EPR Paradox - explanation requested
Ben Sacks
-- Ben Sacks Home : (703) 566-5391 Cell : (703) 258-0935 email : be...@cicero.uchicago.eduWould someone please explain the EPR paradox. I have a good working knowledge of statistics, calculus, matrix algebra and am familiar with quantum mechanics in so far as I understand the double-slit experiment and wave interference but I am not familiar with the Schodinger wave equation etc. I specifically want to know what Bell's Inequality is and in what way the results of Aspects experiment either conform to or violate Bell's inequality and thus "disprove" the existence of local hidden variables - i.e. appear to involve action at a distance of some sort.
Bye the way - the FAQs I've been refered to seem to either omit a cruical
part of the explanation or just get Bell's Inequality wrong because, the
FAQ I've seen, has an inequality that is always satisfied by non-quantum
systems and claims that satisfying it disproves local hidden-variable theory.
z@z
| I specifically want to know what Bell's Inequality is and
| in what way the results of Aspects experiment either conform to or
| violate Bell's inequality and thus "disprove" the existence of local
| hidden variables - i.e. appear to involve action at a distance of some
| sort.
Some years ago I had the same problem as you have now.
It is rather difficult to find the relevant principles
explained in a transparent and simple way.
I think, however, that in the meanwhile I really understand
the basic underlying principles. The principle of Bell's
argument becomes very simple if one uses polarization in a
plane instead of spin in 3 dimensions.
If have written the following rather short and simple texts
on EPR and and Bell's paradox (unfortunately in German):
http://members.lol.li/twostone/a1.html
http://members.lol.li/twostone/a2.html
In any case, it is wrong to claim that Aspect's experiment
actually has shown that such "spooky actions at a distance"
(Einstein) do exist. Here quote from Bell himself:
"Streng genommen werden diese irritierenden Korrelationen
in den Experimenten nicht nachgewiesen. Man kann feststellen,
dass die verwendeten Zähler zu leistungsschwach sind, dass
die Geometrie mangelhaft ist, nicht der ideale Versuchsaufbau
gelungen ist, und man muss gewaltige Extrapolationen vornehmen,
um ... "
Der Geist im Atom, 1988, ISBN 3-7643-1944-5, Seite 69)
Maybe, someone can provide the original of this quote from
the recommendable book 'The ghost in the atom. A discussion of
the mysteries of quantum physics', 1986, Cambridge University
Press.
Regrards, Wolfgang
P.S. Wouldn't it be better to use standard email-format
when posting on newsgroups?
Nathan Urban
> Bye the way - the FAQs I've been refered to seem to either omit a
> cruical part of the explanation or just get Bell's Inequality wrong
> because, the FAQ I've seen, has an inequality that is always satisfied
> by non-quantum systems and claims that satisfying it disproves local
> hidden-variable theory.
Are you referring to the Physics FAQ? If so, what error do you find in
it, and have you contacted the author of that entry?
Richv928
circa 1935. These chaps, angry with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
decided to test the concept using two particles that interact.
Essentially we measure the total momentum of a system of two particles, where
Ptot = P1 + P2. We allow the particles to interact, and one stays local to our
laboratory, the other flies off very far away. Now Heisenberg doesn't apply to
the distances between particles, only of individual particles.
We again measure the momentum of particle 1 after the collision and determine
its final momentum P1f. Knowing what Ptot was beforehand (it's conserved) - we
deduce the momentum of #2 as P2f, without having it at hand, when it reaches
the far off place.
Now EPR is logically able to determine each particle's momentum and final
positions precisely. Hence it appears the Heisenberg is violated. Since we
know P2 a priori.
But alas - Heisenberg is still valid. The reason - we haven't actually
determined the momentum, P2. And so we have persisted in the idea that P2 was
indeed in a definite state for particle #2 - but do we actually know that?? NO
- we don't.
Neils Bohr would say - OK tell me the momentum of the particle that flew off to
your far away lab? Ah Ha ya didn't!!
Bell's inequality is more sophisticated. Essentially we have a system of
atoms (positronium with a positron, e+, bound to an electron, e-. Upon
cascade (decay) the atoms annhilate and produce oppositely directed photons.
With a polarizer and detector we can detect each oppositely-directed beam.
Now if we rotate polarizer #1 wrt the other (#2) we get a string of hits and
misses, (1s and 0s). Likewise of we fix polarizer #1 and rotate polarizer #2
we get another string of hits and misses for the pair of photons. And so we
can get a count (identical) of 1s, and 0s called the sum of the errors of the
polarizers when each was rotated individually. this is called E(theta). So
their sum 2*E(theta) is a know commodity.
However, if we fix one polarizer and rotate the second by 2*theta the following
inequality holds.
E(2*theta) <= 2*E(theta) - and for classical experiments it holds quite well.
However in the case of photons it is always violated hence Bell's Inequality is
ALWAYS VIOLATED for paired photons from cascade decay. This means that the
photons are paired in their chamber (I conjectured this in 1971), and are now
called by other physicists as "Entwined' in their cascade. Indeed they are
entwined forever.
So put one polarizer on the moon and one in our lab - guess what you either
have the disconfirmation of all local hidden variable theories (or they are
entangled at infinity - which by the way I am exploring for the graviton - as
being non locally detectable) OR you have that desirable situation that the
Schroedinger eqn contains all ther is about QM phenomena.
Rich v
Frank Wappler
> Essentially we measure the total momentum of a system of two particles,
> We again measure the momentum of particle 1 after the collision
> and determine its final momentum P1f.
> Knowing what Ptot was beforehand (it's conserved)
AFAIU, Ptot is conserved if the experimental region which contains
those two particles is "homogenious in the direction between" them;
and otherwise Ptot is _not necessarily_ conserved.
How would you determine whether or not the experimental region
containing those two particles has this special property,
in each individual trial?
> Bell's inequality is more sophisticated. [...]
> Now if we rotate polarizer #1 wrt the other (#2) we get a string of hits
> and misses, (1s and 0s). Likewise of we fix polarizer #1 and rotate
> polarizer #2 we get another string of hits and misses for the pair
> of photons. And so we can get a count (identical) of 1s, and 0s called
> the sum of the errors of the polarizers when each was rotated individually.
> this is called E(theta).
How do you determine whether and to which extent those two polarizers are
"rotated" wrt. each other at all, in each trial (or set of trials),
other than deriving "rotation angle theta" from the correlation
of hits and misses _itself_?
