. So, we don’t know if it’s a finite chunk of space-time or an infinite chunk."

In other words, the past, present, and future exist simultaneously and are locked in a non-dynamic, unchanging block of space-time with the rigidity of cement.

However, to understand why Einstein he had to make this assumption one must first define what space and time are.

For example, some define time only in the abstract saying that is an invention of the human consciousness that gives us a sense of order, a before and after so to speak.Â To physicist’s it is a measure of the relative interval between events which is measured in units of time such as seconds.

While space can be defined as the arena where those events occur. We use the measurements of inch or meter to define the position of those event in that arena.

The problem Einstein with defining how energy causes a dynamic change in a space-time environment that define "happening and becoming" or the future, may have been due to the fact that he mathematically defined it in terms of a melding of time with space which have different units. Therefore, because, in mathematics if the dimensions or units on the left and right-hand sides don’t agree the equation are nonsense it is hard to imagine how the future is created in terms of space-time. This is why he said "It appears Therefore, more natural to think of physical reality as a four-dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three-dimensional existence.

However, the fact he found that definition unsatisfactory is evident when he said that "concepts (or causality) of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated" indicate that he was aware of this.

In other words, Einstein realized that causality of the future in terms of a dynamic process was something that must be considered.

Yet, Einstein gave us an alternative way of understanding "happening and becoming" when he defined the relationship between energy and space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light and the equation E=mc^2 because in doing so he provided a method of converting a unit of time and energy in a space-time environment to its equivalent unit of space in four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant, he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of only four *spatial* dimensions.

*In other words, Einstein’s mathematics actually defined two ***mathematically*** equivalent physical models of the universe one consisting of four-dimensional space-time and one of only four *spatial* dimensions.*

In his space-time model he mathematically defined all forms of energy including gravity and the kinetic energy of motion in terms of a curvature or displacement in the "surface" of four-dimensional space-time manifold. However, in his equivalent model consisting of only four *spatial" dimensions he would have defined them in terms of a displacement or curvature in the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

**As was mentioned earlier, it was evident Einstein realized the difficulty of deriving the future or happenings in terms of his space-time model when he said "no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. **

**However, the same is not true of the ***equivalent model mentioned above consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions because defining the causality of change of the future in those terms would eliminate the problem mentioned above with the incompatibility of space and time.*

Yet, before we can define the future in terms of the dynamics four *spatial* dimension we must first explain how it interacts with time to cause it to dilate and shorten length of objects when it is in relative motion with respect to an observer.

For example, one can show as was mentioned earlier by using the Einstein mathematics the kinetic energy of motion can be understood in terms of a displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth spat* ial *dimension as well one in four-dimensional space-time.

*One can understand how this would effect time and the length of objects in relative motion by assuming the perspective of two "2 dimensional creatures are living on the surface of two pieces of paper resting on a desktop.*

Also, assume the two creatures can view the surfaces of the other piece of paper, which are separated a pencil.

If the diameter of the pencil is increased, the curvature between the surfaces of the two pieces of paper will increase.

Each of these creatures, when viewing the other piece of paper will only perceive the two-dimensional translation of the three-dimensional curvature generated by the pencil.

Therefore, each will view the distance between two points on the surface of the other as shorter since they will view that distance as a two-dimensional translation of the three-dimensional curvature in the surface of the paper.

Similarly, because three-dimensional beings could only "view" a three-dimensional translation of a "curvature" or displacement in four *spatial* dimension caused by the motion of a reference frame they will measure distance or length in them as being longer than they would be if viewed as an observer who is not in relative motion to it.

The "movement" of time on both surfaces will also be affected.

Each of the two-dimensional creatures mentioned earlier will view the others time as moving slower because the three-dimensional curvature in the paper makes the distance between events longer than the two-dimensional translation of those events. Therefore, it will take longer for events "move" through a curvature in three-dimensional space relative to the time it would take for them to move through two-dimensional translation on the others surface caused by that curvature.

Similarly, time will become dilated in reference frames that are in motion because the curvature generated on its three-dimensional "surface" caused by its relative motion will result the distance between events to be longer than it with respect to the distances measured in reference frames observe on them assumed them to be stationary. Therefore, they will view time in a reference frame that is in motion relative to them as moving slower than if they were in that reference frame.

As show above both of these models, the one based on the physical existence of four dimensions space-time and the existence of only four spatial dimensions make identical predictions as to the relativistic properties of space and time, therefore which one you chose to define the physical structure of our universe must be based, in part on how you view the future.

However, Einstein space-time interpretation did not allow him to define the dynamic changes in our environment that we call the future because he mathematically defined them in terms of a melding of time with space which have different units. Therefore, he had to assume that the past present and future was locked in a block of cement.

However, as was shown above the same is not true if one interprets his equation in terms of four *spatial* dimensions because all they all have the same units.

