Einstein told us that the speed of light must always, not only appear, but BE the same in every frame of reference no matter how fast we are moving towards or away from it. So even if you are moving at half the speed of light towards a light beam, the entire universe must conspire to either "speed up" or slow down your "time" to account for this difference.
If that makes sense to you, you are no longer sane. You cannot create scenarios of two mutually exclusive events at the same time and call that reality. This is fundamental to reason.
To show this contradiction, consider you are running away from a light beam and towards another at the same time. You move at half the speed of light. Of course in real life you will encounter the light you are moving towards first, but in Einstein's universe both beams MUST (in your world) hit you at the same time. However, in Einstein's universe, someone else will see them hit you at different times because they also MUST see light travel at a certain speed. This is just plain fucking stupid.
At best you can have an illusory effect, but to confuse that with a real difference in simultaneity is to truly give up on reason itself.
Funny, but calibration not necessary change the results of measurements. F.e. if your voltmeter is offset to a standard for whole 1V, i.e. shows 1V more than you really have, this does not prevent you from correct measurement of voltage difference.
Really, in measurements repeatability (instrument shows same result measuring same object) is often much more important than absolute precision.
Speed of travel of calibration information does not matter. What's matter is validity and preservation during transmission.
It’s not about calibration, it’s about decoding. You can’t decode the meaning of the spin-change without sending a STL message telling the other side what to look for (in the “information” imparted by the FTL change). As such, the transmission of STL information is preserved and the FTL nature of the entanglement is operationally meaningless.
Entaglement have absolutely nothing to do with any information transmission.
Entaglement is like you take a number of matches and break each in two pieces unevenly without knowing where you break a match. Matches are made so that they instantly burn down when measured and you can't make a copy. Then you send first pieces to one place and other pieces to another one by one. Resulting sequences will be "entagled". Both places will know what sequence other party received instantly when find out his own. If one receive "long-short-short-long-long" sequence, then he immidiately know that other received "short-long-long-short-short" sequence. No third party could spy on sequences unnoticeably, since match part will burn down on measurement, so recipient will not receive it.
There is no any information transfer at all between two parties. And it does not matter with what speed this pieces of matches will travel to their destinations. But both parties will know sequence of another party instantly after measuring its own.
The only sensible use for entaglement is safe sharing of random secret keys. Random secret key does not have any meaning at all. It is just random bits that could be used for further encryption.
AHA! But spin isn’t binary. You can’t know what they got simply by what you got. So you can’t actually send information. It gets decohered if you attempt to send it by quantum telegraph.
Look, help me understand the implications of this. If we respect relativity (general or special), faster than light travel ≡ time travel. If we reject relativity, that means we can preserve causality even with FTL… but you yourself admit that “relativity”–the outright implication of observed phenomena differing based on the placement of the observer–exists. The Doppler effect for sound (correcting for the motion of the sound source reveals the true frequency) on the human scale. The redshifting of galaxies (correcting for the motion of the light source reveals the true blackbody color) on the macro scale. The study at the start of this paragraph is criticized for not needing “closed timelike curves” to work. Is this just another indicator that operating within the framework of Einstein’s relativity colors the potentialities of quantum effects?
Closed time-like curves is a product of general relativity math. That does not mean they are real.
Differential equations could have multiple solutions. Solution of differential equation is a function. So, there could be many functions that fit some theory that uses differential equation, but it could be that only few of them really occur in nature.
In one of my businesses I earn money from practical use of theory with differential equation as its core. (Sorry, I will not disclose exact details, since it could be a way to deanonymise me :) ) To use this theory practically, I have to find solution and use that solution to get result that could be practically verified. It is easy (well, not very easy, but whatever) to get a dozen of solutions, but in practice only few really works and give correct practical results that equal to what I get in practice. All other solutions, being mathematically correct either collapse when things come to real data, either produce complete garbage.
Meanwhile same thing happens with all that "new particle search" thing. Somebody find yet another solution that mean existence of new particle, people spend millions and years to check it, and find out that this solution just don't work in reality, being mathematically correct.
Hopefully, checking solution in my area don't need millions and years, and I don't really interested in producing more solutions, since those I already found works good. May be they are not insanely perfect, and may be there could be better solutions, but customers are fully satisfied, because they just work as intended. They do the job, so no need to search and research new "particles" or "closed timelike curves" for me. Unlike all those theoretical scientists who make money doing that.
Mathematical solution does not mean that it even have some sense. Math is a language for describing nature. And as in any language you could create perfectly grammatically correct sentencies that don't have any sense at all. Same with math.
Adding to that questionability of general relativity in whole, we get something like word salad expressed in non-existing language.
Also, who told that travelling through wormhole lead to time travel? You just disappear in one place and appear in some remote place. That's all. There is no any time travel happen. Even if passing through wormhole takes zero time. And why anybody should care how it will look like to some third-party observer? What he could see, whatever weird things it could be, does not change what is really happens.
You still don't get what I'm trying to tell. There is no any casuality problems at all. There is problem of wrong interpretation of observations. Observer could observe some weird stuff, but that does not mean this stuff really happens. If an example with supersonic plane flight when observer clearly hear casuality violation does not make sense for you, I don't know how to explain that in a way you can understand it.
Look, all relativity based on what observer see. But everything I ever read on that topic, silently omit the question about the exact process of that seeing.
When you read something from any other area of science, you see careful (or not very careful, but still) description of how exactly and with what instruments observations was done and how instruments distort observations and how that distortions was cancelled or accounted. F.e. if some voltage is measured, then there is always data for internal resistance and capacitance of voltmeter (or at least its model and you could find this parameters in tech characteristics). Internal resistance of voltmeter could be not a parameter you think about in the first place, but it obviously could noticeably skew observation. So it should be accounted for such observation, and if measured voltage source have internal resistance comparable with internal resistance of voltmeter then observed value should be corrected for voltmeter internal resistance to find real voltage from the observed.
This never done in any relativistic study. They use light to observe something happening with speed comparable with speed of light, but don't correct their observations for that "voltmeter internal resistance", i.e. speed of light that is used to observe. It is just garbage science or fraud, nothing else.