Also, how exactly is "E" defined in terms of hits and misses, 1s, and 0s?
> However, if we fix one polarizer and rotate the second by 2*theta
... again: how do you measure "2*theta" to begin with ...
> the following inequality holds E(2*theta) <= 2*E(theta)
That's not what I know as one of "Bell's inequalities".
Can you sketch its derivation, please?
Thanks, Frank W ~@) R
Gerry Quinn
[--]
>
>E(2*theta) <= 2*E(theta) - and for classical experiments it holds quite well.
>However in the case of photons it is always violated hence Bell's Inequality is
>ALWAYS VIOLATED for paired photons from cascade decay. This means that the
>photons are paired in their chamber (I conjectured this in 1971), and are now
>called by other physicists as "Entwined' in their cascade. Indeed they are
>entwined forever.
>
In fact, the system <Photon 1 --- Source --- Photon 2> is a single
quantum system. It interacts atemporally, but there is no reason to
postulate that the interactions have any space-time locations other than
along this line.
This is only non-local if you postulate an arrow of time so that
advanced local interactions are defined as non-local. But the arrow of
time is inapplicable to this system.
- Gerry Quinn
Richv928
I have to reply to this and I refer you to the Photon Inversion experiment
conducted in 1998. There two oppositely directed photons were passed thru
polarizers. They were bounced of a succession of mirrors.
One beam was split and retained its polarization. then one of the split beams
was reversed polarized, all the while that the first of the pair was
transversing the mirrors.
Then one of the split beams was extinguished. Gues what happened to the
original photon?
It inverted its polarization. This hardly qualifies for a single QM event.
Rich V.
Jim Carr
... followups to sci.physics ...
Hello Ben Sacks!
}
} I specifically want to know what Bell's Inequality is and
} in what way the results of Aspects experiment either conform to or
} violate Bell's inequality and thus "disprove" the existence of local
} hidden variables - i.e. appear to involve action at a distance of some
} sort.
In article <7td03m$8g6$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>
"z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> writes:
>
>Some years ago I had the same problem as you have now.
You mean posting relativity questions in sci.physics, and
questions about non-relativistic quantum mechanics in
sci.physics.relativity?
I will comment that the basics of the EPR experiments are in the
FAQ, and that there has been extensive discussion of them over
the last few years in sci.physics. IMO the Weihs et al experiment
has eliminated most of the loopholes people like Caroline Thompson
have talked about over the years.
>In any case, it is wrong to claim that Aspect's experiment
>actually has shown that such "spooky actions at a distance"
>(Einstein) do exist. Here quote from Bell himself:
>
> "Streng genommen werden diese irritierenden Korrelationen
> in den Experimenten nicht nachgewiesen. Man kann feststellen,
> dass die verwendeten Zähler zu leistungsschwach sind, dass
> die Geometrie mangelhaft ist, nicht der ideale Versuchsaufbau
> gelungen ist, und man muss gewaltige Extrapolationen vornehmen,
> um ... "
> Der Geist im Atom, 1988, ISBN 3-7643-1944-5, Seite 69)
Bell wrote that 10 years before the definitive experiments were done.
In addition, "spooky actions at a distance" is just a phrase
science journalists use to get attention for their stories.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Louis Savain
j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>
> In addition, "spooky actions at a distance" is just a phrase
> science journalists use to get attention for their stories.
True. It is neither "spooky" not is it "action at a distance."
Einstein (and Minkowski and Newton and most physicists) was convinced
that space exists as a separate entity from matter and therein lies all
the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's inequality are telling us
is that there really is no space, and that position is an intrinsic
property. There is no FTL communication at a distance because there is
no distance between particles, regardless of how far away we think they
are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference between
two particle properties, not something that physically exists.
Louis Savain
-There exists only particles, their intrinsic properties and their
interactions. Everything else is superstition.
-Space (and spacetime) is an abstract mathematical construct, i.e., a
strong illusion based on real physical properties but an illusion
nonetheless.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Robert J. Kolker
Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's inequality
are telling us
> are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference between
> two particle properties, not something that physically exists.
>
In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.
Bob Kolker
Louis Savain
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
> Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's
> inequality are telling us
I wish you'd do a better job at quoting.
> > are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference
> > between two particle properties, not something that physically
> > exists.
> >
>
> In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
> every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.
You can believe anything you want. My messages are obviously being
wasted on you. Please don't read them because you're wasting your
time, and mine. Ciao!
Louis Savain
Charles Francis
>
>
>Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's inequality
>are telling us
>
>> two particle properties, not something that physically exists.
>>
>
>In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
>every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.
>
option. Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that
distance is a relationship found in particle interactions, not a pre-
existent property of an ontological manifold.
What we experience as three dimensional space is our interpretation of
sense data, not the fact of material reality.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909047
A Model of Classical and Quantum Measurement
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909048
Conceptual Foundations of Special and General Relativity
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051
A Pre-Geometric Model Exhibiting Physical Law
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909055
An Alternative Model of Quark Confinement
Louis Savain
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <380B69BB...@usa.net>, Robert J. Kolker
> <bobk...@usa.net> writes
> >
> >
> >Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's
> >inequality are telling us
> >
> >> are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference
> >> between two particle properties, not something that physically
> >> exists.
> >>
> >
> >In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
> >every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.
> >
> We are expected to believe it if it is true, and there really isn't
> any option. Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the
> idea that distance is a relationship found in particle interactions,
>
> What we experience as three dimensional space is our interpretation of
> sense data, not the fact of material reality.
> --
> Charles Francis
> cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Well put. I would caution that both Einstein and Minkowski (and most
relativists since) believed that space and spacetime have a physical
existence independent of matter. I'll dig up the quotes if needed.
Indeed, Einstein believed that spacetime curvature is a causal
explanation of gravity, one which did away with [Newtonian] action at a
distance. Of course nothing could be further from the truth.
Spacetime curvature is an abstract interpretation of the *effect* of
gravity, not the cause of gravity. GR has nothing to say regarding the
causal mechanism of gravity.
Louis Savain
-Nothing moves in spacetime.
-Nothing moves without cause.
Edward Green
>In article <380B69BB...@usa.net>, Robert J. Kolker
><bobk...@usa.net> writes
>>
>>
>>Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's inequality
>>are telling us
>>
>>> are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference between
>>> two particle properties, not something that physically exists.