Y**et, because as was mentioned earlier both of these models are mathematically equivalent and since we cannot physically observe either a time or a fourth *spatial* dimension, we must look to the affects they would have on the ones we can observe or in this case how we perceive the future to determine which one of these physical models is correct. **

**In other words, if you view it as something that dictates the past and present you will probably chose his space-time model. However, if you view the future as a dynamic interaction of the past with the present you will most likely choose the model based on only four *spatial* dimensions.**

**Latter Jeff**

**Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020**

The Road to Unifying | The Road to Unifying | The Road to Unifying |

28

A few years after Albert Einstein *unified space and time in *his (and by now very well tested!) Theory of General Relativity he applied it to the entire universe and found something remarkable. The theory predicts that the whole universe is either expanding or contracting.

Later in 1929 the astronomer Edwin Hubble measured the velocities of a large selection of galaxies and found that the majority of them were moving away from us. In other words, the universe was expanding.

*However, is the universe expanding in space or is it expanding through time?*

To answer this one must first define what time and space are.

Some define time only in the abstract saying that is an invention of the human consciousness that gives us a sense of order, a before and after so to speak. To physicist’s it is a measure of the relative interval between events which is measured in units of time such as seconds minutes or hours.

However, space can be defined as the arena where events occur. We use the measurements of inch or meter to define the position of those event in that arena.

As was mentioned earlier, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity mathematically define the universe in terms of a melding of time with space. However, as was mention above they are they have vastly different properties. For example, one is measure in terms of second while the other is in inches or meters.

Therefore, it is very difficult to understand how time which is measured in seconds can have a dynamic effect on space measured in meters.

To this end Marina Corts, a cosmologist from the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh came up to what has come to be called the block universe.

Basically, it asks us to imagine a regular chunk of cement. It has three dimensions but we live in four dimensions: the three spatial dimensions plus one time dimension. A block universe is a four-dimensional block, but instead of being made of cement, it is made of space-time. And all of the space and time of the Universe are there in that block."

We can’t see this block, we’re not aware of it, as we live inside the cement of space-time. And we don’t know how big the block universe we live in is: "We don’t know if space is infinite or not. Or time – we don’t know whether it has a beginning or if it will have an end in the future. So, we don’t know if it’s a finite chunk of space-time or an infinite chunk."

However, picture this presents a problem for cosmologists because if the merging of space and time causes it to become as ridge as a block of cement how can its spatial component be expanding.

*It should be remembered only the spatial component of the universe is expanding not time.*

Additionally, because Einstein defined the universe in terms of only four dimensions, one time and three spatial how can we understand its spatial expansion without adding an additional one because a spatial one cannot expand to one made up of time because, as mentioned earlier they have vastly different properties.

Yet, Einstein gave us an alternative when he defined the mathematical relationship between space and time in terms of the constant velocity of light because in doing so, he provided a method of converting a unit of time in a space-time environment to its equivalent unit of space in four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant, he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

** In other words, Einstein’s mathematics actually defined two **mathematically

*equivalent physical models of the universe one consisting of four-dimensional space-time and one of only four spatial dimensions.*Yet, because both of these models are mathematically equivalent and since we cannot physically observe either a time or a fourth *spatial* dimension, we must look to the effects they would have on the ones we can observe to determine which one of these physical models is correct.

For example, if we were a two-dimensional creature living on the surface of a balloon that was inflating, we could explain its spatial expansion by assuming we were living in an environment consisting three spatial dimensions because they have the same properties as the two dimension surface of the balloon therefore, it could expand through it. However, we could not explain it by assuming that we were living in an environment consisting of only time and the two-dimensional surface of the balloon because time as mentioned earlier it does not have the properties of space and therefore could not expand in it.

Similarly, we can explain why our three-dimensional world was undergoing a spatial expansion by assuming we were living in an environment or universe consisting four *spatial* dimensions because it would have the same spatial properties as the three dimension one we live in. However, we could not if we assume our universe consisted of four-dimensional space-time because time does not have the properties of space and therefore similar to the surface of the balloon it could not expand in it.

*As was mentioned earlier "A few years after Albert Einstein unified space and time (and by now very well tested! ) in his theory of General Relativity" and showed it can be "applied to the entire universe ." Therefore, he also showed that because of their mathematical equivalence, a physical model based on one unifying three-dimensional space with a fourth *spatial* dimension has also been very well tested and could also be applied it to the entire universe.*

**However, as was shown above his physical model based on four *spatial* dimensions pass an additional test which his space-time model cannot, that of explaining the spatial expansion of our three-dimension environment. **

**Later Jeff **

**Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020 **

The Road to Unifying | The Road to Unifying | The Road to Unifying |

Presently, there is disconnect between our understanding of one of the most mysterious facets of quantum mechanics quantum, that of quantum entanglement and the classical one of separation.

