How Are Time Dilatation and Length Contraction Connected
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ส.ค. 2022
- This video is about the most commonly discussed topic in special relativity and it is time dilatation and length contraction. Length contraction is often forgotten while thinking about special relativity which creates paradoxes as it is absolutely essential to make time dilatation work. These two phenomena still don't explain the twin paradox convincingly and eventually, we will need the full Lorentz transformation equations to make everything work.
attributions for vector graphics used in this video
www.freepik.com
www.vecteezy.com
If you enjoyed this video you can buy me a coffee here www.buymeacoffee.com/pprobnsol Much appreciated :)
Please make a video on the twin paradox 🙏
Hi! It is definitely planned but it probably takes a while.
@@lukasrafajpps Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity.
According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion.
Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion.
This argument is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more evidence including both theoretical and experimental, so please keep reading. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO.
Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics.
The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics.
*TH-cam presentation of above argument:
th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
*Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
By looking a special relativity(SR) from a mere 3D perspective, understanding what it is that is actually going on, becomes confusing. However, if you observe what is going from the 4D space-time point of view, everything becomes mere child's play when it comes to understanding SR.
Of course, the first postulate is respected. (the two observers agree ...)
And in this case there are two (different) events:
event A
the spaceship reaches the star in the Earth's frame,
the star reaches the spaceship in the ship's frame.
event B
the Earth reaches point P in the ship's frame,
the point P reaches the Earth in the Earth's frame.
(obviously the point P belongs to the ship's frame, with abscissa x '= - L / gamma)
It is as if the time dilation and the length contraction "generate" event B. (different from event A)
... and the two events A and B are simultaneous in the ship's frame, but they are not simultaneous in the Earth's frame.
Hi, you are correct. You could put another star at point P that would be in the ship's rest frame and therefore moving towards Earth causing an apocalypse. At the start of the journey, the distance of this star from Earth in the ship's frame would be x' = -L/gamma as you said. For Earth however, it would be contracted even more and therefore on Earth appocalypse would happen even sooner as you see Earth's clock at 3:29 in the video.
This means, that the observers on Earth would never see the ship reaching the star. The ship however would see the appocalypse and reaching the star simultaneously.
Is this problem? If someone survived the appocalypse and ship was still on it's way towards the star, could we send an information from Earth to the spaceship to turn back before it crushes into the star to save humanity?
The answer is no because they are causally disconnected and become causally connected just at the moment when ship reaches the star but it would be too late already :)
Thanks for this question I never thought of such scenario before :)
3:57 just to clarify, by sooner I mean sooner on the clock of the moving observer compared to the observer on Earth on his own clock at the time of this event. When the moving observer reaches the star he would see the clock on Earth showing the lower time but it is not against anything because the moving observer and the observer on Earth are causally disconnected and they become causally connected only after a couple of lightyears when the observer on Earth will see the moving observer reach the star.
Hope it is not very confusing :)
One little problem with Einstein's theory that the photons in the moving light clock travel a longer diagonal path, photons don't move sideways. Look up "light time correction of Jupiter". Light time correction wouldn't be required if the photons from Jupiter moved along with the planet like a ball dropped from a moving plane, the difference being that light has no mass and therefore no inertia. The problem is that in reality Jupiter leaves its photons behind in space and moves on without them, resulting in astronomers seeing Jupiter where it was in the past, not where it is now. If the light clock thought experiment was valid, you would always see Jupiter exactly where it is at the time.
@@RolanRoyce " _The problem is that in reality Jupiter leaves its photons behind in space and moves on without them, resulting in astronomers seeing Jupiter where it was in the past, not where it is now. If the light clock thought experiment was valid, you would always see Jupiter exactly where it is at the time._ "
Jupiter DOES leave its photons behind in space and moves on without them. It also does not leave its photons behind. Because there is not just ONE Photon which leaves jupiter to comes towards earth. There are millions of photons which take all possible paths away from jupiter, there are ones that come towards earth, one that move away from earth, one that are left behind, ones that are not left behind, they are emitted in 360 degrees in all possible directions.
The photons that jupiter leaves behind in space miss the earth and are not observed by us. The ones that reach us are the ones which are not left behind, which gives you the false impression, that jupiter does not leave its photons behind in space.