>>>
>>
>>In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
>>every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.
>>
>We are expected to believe it if it is true, and there really isn't any
>option. Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that
>distance is a relationship found in particle interactions, not a pre-
>existent property of an ontological manifold.
>
>What we experience as three dimensional space is our interpretation of
>sense data, not the fact of material reality.
Respectfully, I think you and Savain are adding a new attribute to
physical theory, "exists", whose empirical antecedents are suspect.
You are undoubtably correct that "three dimensional space is our
interpretation of the sense data", but what isn't? How would we know?
We assume there is something behind our sense data, but our only clues
to the structure of such a thing are persistence and parsimony.
Even then, nothing, once affirmed by sense data, is every truly
demolished. At best it is dethroned from its seat in the presumptive
"ontological manifold", to take a place squatting on the floor with
the rest of the derived concepts, before a new presumptive monarch.
Ed Green
Nathan Urban
> Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that
> distance is a relationship found in particle interactions, not a pre-
> existent property of an ontological manifold.
This is not true. Relativity is predicated purely on the geometry of
the spacetime manifold, and by itself postulates nothing about particle
interactions. Quantum mechanics is built upon the background spacetime
of relativity, and particle interactions take place upon that "stage".
Now, there _have_ been attempts to do what you describe -- namely, to take
distance as a relationship derived from particle interactions, and not
as a pre-existent geometric property of a background spacetime manifold.
In fact, this is precisely why Penrose invented spin networks; he wanted
to see if it was possible to do away with the "ontological spacetime
manifold". However, he was only partially successful in this endeavor.
Spin networks were only a toy model -- they assumed that particles had
only the property of spin and no other properties -- and they were only
successful in deriving a correct distance concept for space, not for
spacetime. Penrose has made attempts to generalize this model (twistors
were an idea born from it, IIRC), but has never managed to find a theory
that really succeeds in replacing spacetime with particle interactions.
Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found in particle
interactions or a pre-existent property of the spacetime manifold is
unknown. However, it is a fact that both quantum theory and relativity
theory as they exist today model distance using the latter and not
the former.
Frank Wappler
> Charles Francis wrote:
> > Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that
> > distance is a relationship found in particle interactions,
> > not a preexistent property of an ontological manifold.
AFAIU, both follow from the idea that certain relationships can be
unambiguously _measured_; that reproducible measurement procedures
can be formulated and conducted trial by trial, such that their
individual results (values) can be meaningfully compared to each other.
QM describes measured relations of particles (or more inclusively:
observers) with each other in general, based on the description of
measured pairwise relations,
while relativity, being a special case, is concerned with measurements
of pairwise coordinate relations (e.g. of calibration of ordered sets of
states/proper_time of pairs with each other; determination of pairwise
distance, velocity, etc.), and measurements derived from those pairwise
coordinate relations (curvature, surface, volume ...).
> This is not true. Relativity is predicated purely on the geometry of
> the spacetime manifold, and by itself postulates nothing about particle
> interactions. [...]
> Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found in particle
> interactions or a pre-existent property of the spacetime manifold is
> unknown.
How do you suggest that "geometry of the spacetime manifold" is to be
determined in the first place, trial by trial?, and
What do you mean by a "pre-existent property" unless you specify
_how to measure_ it?
> Now, there _have_ been attempts [...] to take distance as a relationship
> derived from particle interactions
Sure:
Einstein's calibration procedure and the associated distance definition,
by which to determine and to describe coordinate relations of particles
(or more inclusively: observers) based on their mutual observations
(their exchange of light signals) has been a most successful attempt;
IMHO, and also indicated by wide use of and reference to those
reproducible measurement procedures (SR) in the physics of this century.
Regards, Frank W ~@) R
Charles Francis
<nur...@crib.corepower.com> writes
>
>> Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that
>> existent property of an ontological manifold.
>
>the spacetime manifold, and by itself postulates nothing about particle
>of relativity, and particle interactions take place upon that "stage".
>
>Now, there _have_ been attempts to do what you describe -- namely, to take
>distance as a relationship derived from particle interactions, and not
>as a pre-existent geometric property of a background spacetime manifold.
>In fact, this is precisely why Penrose invented spin networks; he wanted
>to see if it was possible to do away with the "ontological spacetime
>manifold". However, he was only partially successful in this endeavor.
>Spin networks were only a toy model -- they assumed that particles had
>only the property of spin and no other properties -- and they were only
>successful in deriving a correct distance concept for space, not for
>spacetime.
I have carried out necessary constructions and proofs
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909047
Conceptual Foundations of Special and General Relativity
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051
A Pre-Geometric Model Exhibiting Physical Law
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Charles Francis
writes
>Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
>
>>>Louis Savain wrote:
>>>
>>>> are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference between
>>>> two particle properties, not something that physically exists.
>>>>
>>>
>>>In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
>>>every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.
>>>
>>We are expected to believe it if it is true, and there really isn't any
>>option. Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that
>>distance is a relationship found in particle interactions, not a pre-
>>existent property of an ontological manifold.
>>
>>What we experience as three dimensional space is our interpretation of
>>sense data, not the fact of material reality.
>
>Respectfully, I think you and Savain are adding a new attribute to
>physical theory, "exists", whose empirical antecedents are suspect.
>
>You are undoubtably correct that "three dimensional space is our
>interpretation of the sense data", but what isn't? How would we know?
>We assume there is something behind our sense data, but our only clues
>to the structure of such a thing are persistence and parsimony.
>
>Even then, nothing, once affirmed by sense data, is every truly
>demolished. At best it is dethroned from its seat in the presumptive
>"ontological manifold", to take a place squatting on the floor with
>the rest of the derived concepts, before a new presumptive monarch.
>
I think not. On the basis of observational data we may construe what
might cause our sense perceptions, not on the basis of interpretation,
but from observation and mathematical reason. If metaphysics can be
established from empiricism and mathematical reason then it is no
presumptive monarch but rightly becomes the throne. That is where
physical theory is leading us
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
>>Charles Francis
>>cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
>>
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Charles Francis
<fw7...@csc.albany.edu> writes
>Nathan Urban wrote:
>> Charles Francis wrote:
>
>> > distance is a relationship found in particle interactions,
>AFAIU, both follow from the idea that certain relationships can be
>unambiguously _measured_; that reproducible measurement procedures
>can be formulated and conducted trial by trial, such that their
>individual results (values) can be meaningfully compared to each other.
