Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

In Cosmology, C2=const is the Measure of Inertia, not Mass

Milan D. Nešić

Published Dec 1, 2018• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

It is understandable that in 1916 Einstein was unable to explain his postulate c=const, that in the case of the lightning and the train that moves on the railway embankment he still tacitly implied that the inertial coordinate system which is at rest has advantage over the one in motion. In serious scientific journals, there are no tries of explanations of this postulate, but it is strange that even today, at popular lectures, Einstein's explanation is taken as valid. It isn't difficult to show that his explanation is not valid; it is difficult to find the right explanation without trying to form an alternative theory. The article is dedicated to this goal. The found explanation will also serve to explain, for example, the EPR-paradox without any “spooky action at a distance” or “hidden variables” (Einstein’s expressions). And this is not the only example where it can serve.

Related papers

EPR: The Correlations are Still A Mystery

Frederick M. Kronz

This paper is a critical discussion of a recent article by Bas van Fraassen (1985) in which he suggests the following view: we should admit that we have no explanation of the EPR correlations, but refuse to consider the correlations as mysterious nevertheless (pp. 126–128). We shall focus on just three of the claims made by van Fraassen in support of this view. The three claims are these: (1) The EPR correlations cannot be explained by signals being transmitted from one component of an EPR compound to the other (pp. 114–115). (2) There is, in the EPR situation, no empirically verifiable action at a distance (pp. 124–126). (3) The demand for an explanation of the EPR correlations is similar to the Aristotelian demand of the post-Newtonian proponents of the law of inertia to explain what keeps a body moving if there are no forces impressed on it (pp. 126–128).

Philosophy of Science•Dec 1, 1988•3 citations

Research on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

Oreste Piccioni, Werner A. W. Mehlhop, Brian C. Wright

This report discusses the following: The analysis of the singlet state of separate fermions proves that the EPR contradicts QM. The violation of special relativity. The Schroedinger equation and the EPR. The conservation of angular momentum. The proposal of collapse. The factorization of the spin states. The superposition principle. No paradox exists within the theory. The original state of Einstein et al is not a valid example of the EPR, and it seems impossible to construct a valid linear momentum example. This is another indication that the EPR contradicts QM. Actions at a distance, the model of Einstein et al for particles with mass, and Bell's inequalities and their physical meaning.

•Jun 1, 1989•0 citations

The Motional Geometry of Matter

Bernardo Sotomayor Valdivia

More than a hundred years ago, a series of discoveries, especially in physics, began to subtly (or maybe not) reveal some mysterious properties of matter, properties that in some fashion or other were not acceptable to our established way of perceiving Reality. Strangely enough, these properties were not taken seriously by science because they pointed to a reality that seemed too fantastical to be true, a reality that seemed to have no substance or permanence. These so called mysterious properties matter, for lack of a better word, turn out to be fundamentally related to the following discoveries: The ambiguous wave-particle duality. As in de Broglie matter-waves and the Compton properties of particles. The ubiquitous appearance of the cycle constant (τ=2π=C⁄r) in physical mathematical relations. The general applicability of the Fourier Transform to represent/model physical motion and other natural processes. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and its mysterious constraint between conjugate variables, momentum and position for example. Quantum Mechanics and its collapse of the wavefunction. The surprising mass-energy equivalence. As in Einstein’s E=mc^2. The perplexing isotropy of the speed of light. The mind boggling time dilation and length contraction of Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR). The contradictory fabric of SR/GR’s spacetime and its assignment of properties to the void. The surprisingly discrete nature of atomic properties. As in Quantum Mechanics (QM). Needless to say, no matter what science has tried in order to fit the above discoveries into our physical world, their implications continue to elude an intuitively acceptable explanation in material terms. This monograph, although not necessarily in chronological order, is a recapitulation of previous monographs written by the author in an attempt at a single-source theoretical explanation/clarification for the above mentioned list of “mysterious” properties of matter, in terms of one fundamental set of properties, the motional geometry of matter.

•Jan 1, 2016•0 citations

The EPR paradox

Peter John Bussey, G J Parker, Stuart Arnold +2 more

Colin Jack is to be complimented on his entertaining exposition of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in “Sherlock Holmes investigates the EPR paradox” (April pp39–42), but the more serious explanation he gives is misleading in an important respect. There is, and need be, no “influence” travelling from one detector to the other. Although the results of the measurements are correlated, it is a logical fallacy to suppose that a correlation has to imply a causal connection.

Physics World•May 1, 1995•1 citation

Why Just One Big Bang? Chance, Causality and c2 - Inertia

In science history the conflict between Einstein and the Copenhagen school (quantum mechanics) is well known. On the one hand, Einstein's strict determinism, on the other, Heisenberg's uncertainty relations, the collapse of the wave function and the chance at the micro level, regardless of the macroscopic explanations of the postulate cmax=const, regardless of the initial mass. At the time when our Galaxy was the whole world and the mutual velocities in it were negligible according to the speed of light, Einstein held that the mass of the world was one and unique. In 1985, in a lecture on quantum electrodynamics QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter: Feynman says that he only describes how nature behaves without being able to explain why it behaves like that because no one understands this; and Laughlin in 2005 says, already with the title of his book. A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE: Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down: That an effort on understanding this fact to humanity is yet to come. This article shows that one should start from the very postulate cmax=const, rethinking this experimental fact—because Einstein's explanation from 1916 is insufficient and in fact wrong: he tacitly takes the coordinate system of the railway embankment as absolute, and to the train speed adds to or subtracts the light speed. And rethinking will lead us to the necessary Heisenberg relations of uncertainty, c2 - inertia and new insights into the property of relativity and symmetry of the vacuum itself, to the explanation of the EPR paradox and the so-called the twin paradox. And all together to one Universe, really different from how we imagine it today with a Big Bang.