This is also why you cannot compare jupiter to the light clock, because in the light clock, there is just one photon moving in one path. in jupiter, there are millions of photons taking every possible path in all directions.
Okay, but do you know how aberration in astronomy works? The earth moving through the light rays of a star produces the aberration effect, but the star moving doesn't produce the same effect, proving that you can't change frames and see the same thing happening, thus, relativity is broken. If you go to the Wikipedia page for "aberration (astronomy)" and look at the third image you'll see that the right half shows what happens when the star is moving and earth is stationary. It clearly shows the star's light ray being "dropped" in space and left behind to continue on the path it had when emitted. It's not actually the same thing as in the left part, because the left part showed a ray going straight down from the star and the right part shows a ray emitted on a diagonal. But imagine if it was the same straight down ray. Obviously it would be left behind and continue going straight down and completely miss the earth.@@silverrahul
@@RolanRoyce
" _The earth moving through the light rays of a star produces the aberration effect, but the star moving doesn't produce the same effect, proving that you can't change frames and see the same thing happening, thus, relativity is broken_ "
NO.
whether the earth moves through the light rays of star or the star moves, it gives the same result of that photon moving from star to earth. This proves that even if you change frame, the same events happens. Hence, relativity is verified.
" _It's not actually the same thing as in the left part, because the left part showed a ray going straight down from the star and the right part shows a ray emitted on a diagonal. But imagine if it was the same straight down ray. Obviously it would be left behind and continue going straight down and completely miss the earth_ "
NO. it IS the same photon. In the left part, the photon moves vertically. In the right part, the photon moves diagonally. It is the SAME photon, but the path is different in different frames. It does NOT miss the earth in either frame.
Similarly, in the light clock thought experiment, the photon moves vertically in one frame and diagonally in another frame. It does not miss the mirror in either frame.
as I understand Einstein's initial idea was a variable speed of light- later discussed by Robert Dicke. There is a lot on this on Unzicker's Real Physics yt channel
my question. what is time? if time dilation occurs due to moving light having to cover a larger distance at the same speed. what does that mean about the relationship between time and speed of light?
We call this method the Socratic method and it gives honor to the first written recorded use of this type of argumentation and it is still used currently today in American law schools it is brutal and it is meant to make the students ready to absorb more volume then they have allocated time. American law school should actually be now at least 5 years long and it still remains 3 years despite the fact that the volume has more than quadrupled plus... they refused to lengthen the time period for the studies so basically they just restrict your ability to work by regulation and literally I fell asleep in my books more times than I can count. We're talking about a novel worth of material with analysis per night for 3 years straight Non-Stop.. they tell you during orientation if you want to read something read it over the summer because you will not want to read anything for the next 3 years. They then tell you that this profession and going through this education has the highest suicide rate, substance abuse rate and divorce rate. I can attest to all of the above and it is and it is the most brutal education time period I have ever spent out of my 12 years in University.
Thanks a lot!!
How do light photos move on inclined path? Photons emitted vertically can only move in vertical dirction i.e. at right angle to electric & magnetic fields oscillating horizontally. A ball thrown vertically in a moving train can move on inclined path since it is already moving horizontally with the train.
What disproof do you have that length contract and time dilation is not a optical illusion ?
Esentially this experiment because there would be no magnetic field. But optical illusion is when you use light. But the speed of causality itself is limited and that is why it is real. Causality is one of the most fundamental things in the universe and travels at the speed of light and that is the cause of length contraction and time dilatation.
@@lukasrafajpps There being no magnetic field is a limitation of your own theory , that you are imposing on all classical theories . The speed of light , being the speed of causality has never been proven , you can make the argument that the Michaelson Morley experiment proved this , but then that would only work with the earth or other large objects , and small objects have a larger or smaller speed relative to light , breaking the claim of light speed being the speed of causality . what proof do you have that smaller objects , have the same speed of light ?
If that is too much proof to ask for then I guess we just won't agree, because I think this test should be done with many different objects , because one source of data is simply not enough .
How could an *optical illusion* dictate how clocks *actually tick* in different frames?