>
>QM describes measured relations of particles (or more inclusively:
>observers) with each other in general, based on the description of
>measured pairwise relations,
>
>while relativity, being a special case, is concerned with measurements
>of pairwise coordinate relations (e.g. of calibration of ordered sets of
>states/proper_time of pairs with each other; determination of pairwise
>distance, velocity, etc.), and measurements derived from those pairwise
>coordinate relations (curvature, surface, volume ...).
>
>> the spacetime manifold, and by itself postulates nothing about particle
>> Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found in particle
>> interactions or a pre-existent property of the spacetime manifold is
>> unknown.
>
>How do you suggest that "geometry of the spacetime manifold" is to be
>determined in the first place, trial by trial?, and
>
>What do you mean by a "pre-existent property" unless you specify
>_how to measure_ it?
Precisely. I am glad to find someone who understands this so well. My
papers, and what I say in these posts, only describe the standard model
of physics when it is correctly understood. And when it is correctly
understood we find that we need no further GUTs.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Edward Green
>>Respectfully, I think you and Savain are adding a new attribute to
>>physical theory, "exists", whose empirical antecedents are suspect.
>>
>>You are undoubtably correct that "three dimensional space is our
>>interpretation of the sense data", but what isn't? How would we know?
>>We assume there is something behind our sense data, but our only clues
>>to the structure of such a thing are persistence and parsimony.
>>
>>Even then, nothing, once affirmed by sense data, is every truly
>>demolished. At best it is dethroned from its seat in the presumptive
>>"ontological manifold", to take a place squatting on the floor with
>>the rest of the derived concepts, before a new presumptive monarch.
>>
>I think not. On the basis of observational data we may construe what
>might cause our sense perceptions, not on the basis of interpretation,
>but from observation and mathematical reason. If metaphysics can be
>established from empiricism and mathematical reason then it is no
>presumptive monarch but rightly becomes the throne. That is where
>physical theory is leading us
Reason is not that strong. All we can do is guess and verify. There
is no way we can turn the crank, and come up with a fool-proof "this
is what there is, jack" result.
What is well-verified, is presumptively an aspect -- words chosen with
care -- of reality.
Charles Francis
deja.com> writes
>> <bobk...@usa.net> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's
>> >inequality are telling us
>> >
>> >> between two particle properties, not something that physically
>> >> exists.
>> >>
>> >
>> >In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
>> >every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.
>> >
>> We are expected to believe it if it is true, and there really isn't
>> idea that distance is a relationship found in particle interactions,
>>
>> What we experience as three dimensional space is our interpretation of
>> sense data, not the fact of material reality.
>> Charles Francis
>> cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
>
> Well put. I would caution that both Einstein and Minkowski (and most
>relativists since) believed that space and spacetime have a physical
>existence independent of matter. I'll dig up the quotes if needed.
One should separate his personal belief from his science. We do know
that Einstein had not resolved his "unified field theory", and with
hindsight it will be seen that the reason for this is tied to the
failure to drop ontological space-time altogether. I would rather
concentrate on what he had right, than what he had wrong, and give him
credit for knowing the difference between what he had established and
what he believed there was still to be established. Since he developed
the theory of relativity it is likely that he understood it better than
he described it.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Charles Francis
writes
apply it is fragile, but once we do apply it we can ascertain at our
leisure that it is perfect. Is 2+2 not going to be equal to 4, tomorrow?
The positivists have made a religious, not a rational, presumption that
we cannot demonstrate the material consistency of the universe, a
presumption which is already known by some to be false and which will be
consigned to the dustbin of superstitious belief, along with flat earth
and Ptolemy.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>>
>Reason, properly applied, is absolute.
:-))))))))
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Louis Savain
nur...@vt.edu wrote:
>[snip]
>
> Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found in particle
> interactions or a pre-existent property of the spacetime manifold is
> unknown.
It is unknown to you because you must toe the usual stupid party
line. The irrefutable fact remains that spacetime could not possibly
have a pre-existent property because it is an abstract mathematical
construct. How can spacetime have physical properties if it is known
by everyone (it should be by now) that spacetime is 100% frozen from
the infinite past to the infinite future. Nothing moves in spacetime
(deny at your own detriment) and yet we observe motion. How can
something as ontologically impossible as spacetime have physical
properties?
> However, it is a fact that both quantum theory and relativity
> theory as they exist today model distance using the latter and not
> the former.
They can model it as much as they want but it's still rank
superstition and it does not belong in science. Crackpottery in high
places!
Louis Savain
Louis Savain
e...@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:
> Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
> >What we experience as three dimensional space is our interpretation
> >of sense data, not the fact of material reality.
>
> Respectfully, I think you and Savain are adding a new attribute to
> physical theory, "exists", whose empirical antecedents are suspect.
"Exists" simply means that something can be logically deduced to have
causal/physical properties. We are forever at the mercy of causality
in our efforts to understand nature. What are the empirical
antecedents of the existence of space/spacetime pray tell?
> You are undoubtably correct that "three dimensional space is our
> interpretation of the sense data", but what isn't? How would we know?
> We assume there is something behind our sense data, but our only clues
> to the structure of such a thing are persistence and parsimony.
>
> Even then, nothing, once affirmed by sense data, is every truly
> demolished. At best it is dethroned from its seat in the presumptive
> "ontological manifold", to take a place squatting on the floor with
> the rest of the derived concepts, before a new presumptive monarch.
I'd would like to strongly protest against this agnostic stance. I
am forever astonished at the hopelessly circular view that we can never
be sure of what we understand. If this view were true, how can one be
so certain of it in the midst of such oppressing uncertainty?
Louis Savain
Louis Savain
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <7uiv75$43e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
<louis_...@my-deja.com> writes
> >In article <wdHtHIAQ...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
> > Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
>[snip]
> >
> > Well put. I would caution that both Einstein and Minkowski (and
> >most relativists since) believed that space and spacetime have a
> >physical existence independent of matter. I'll dig up the quotes if
> >needed.
>
> One should separate his personal belief from his science. We do know
> that Einstein had not resolved his "unified field theory", and with
> hindsight it will be seen that the reason for this is tied to the
> failure to drop ontological space-time altogether. I would rather
> concentrate on what he had right, than what he had wrong, and give him
> credit for knowing the difference between what he had established and
> what he believed there was still to be established. Since he developed
> the theory of relativity it is likely that he understood it better
> than he described it.