Entanglement occurs when two particles are linked together no matter their separation from one another. Quantum mechanics assumes even though these entangled particles are not physically connected, they still are able to interact or share information with each other instantaneously.

Many believe this means the universe does not live by the law’s classical laws of separation or those derived by Einstein which stated that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.

However, we must be careful not to jump to conclusions because Einstein gave us the definitive answer as to how and why particles are entangled in terms of the physical properties of space-time.

Quantum mechanics assumes that entanglement occurs when two particles or molecules share on a quantum level one or more properties such as spin, polarization, or momentum. This connection persists even if you move one of the entangled objects far away from the other. Therefore, when an observer interacts with one the other is instantly affected.

There is irrefutable experimental evidence the act of measuring the state of one of a pair of particles can instantaneously effect another even though they are physically separated from each other.

However, before we come to the conclusion it is a result of their quantum mechanical properties, we should first examine the experimental setup and any variables that may allow us to come to a different conclusion.

In quantum physics, it is assumed entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one immediately affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The rules of Quantum physics also state that an unobserved photon exists in all possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only one state.

One of the experiments that many assume verifies that entanglement is a quantum phenomenon uses (This description was obtained from the Live Science web site) a laser beam fired through a certain type of crystal which causes individual photons to be split into pairs of entangled photons. The photons can be separated by a large distance, hundreds of miles or even more. When observed, Photon A takes on an up-spin state. Entangled Photon B, though now far away, takes up a state relative to that of Photon A (in this case, a down-spin state). The transfer of state (or information) between Photon A and Photon B takes place at a speed of at least 10,000 times the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously, regardless of distance. Scientists have successfully demonstrated quantum entanglement with photos, electrons, molecules of various sizes, and even very small diamonds.

However, Einstein told us there are no preferred reference frames by which one can measure distance.

Therefore he tells the distance between the observational points in a laboratory, can also be defined from the perspective of the photons in the above experiment.

Yet, this tell us (Please see attached graphic) that the separation between the observation points in a laboratory from the perspective of two photons moving at the speed of light would be ZERO no matter how far apart they might be from the perspective of an observer in that laboratory. This is because, as was just mentioned according to the concepts of Relativity one can view the photons as being stationary and the observers as moving at the velocity of light.

Therefore, according to Einstein’s theory all photons which are traveling at the speed of light are entangled no matter how far they may appear to be from the perspective of an observer who is looking at them.

In other words, entanglement of photons can be explained and predicted terms of the relativistic properties of space-time as defined by Einstein as well as by quantum mechanics.

One way of determining if this is correct would be to determine if particles which were NOT moving at the speed of light experience entanglement over the same distances as photon which are.

This is because, the degree of relativistic shortening of the distance between the end points of the observations of two particle is dependent on their velocity with respect to the laboratory were they are being observed.

Therefore, all photons no matter how far apart they are from the perspective of a lab will be entangled because Einstein tells due to the fact that they are moving at the speed of light that distance will be Zero from their perspective.

However, he also tells us that for particles moving slower than the speed of light the distance between will be greater than zero and how much more would depend on their the relative speed with respect to it. In other words, the slower with respect to the lab they are moving the less that distance will be shortened.

Therefore, if it was found that only photons experience entanglement when the observation points were separated by large distances it would support the idea that it is caused by the relativistic properties of space defined by Einstein.

However, one must remember the wave particle duality of existence as defined by Quantum mechanics tell us that before a particle is observed it has an extended length equal due to its wavelength. Therefore, all particles will be entangled if the reduction in length between the endpoints of the observations when adjusted with respect to their relative velocity is less their wave length as defined by quantum mechanics.

A more conclusive argument could be made for the idea that entanglement is a result of the relativistic properties of space if it was found that entanglement ceased when the relativistic distance between the end points of observation when viewed from the perspective of particle moving slower than the speed of light was greater than its wavelength as defined by quantum mechanics.

Some have suggested that “There are inertial frames for every speed less than light – speaking informally – but there is no inertial frame for light speed itself. Any attempt to generate one actually generates a degenerate frame which can cover only an infinitesimal fraction of space-time.” However the argument that there are “There are inertial frames for every speed less than light”

because they would create an infinitesimal fraction of space-time is invalid, because Special Relativity WITHOUT EXCEPTION defines an inertial frame reference as one which is not undergoing acceleration. Therefore, even though using a photon as a reference frame may create infinitesimal 2 dimensional fraction of space-time the conceptual foundations formulas for length contractions of reference frames in relative motion define by Einstein tells us that one can exist. One reason that all of the mass which is contained in it is not undergoing acceleration.Therefore, the fact that it may define a degenerate frame would be irrelevant to the conclusion draw above because as that post showed it is the distance between the end points of the observation when viewed from a photon that determines whether or not it will be entangled.

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020

Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project*e*

The Road to Unifying | The Road to Unifying | The Road to Unifying |