International Journal of Media and Networks•Jul 30, 2024•0 citations

Physical Quantities in Different Reference Systems According to Relativity

A. Gamba

The relativistic transformation of measurements from one observer S to another observer S′ is valid, of course, only when both observers are measuring the same physical quantity. What is the same quantity is, however, not a trivial problem in relativity. As a matter of fact, two different definitions have already been used in the literature, without realizing that they were not equivalent. Some of the pitfalls of such a confusion are discussed.

American Journal of Physics•Feb 1, 1967•69 citations
It is understandable that in 1916 Einstein was unable to explain his postulate c=const, that in the case of the lightning and the train that moves on the railway embankment he still tacitly implied that the inertial coordinate system which is at rest has advantage over the one in motion. In serious scientific journals, there are no tries of explanations of this postulate, but it is strange that even today, at popular lectures, Einstein's explanation is taken as valid. It isn't difficult to show that his explanation is not valid; it is difficult to find the right explanation without trying to form an alternative theory. The article is dedicated to this goal. The found explanation will also serve to explain, for example, the EPR-paradox without any “spooky action at a distance” or “hidden variables” (Einstein’s expressions). And this is not the only example where it can serve.
This paper is a critical discussion of a recent article by Bas van Fraassen (1985) in which he suggests the following view: we should admit that we have no explanation of the EPR correlations, but refuse to consider the correlations as mysterious nevertheless (pp. 126–128). We shall focus on just three of the claims made by van Fraassen in support of this view. The three claims are these: (1) The EPR correlations cannot be explained by signals being transmitted from one component of an EPR compound to the other (pp. 114–115). (2) There is, in the EPR situation, no empirically verifiable action at a distance (pp. 124–126). (3) The demand for an explanation of the EPR correlations is similar to the Aristotelian demand of the post-Newtonian proponents of the law of inertia to explain what keeps a body moving if there are no forces impressed on it (pp. 126–128).
This report discusses the following: The analysis of the singlet state of separate fermions proves that the EPR contradicts QM. The violation of special relativity. The Schroedinger equation and the EPR. The conservation of angular momentum. The proposal of collapse. The factorization of the spin states. The superposition principle. No paradox exists within the theory. The original state of Einstein et al is not a valid example of the EPR, and it seems impossible to construct a valid linear momentum example. This is another indication that the EPR contradicts QM. Actions at a distance, the model of Einstein et al for particles with mass, and Bell's inequalities and their physical meaning.
More than a hundred years ago, a series of discoveries, especially in physics, began to subtly (or maybe not) reveal some mysterious properties of matter, properties that in some fashion or other were not acceptable to our established way of perceiving Reality. Strangely enough, these properties were not taken seriously by science because they pointed to a reality that seemed too fantastical to be true, a reality that seemed to have no substance or permanence. These so called mysterious properties matter, for lack of a better word, turn out to be fundamentally related to the following discoveries: The ambiguous wave-particle duality. As in de Broglie matter-waves and the Compton properties of particles. The ubiquitous appearance of the cycle constant (τ=2π=C⁄r) in physical mathematical relations. The general applicability of the Fourier Transform to represent/model physical motion and other natural processes. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and its mysterious constraint between conjugate variables, momentum and position for example. Quantum Mechanics and its collapse of the wavefunction. The surprising mass-energy equivalence. As in Einstein’s E=mc^2. The perplexing isotropy of the speed of light. The mind boggling time dilation and length contraction of Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR). The contradictory fabric of SR/GR’s spacetime and its assignment of properties to the void. The surprisingly discrete nature of atomic properties. As in Quantum Mechanics (QM). Needless to say, no matter what science has tried in order to fit the above discoveries into our physical world, their implications continue to elude an intuitively acceptable explanation in material terms. This monograph, although not necessarily in chronological order, is a recapitulation of previous monographs written by the author in an attempt at a single-source theoretical explanation/clarification for the above mentioned list of “mysterious” properties of matter, in terms of one fundamental set of properties, the motional geometry of matter.
In science history the conflict between Einstein and the Copenhagen school (quantum mechanics) is well known. On the one hand, Einstein's strict determinism, on the other, Heisenberg's uncertainty relations, the collapse of the wave function and the chance at the micro level, regardless of the macroscopic explanations of the postulate cmax=const, regardless of the initial mass. At the time when our Galaxy was the whole world and the mutual velocities in it were negligible according to the speed of light, Einstein held that the mass of the world was one and unique. In 1985, in a lecture on quantum electrodynamics QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter: Feynman says that he only describes how nature behaves without being able to explain why it behaves like that because no one understands this; and Laughlin in 2005 says, already with the title of his book. A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE: Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down: That an effort on understanding this fact to humanity is yet to come. This article shows that one should start from the very postulate cmax=const, rethinking this experimental fact—because Einstein's explanation from 1916 is insufficient and in fact wrong: he tacitly takes the coordinate system of the railway embankment as absolute, and to the train speed adds to or subtracts the light speed. And rethinking will lead us to the necessary Heisenberg relations of uncertainty, c2 - inertia and new insights into the property of relativity and symmetry of the vacuum itself, to the explanation of the EPR paradox and the so-called the twin paradox. And all together to one Universe, really different from how we imagine it today with a Big Bang.