Sorry, I make no such apology, for either Einstein or any physicist
who teaches that spacetime is a physical entity. IMO, it is one of the
most damaging concepts ever introduced in physics right up there with
acausal motion and exclusive relativity. Still, these false doctrines
do not invalidate the mathematical correctness of either SR and GR
(both are purely mathematical theories). They simply retard further
progress in our understanding of motion and gravity. Indeed, I believe
they are the major reasons that we have not come up with a truly
comprehensive and testable theory of the physical cause of gravity, one
which is strictly based on particles, their properties and their
interactions.
Louis Savain
-No particle "cares" about its motion relative to anything. Unless
it's psychic. If the only motion that exists is relative motion, then
all particles are psychic. Draw your own conclusion.
Robert J. Kolker
Louis Savain wrote:
>
> "Exists" simply means that something can be logically deduced to have
> causal/physical properties. We are forever at the mercy of causality
> in our efforts to understand nature. What are the empirical
> antecedents of the existence of space/spacetime pray tell?
Rulers, range finders and clocks. Next question?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Louis Savain wrote:
>
> They can model it as much as they want but it's still rank
> superstition and it does not belong in science. Crackpottery in high
> places!
That rank superstition has produced the computer you rant and rave
your foolishness upon.
Bob Kolker
Frank Wappler
> Frank Wappler [wrote:]
> > Nathan Urban wrote:
> > > Relativity is predicated purely on the geometry of the
> > > Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found
> > > in particle interactions or a pre-existent property of
> > > the spacetime manifold is unknown.
> > How do you suggest that "geometry of the spacetime manifold"
> > is to be determined in the first place, trial by trial?, and
> > What do you mean by a "pre-existent property" unless you specify
> > _how to measure_ it?
> I am glad to find someone who understands this so well.
Well - thanks for the compliment.
Unfortunately, I have great difficulty to return it:
> My papers, and what I say in these posts, [...]
From http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058 and the little I've seen of
your posts you seem just as unconcerned about reproducible measurement
procedures as the poster to whom I directed my questions above.
For instance: you're discussing "accurate measurements by good clocks"
without prescribing a calibration procedure by which to detertmine
the relations between the individual ordered sets of states of
various clocks in the first place.
Are you unfamiliar with
> > Einstein's calibration procedure and the associated distance
> > definition [...] based on exchange of light signals,
Synge's procedure for determining "curvature" (via Heron's formula)
from measured pairwise distances, or
Malus' procedure for determining pairwise "orientation_angle"
from correlated counts?
Or do you suggest that those are not reproducible?,
and/or do suggest any other measurement procedures?
> [...] only describe the standard model of physics when it is
> correctly understood. And when it is correctly understood
> we find that we need no further GUTs.
I'll take a closer look at your paper, and I may post some further
questions or comments.
My understanding of certain characteristics of the standard model derives
from the (presumably interesting) question how a pair of observers could
measure/agree on any statement at all, given their mutual observations.
That someone else should ask the same questions without realizing it
would be just as surprising as if the attempt to address a different
set of questions would imply the same standard model.
Best regards, Frank W ~@) R
Louis Savain
You're a pompous idiot Kolker. BTW, don't bother responding to my
posts any more because I won't see them.
Louis Savain
Charles Francis
<fw7...@csc.albany.edu> writes
>Charles Francis wrote:
>> Frank Wappler [wrote:]
>> > Nathan Urban wrote:
>> > > Relativity is predicated purely on the geometry of the
>> > > spacetime manifold, [...]
>> > > Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found
>> > > in particle interactions or a pre-existent property of
>> > > the spacetime manifold is unknown.
>
>> > How do you suggest that "geometry of the spacetime manifold"
>> > is to be determined in the first place, trial by trial?, and
>
>> > What do you mean by a "pre-existent property" unless you specify
>> > _how to measure_ it?
>
>> I am glad to find someone who understands this so well.
>
>Well - thanks for the compliment.
>Unfortunately, I have great difficulty to return it:
>
>> My papers, and what I say in these posts, [...]
>
>From http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058 and the little I've seen of
>your posts you seem just as unconcerned about reproducible measurement
>procedures as the poster to whom I directed my questions above.
Obviously I see the need for such things. But the formalism of bras and
kets is an abstract way of discussing the results of measurement with
becoming embroiled in the details.
>
>For instance: you're discussing "accurate measurements by good clocks"
>without prescribing a calibration procedure by which to detertmine
>the relations between the individual ordered sets of states of
>various clocks in the first place.
>
>Are you unfamiliar with
>
>> > Einstein's calibration procedure and the associated distance
>> > definition [...] based on exchange of light signals,
>
I have removed this from 9905058 on the grounds that the paper is
already long, that this is (or rather should be) well known and well
understood, and because there is a brief (though I hope adequate)
discussion in http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051
>Synge's procedure for determining "curvature" (via Heron's formula)
>from measured pairwise distances, or
>
>Malus' procedure for determining pairwise "orientation_angle"
>from correlated counts?
My background is in qed, and while I can see clearly how curvature
arises in the model my exposition is weak, except as a conceptual
introduction. I would appreciate references, since none of Synge nor
Malus nor Heron appear in Wald or MTW.
>
>
>> [...] only describe the standard model of physics when it is
>> correctly understood. And when it is correctly understood
>> we find that we need no further GUTs.
>
>I'll take a closer look at your paper, and I may post some further
>questions or comments.
I look forward to it.
>My understanding of certain characteristics of the standard model derives
>from the (presumably interesting) question how a pair of observers could
>measure/agree on any statement at all, given their mutual observations.
>That someone else should ask the same questions without realizing it
>would be just as surprising as if the attempt to address a different
>set of questions would imply the same standard model.