TD and LC are generated simply by plugging the Lorentz transformation in for the co-ordinate transforms (x', t') - it is pure theoretical math based on the 2nd postulate.
They measure time using light . Optical illusions can actually affect objects, because the light that hits the object is different .
For example a prism can bend light towards you that you wouldn't be able to see , that light can actually do work.
@@m.c.4674 It's just modern orthodoxy. It used to be the case that 'Earth is centre of solar system therefore epicycles'.
Modern 'scientists' treat 'thought experiments' as _actual_ experiments that generate real data to be used as if there have been _real_ measurements made in relation to Bob falling into a black hole, etc.
Look, you have Snake in DeGrasse Tyson, Shill Nye and Mucho Kaka as 'teachers of science'... Need I say more? 'Science' is the new religion. _Actual_ science died on 9/11 after a protracted illness.
if you cant observe a photon, then does it have to travel at the speed of light? how can i observe photons traveling laterally to me?
well this is a one way speed of light problem. It doesn't have to but if you send a photon somewhere and it gets reflected and then you detect it on the detector at the same position then you will always find out that its average velocity on the round trip was c.
What contracts in length contraction? Is it space itself?
actually nothing it is just a simultaneity problem I have a dedicated video about length contraction if you are interested :)
Nothing. OK, so would it be fair to say that length contraction is just an illusion of some sort? In other words, nothing is actually contracting, but due to the way that measurements are made, different observers will measure length differently? Related question: If I were a photon traveling through spacetime at the speed of photon, would I not experience time? And therefore, would the distance I measure between one end of the universe and the other end of the universe be zero?
@@lukasrafajpps
Yes, coordinate length is not a well defined quantity in SR because different observer measure it differently but it doesn't mean it is illusion. The length you measure has the same impact on your everyday life as the length you know from everyday life. Nice illustration is parking a car inside a short garage I also have a video about it :)
About the photon. I think it is safe to say photons live in just two spatial dimensions so they are 2+1 objects that we perceive in 3+1 universe and it manifest itself as massless objects frozen in time traveling with the speed of light. But this is kinda philosophy :)
I thought what contracts is the spaceship that moves relative to the observer, but not the space the ship moves in.
There is no reason this would apply only to the ship.
So if a star is 7 light years away and the person on the rocket ship was traveling near the speed of light (extreme time dialation) they would be a couple of weeks older when they crashed into the star, but people on earth would say they were 7 years older when they crashed?
No, people on Earth would be older by 7 years but they would "see" only few weeks on the traveler's clock (due to time dilatation)
lol According to this 'scientist', you would 'see' only a few weeks on a clock travelling at light-speed. No-one is ever going to see that clock let alone tell what time it reads.
We used to collect data to generate hypotheses; now we collect hypotheses to generate data. 'Thought experiments' are considered to be _actual_ experiments.
Think of it; what does '7 light years' actually mean? I mean, by the time you make such a measurement, the star will have moved; how far did it move? We can't know. It's horse-sh't.
In order for the photon in the light clock to move diagonally, it has to acquire the velocity of the emitter which violates Einstein's 2nd postulate. Hence, your explanation or Einstein's 2nd postulate is false.
Then your understanding of the first postulate of relativity is flawed. There is only relative motion in the universe not absolute motion. Therefore we can equally say it was emmiter acquiring velocity or the observer acquiring velocity and we should get the same physics.
If you had this clock standing still relative to you and then you started moving, then the time of this clock would get dilatated even though it didn't underego any acceleration.
@@lukasrafajpps In that case, the 1st postulate is in disagreement with the 2nd postulate. If the photon is independent of the emitter, then it would continue in the vertical direction as the emitter moves horizontally. Eventually the photon will miss the mirror. This experiment exposes SR to be a sham.
Your word salad only convinces novices and brainwashed people. You're talking about observations which are non-causative which means that the mathematics based on these illusions, are worthless. Only acceleration can be felt; and only the rocket being accelerated can feel it. External observers don't feel such an acceleration even when viewed from the rocket.
Yes this is the main confusion. Even Einstein in his paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies says that the second postulate is only apparently irreconcilable with the first postulate.