>
I find it more surprising that after more than seventy years of
relativity and quantum mechanics there are so few people who seem able
to ask a correct set of questions, and think clearly enough about them
to find correct answers, less surprising if there are differences in the
actual questions asked. So long as both questioners are asking genuine
questions about the universe and how we measure it, I think it
unsurprising if they end up describing the same universe.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909047
A Model of Classical and Quantum Measurement
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909048
Conceptual Foundations of Special and General Relativity
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051
A Pre-Geometric Model Exhibiting Physical Law
Charles Francis
deja.com> writes
I think we have, it is the standard model, but it is the bigotry of
working physicists who do not realise that SR & GR are mathematical
theories and corrupt the model with false ideas. I believe Newton made
clear that he regarded space and time as mathematical idealisations, not
real physical things, but many smaller minds have not been able to see
what he said. I would not like to suggest that Einstein did not know
this, simply on the grounds that someone may have misinterpreted what
Einstein believed.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Louis Savain
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <7ulh4l$t4g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
<louis_...@my-deja.com> writes
>[snip]
> > Sorry, I make no such apology, for either Einstein or any physicist
> >who teaches that spacetime is a physical entity. IMO, it is one of
> >the most damaging concepts ever introduced in physics right up there
> >with acausal motion and exclusive relativity. Still, these false
> >doctrines do not invalidate the mathematical correctness of either
> >SR and GR (both are purely mathematical theories). They simply
> >retard further progress in our understanding of motion and gravity.
> >Indeed, I believe they are the major reasons that we have not come
> >up with a truly comprehensive and testable theory of the physical
> >cause of gravity, one which is strictly based on particles, their
> >properties and their interactions.
>
> I think we have, it is the standard model,
I don't see that. The standard model does not explain why no
particle can go faster than c. It does not give a causal explanation
for gravity and gravitational time dilation. Both acausal motion and
exclusive relativity are ingrained assumptions of the standard model.
Unless one groks that all movements must have a causal mechanism and
that the only motion that physically exists in nature (see below) is
absolute motion, one does not really understand motion.
> but it is the bigotry of
> working physicists who do not realise that SR & GR are mathematical
> theories and corrupt the model with false ideas. I believe Newton made
> clear that he regarded space and time as mathematical idealisations,
> not real physical things, but many smaller minds have not been able
> to see what he said.
This is true as far as the Principia itself is concerned but Newton
in many of his writings insisted in the existence of a physical space
separate from matter. This was a major point of contention between him
and his nemesis Leibniz.
> I would not like to suggest that Einstein did
> not know this, simply on the grounds that someone may have
> misinterpreted what Einstein believed.
Einstein made it clear that he considered the existence of space to
be independent of matter. Here is a quote from "Relativity: The
Special and the General Theory" in the fifth appendix:
"What is the position of the special theory of relativity in
regard to the problem of space?...The rigid four-dimensional
space of the special theory of relativity is to some extent
a four-dimensional analogue of H. A. Lorentz's rigid three-
dimensional aether. For this theory also the following
statement is valid: The description of physical states
postulates space as being initially given and as existing
independently."
I don't see much room for misinterpretation here, if that is what you
are implying. The fact, however painful, is that, on this issue,
Einstein was as wrong as can be. The end result has been a virtual
halt in our further understanding of motion and gravity since.
Louis Savain
-A particle in motion or rest does not "care" about its motion or rest
(and position) relative to anything, unless it has psychic abilities.
Consequently, if nature does not "care" about relative motion, why do
physicists base their entire physics on the assumption that relative
motion is the only motion that exists? Is this an example of mass
stupidity or is it just politics as usual?
Michael Kagalenko
]In article <7uib85$nvc$1...@crib.corepower.com>,
] nur...@vt.edu wrote:
]
]>[snip]
]>
]> Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found in particle
]> interactions or a pre-existent property of the spacetime manifold is
]> unknown.
] It is unknown to you because you must toe the usual stupid party
]line. The irrefutable fact remains that spacetime could not possibly
]have a pre-existent property because it is an abstract mathematical
]construct. How can spacetime have physical properties if it is known
]by everyone (it should be by now) that spacetime is 100% frozen from
]the infinite past to the infinite future. Nothing moves in spacetime
](deny at your own detriment) and yet we observe motion. How can
]something as ontologically impossible as spacetime have physical
]properties?
]
]> However, it is a fact that both quantum theory and relativity
]> theory as they exist today model distance using the latter and not
]> the former.
] They can model it as much as they want but it's still rank
]superstition and it does not belong in science. Crackpottery in high
]places!
]Louis Savain
]
]-Nothing moves without cause.
I forgot to add Louis Savain to the canonical crackpots list.
Charles Francis
deja.com> writes
> I'd would like to strongly protest against this agnostic stance. I
>am forever astonished at the hopelessly circular view that we can never
>be sure of what we understand. If this view were true, how can one be
>so certain of it in the midst of such oppressing uncertainty?
We can be certain of its negation, even if we do not yet know what that
negation entails. We can be certain that there is an ultimate simple
theory, which will complete physics and that everyone who says otherwise
is not a good philosopher of science.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Charles Francis
deja.com> writes
>In article <Y9R1MsAi...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
> Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
>> In article <7ulh4l$t4g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
><louis_...@my-deja.com> writes
>>[snip]
>> > Sorry, I make no such apology, for either Einstein or any physicist
>> >who teaches that spacetime is a physical entity. IMO, it is one of
>> >the most damaging concepts ever introduced in physics right up there
>> >with acausal motion and exclusive relativity. Still, these false
>> >doctrines do not invalidate the mathematical correctness of either
>> >SR and GR (both are purely mathematical theories). They simply
>> >retard further progress in our understanding of motion and gravity.
>> >Indeed, I believe they are the major reasons that we have not come
>> >up with a truly comprehensive and testable theory of the physical
>> >cause of gravity, one which is strictly based on particles, their
>> >properties and their interactions.
>>
>> I think we have, it is the standard model,
>
> I don't see that. The standard model does not explain why no
>particle can go faster than c. It does not give a causal explanation
>for gravity and gravitational time dilation. Both acausal motion and
>exclusive relativity are ingrained assumptions of the standard model.
>Unless one groks that all movements must have a causal mechanism and
>that the only motion that physically exists in nature (see below) is
>absolute motion, one does not really understand motion.
>
?????? Belief in causality to this degree is religion, not science. It
would be more accurate to say that there is no motion at all for a
particle in isolation.
>
> Einstein made it clear that he considered the existence of space to
>be independent of matter. Here is a quote from "Relativity: The
>Special and the General Theory" in the fifth appendix:
>
> "What is the position of the special theory of relativity in
> regard to the problem of space?...The rigid four-dimensional
> space of the special theory of relativity is to some extent
> a four-dimensional analogue of H. A. Lorentz's rigid three-
> dimensional aether. For this theory also the following
> statement is valid: The description of physical states
> postulates space as being initially given and as existing
> independently."
>
> I don't see much room for misinterpretation here, if that is what you
>are implying. The fact, however painful, is that, on this issue,
>Einstein was as wrong as can be. The end result has been a virtual
>halt in our further understanding of motion and gravity since.
>
agreed. It is surprising that Einstein had not understood the basis of
his own theory.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
David Elm
Louis Savain wrote:
> Unless one groks that all movements must have a causal mechanism and
> that the only motion that physically exists in nature (see below) is
> absolute motion, one does not really understand motion.
>
Its not often I've seen a clear reverence to Heinlein these days.
Drink deeply and never thirst!
-- David Elm
Louis Savain
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <7uo0ro$md2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
<louis_...@my-deja.com> writes
>[snip]
> > I don't see that. The standard model does not explain why no
> >particle can go faster than c. It does not give a causal explanation
> >for gravity and gravitational time dilation. Both acausal motion and
> >exclusive relativity are ingrained assumptions of the standard model.
> >that the only motion that physically exists in nature (see below) is
> >absolute motion, one does not really understand motion.
>
You're kidding me? Causality is the most empirically confirmed
postulate ever. To assume that motion is an exception to the rule of
cause and effect is more than just irresponsible science, it's akin to
medieval superstition.
> It
> would be more accurate to say that there is no motion at all for a
> particle in isolation.
Sorry, this is nonsense. The motion of a particle has nothing to do
with whether or not it is in isolation, unless the particle is psychic
and is somehow "aware" of the presence/absence of other objects. At
this point I sense that our exchange has come to an end. Exclusive
relativity is one the most stupid and damaging doctrines of modern
science. I don't think I can have a meaningful debate with anyone who
subscribes to something so patently absurd. Ciao!
Louis Savain
Louis Savain
David Elm <davi...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
> Louis Savain wrote:
>
> > Unless one groks that all movements must have a causal mechanism and
> > that the only motion that physically exists in nature (see below) is
> > absolute motion, one does not really understand motion.
> >
>
> Drink deeply and never thirst!
It's a rare opportunity to be able to share water with complete
strangers.
Louis Savain
PS. Heinlein is a must for any lover of Sci-fi.
Robert J. Kolker
Charles Francis wrote:
> We can be certain of its negation, even if we do not yet know what that
> negation entails. We can be certain that there is an ultimate simple
> theory, which will complete physics and that everyone who says otherwise
> is not a good philosopher of science.
How can you be certain that the last word in physical theories will be
simple?
We have not gotten their yet and current theories are complicated.
How can you be sure there will be an ultimate (in the logical sense)
theory at all?
Bob Kolker
Louis Savain
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <7ul3kj$j40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
<louis_savain@my-
> deja.com> writes
> > I'd would like to strongly protest against this agnostic stance.
> > I am forever astonished at the hopelessly circular view that we
> > can never be sure of what we understand. If this view were true,
> > how can one be so certain of it in the midst of such oppressing
> > uncertainty?
>
> that negation entails. We can be certain that there is an ultimate
> simple theory, which will complete physics and that everyone who says
> otherwise is not a good philosopher of science.
I agree.
Louis Savain
Robert J. Kolker
Louis Savain wrote:
> You're kidding me? Causality is the most empirically confirmed
> postulate ever. To assume that motion is an exception to the rule of
> cause and effect is more than just irresponsible science, it's akin to
> medieval superstition.
>
Consider a radioactive substance. A certain percent of the atoms in
the collection of atoms will split and the others will not (in any given
interval). If the atoms are all identical then why should some split and
others not. If the atoms are not all identical how do they differ one from
the other. There indications are that processes at the subatomic level
are random with know statistics. Where is causality here?
It turns out the Quantum Mechanics which is firmly based on non
deterministic causality is the most successful scientific theory ever
produced. Why is it so successful?
Bob Kolker
Charles Francis
<bobk...@usa.net> writes
>
>
>Charles Francis wrote:
>
>> We can be certain of its negation, even if we do not yet know what that
>> negation entails. We can be certain that there is an ultimate simple
>> theory, which will complete physics and that everyone who says otherwise
>> is not a good philosopher of science.
>
>simple?
>
and simpler units, and because there is no scientific justification of
infinity. This enough for me to be certain, though I do not believe in
the possibility of mathematical proof for such an argument.
>We have not gotten their yet and current theories are complicated.
>
Not in their most fundamental forms. In its discrete reformulation, qed
describes a simple model of electroweak interactions and the origin of
curvature in space-time, unifying it with gravity, and in which is
fairly easy to postulate strong interactions.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909055
An Alternative Model of Quark Confinement
>How can you be sure there will be an ultimate (in the logical sense)
>theory at all?
>
We are much further from that, it is one thing to describe the
mechanical laws of matter, quite another to explain consciousness.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Louis Savain
mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu wrote:
> I forgot to add Louis Savain to the canonical crackpots list.
I too have a crackpot list. But you're way too chicken shit to be in
it. See ya!
c.h.thompson
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7ul1es$hj8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> They can model it as much as they want but it's still rank
> superstition and it does not belong in science. Crackpottery in high
> places!
You seem to have drifted from the original topic but never mind. Your
remark is still relevant: the whole EPR paradox is "crackpottery"!
In case anyone really wants to know, what it amounts to is that back in 1935
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen wrote this paper showing that quantum theory
made some impossible predictions. By the time anyone came near to being
able to test them (the late 1960's) QT was well entrenched and had become
used to using its own logic. That logic seems to have said, among other
things, that if you couldn't disprove something experimentally it must be
true, regardless of how impossible it seemed!
Anyway, so far as I'm concerned, EPR proved that QT was impossible and they
were right. However, the experiments couldn't prove QT wrong, but if you
look at my web site you will find some of the reasons why. The
experimenters had forgotten how to search for true causes of things! They
did not dare explore alternative hypotheses to the full, as this would have
meant challenging QT ideas on the existence of the photon, as well as the
existence of "entanglement" and that action at a distance.
So there is no "EPR paradox", only an EPR proof of the impossibility of QT
being a true model of our world. Unfortunately Einstein himself believed in
"photons", so he might have had difficulty in accepting my explanations of
how the actual "Bell test" experiments work. Have a look for yourself,
though, at my site. I've looked hard at the details of experiments such as
Aspect's. In order to see what is going on, you need to look also at
related experiments that are supposed to establish the particle nature of
light. They don't.