First postulate is kind of a common sense, second postulate however is based on experimental results. The only way to disprove special relativity is to conduct an experiment which would contradict the second postulate and that has never been done quite the opposite, with better and better measurements this postulate hold better and better ground.
It is only apparent contradicton in these two postulates but if you allow time and lengths to be relative (lilke the positions and speeds), then everything works fine withing the postulates.
@@lukasrafajpps That's my main gripe about such experiments. If they're validating the fact that photons are independent of the emitter, then they wouldn't describe a diagonal path. The question now is: do any experiments prove that photons actually follow a diagonal path? I don't think they would because that would invalidate the 2nd postulate.
Scientists say that by the 1st postulate the co-moving and the external observers must see the same thing. According to the 2nd postulate, that's not true. The only way for the 2 observers to see the same thing is for the photon to acquire the emitter's velocity in violation of the 2nd postulate. The 2 postulates are incongruent i.e. they don't support each other, period.
If you have a clock like in this video with an emmiter and the mirror you can place it in your rest frame and count seconds. The fact that the foton always bounces off the mirror and come back to emmiter is universal fact for the entire universe according to first postulate. Therefore if there were second observer moving relative to you, he would also see photon bouncing off the mirror towards the emmiter but since he would be moving relative to the clock, according to first postulate he can state that he is stationary and the clock is moving. The photon would take the diagonal trajectory in his reference frame but direct trajectory in your reference frame. By the second postulate of special relativity, the photon has the same speed in every reference frame therefore also for the moving observer.
This is not invalidating second postulate you just have to sacrify an absolute time.
The speed of the photon on diagonal path is the same but it has longer distance to travel and therefore it takes a longer time period to hit the mirror.
If you want to preserve the two postulates, you have to sacrify an absolute time here and say that for the moving observer, time ticks slower.
It seems paradoxical I understand. How can they both claim the other one has the slower clock? But special relativity is not just about time dilatation, it is just one phenomenom which can't work on its own.
You have to understand the full scale of the Lorentz transformations.
Who aged less? it depends in what reference frame you compare those two clocks. You can compare clock only in the same position but if you do that you don't have any paradox because you know who was moving.
If you had observer on Earth and one moving to a distant star? where is the symmetry?
If the observer on the spaceship turns back to Earth and they compare clock on Earth, the observer on the spaceship would be younger but if instead the observer on the spaceship continued on his yourney and the observer on Earth would decide to catch up with him then he would eventually be the younger one since the observer on the spaceship has been stationary the whole trip and the observer on Earth was the moving one.
The speed of light is the same for each observer... BUT if the moving observer also MOVES the source of the light... light can travel faster than the speed of light...
no, the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source that is the postulate. Due to principle of relativity, it also means that the speed of light is the same for every observer.
Use the correct equations, and there is no length contraction.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
If there is a slower clock in S', as Einstein theorizes, these equations say nothing about it. But slower clocks do exist. I once bought a clock at Walgreen's drug store that lost ten minutes per day. How do we show the time of a slower clock with the Galilean transformation equations?
x = x' - (-vt/n')n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of the slower clock in S'(x',y',z',n'). (-vt/n') is the velocity of frame of reference S(x,y,z,n) relative to frame of reference S'. The equation n = n' shows that the time of the slower clock is being used in both frames of reference.
If you are saying that c = 186,000 miles per second in both frames of reference, you would say that x=ct and x'=cn'. The second set of equations is the same as the first, other than the fact that a clock with a different rate is being used for time. If you cancel out the (n')'s, you are left with
x = x' + vt
which is the same equation as the equation for x' in the original set of Galilean transformation equations. There is no length contraction. The differences in times are explained by differences in energy not by length contractions or twin paradoxes.
Again I cannot stress enough the importance of philosophy and the philosophy of science and its relevance to modern-day theoretical physics and cosmology. You have to be very careful with the words you use understand what you're saying because of vast majority of people use words which they have no idea what they actually mean. It's a really easy way to beat people in an argument but you're not going to win friends or influence people but it's the truth.
Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity.
According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion.
Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion.
This argument is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more evidence including both theoretical and experimental, so please keep reading. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO.
Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics.
The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics.
*TH-cam presentation of above argument:
th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
*Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145