Caroline Thompson
--
Caroline H Thompson
Department of Computer Science
University of Wales Aberystwyth, SY23 3DB, UK
<http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat>
Frank Wappler
> Frank Wappler [wrote:]
> > From http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058 and the little I've
> > seen of your posts you seem just as unconcerned about
> > reproducible measurement procedures as [...]
> Obviously I see the need for such things. [...]
Having read a little more, I find my remark above an overstatement
and I apologize for having been indiscriminate. However ...
> > Are you unfamiliar with
> > Einstein's calibration procedure and the associated distance
> > definition [...] based on exchange of light signals,
> there is a brief (though I hope adequate) discussion in
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051
and there (p. 3):
. Once clocks are separated, there is no way to synchronize them directly,
. but, according to the principle of homogeneity, two clocks will give
. the same unit of time if the physical processes in each are identical.
... indicates that you _are_ unfamiliar with calibration procedures
in general: how should be _determined whether_ or to which extent
"physical processes in" of two distinct clocks are "identical"
in the first place, especially while they're separated?
Einstein's calibration procedure is a (and AFAIK the conventional)
solution:
"Pairs of events/states/clock_readings/proper_times of two observers
correspond to each other (they are simultaneous) if they contain
observations of the same light signals from the middle between
those two observers".
(The most explicit equivalent statement of this procedure that I know
is in A. Einstein, Relativity. The special and the general theory,
sect. viii: On the idea of time in physics.)
You do state a distance definition
. The distance of an event is half the elapsed time for light
. to go from the clock to the event and return to the clock.
. The time at which the signal is reflected is the mean time
. between between when it is sent and when it returns.
which corresponds loosely to what I understand of
Ann. d. Physik 17, 891 (1905):
"Distance of a pair of observers wrt. each other is
c/2 * light_signal_roundtrip_interval;
if the beginning and end states of that interval, and the state
of reflecting the light signal, have been calibrated between
those two observers through Einstein's calibration procedure".
Note that the distance definition (on which we seem to agree)
_requires completed_ calibration procedures already:
The pair of times/states "end/returned_signal", and "beginning/go_signal",
which constitute the interval that's supposed to represent the
measurement are times/states only of _one_ observer (A),
not of the _other_ (B).
There's no measurement obtained if the result stated by (A)
couldn't be reproduced/understood by (B) in his/her/its own terms,
as an interval between _own_ times/states.
In turn, the time/state of "reflecting the light signal" is a priori
a state only of (B), not of (A); it must be calibrated between
those two observers in order to be mutually meaningful.
This raises the question who/what if anyone/thing is meant by
"the middle" in Einstein's calibration procedure, _before and without_
having the notion of measured pairwise distances available already.
AFAIU, as I use, and as I suggested in the newsgroup before,
"the middle between" a given pair of observers, A and B, trial by trial,
may be identified as the (auxiliary) observer (or observer system)
who satisfies the following requirements:
- "the middle" must find the light signal roundtrip interval
to A (and back) same as to B (and back);
- A must find two roundtrips to "the middle" same as one to B;
- B must find two roundtrips to "the middle" same as one to A;
(one can formulate additional requirements, involving additional
auxiliary observers).
> > Synge's procedure for determining "curvature" (via Heron's formula)
> > from measured pairwise distances, or
> > Malus' procedure for determining pairwise "orientation_angle"
> > from correlated counts?
> I would appreciate references, since none of Synge nor Malus nor
> Heron appear in Wald or MTW.
J.L. Synge, Relativity. The General Theory, p. 408, presents a "Five-point
curvature detector", which employs Heron's formula for the volume of a
tetrahedron in terms of the pairwise distances between its vertices.
(Btw., that's mentioned in Ciufolini/Wheeler, Gravitation and Inertia.)
Essentially, given the measured values of pairwise distances AB, AC, BC,
etc., of a quintuple A, B, C, D, E of observers wrt. each other,
trial by trial, the region containing those five is called "flat",
in this trial, if
sqrt( det{ 0 AB^2 AC^2 AD^2 1
AB^2 0 BC^2 BD^2 1
AC^2 BC^2 0 CD^2 1
AD^2 BD^2 CD^2 0 1
1 1 1 1 0 } ) +
sqrt( det{ 0 AB^2 AC^2 AE^2 1
AB^2 0 BC^2 BE^2 1
AC^2 BC^2 0 CE^2 1
AE^2 BE^2 CE^2 0 1
1 1 1 1 0 } ) =
sqrt( det{ 0 DE^2 DA^2 DB^2 1
DE^2 0 EA^2 EB^2 1
DA^2 EA^2 0 AB^2 1
DB^2 EB^2 AB^2 0 1
1 1 1 1 0 } ) +
sqrt( det{ 0 DE^2 DB^2 DC^2 1
DE^2 0 EB^2 EC^2 1
DB^2 EB^2 0 BC^2 1
DC^2 EC^2 BC^2 0 1
1 1 1 1 0 } ) +
sqrt( det{ 0 DE^2 DC^2 DA^2 1
DE^2 0 EC^2 EA^2 1
DC^2 EC^2 0 CA^2 1
DA^2 EA^2 CA^2 0 1
1 1 1 1 0 } )
(where det{ M } denotes the determinant of matrix M).
(Synge's actual procedure is not stated in terms of measured pairwise
distances, but simply through various light signal roundtrip intervals
observed by any _one_ point/observer/clock.
The five points might thereby obtain _different_ individual results
about the "curvature" of the region in which they are contained,
in any particular trial; i.e. not necessarily a _measurement_.)
For Malus' procedure I didn't find in QM text books either (not even
mentioned by his compatriots, in QM by Cohen-Tannoudji et. al.),
but only general encyclopedic references.
Nevertheless, Malus' definition of "orientation_angle" in terms of
"intensity" (or pairwise correlations) seems widely understood and used:
"orientation_angle =
1/2 arccos( Sum_{ trials k }_(
(Ap_k Bx_k + Aq_k By_k - Ap_k By_k - Aq_k Bx_k) /
(Ap_k Bx_k + Aq_k By_k + Ap_k By_k + Aq_k Bx_k) ) ) =
1/2 arccos( Sum_{ trials k }_(
2 (Ap_k Bx_k + Aq_k By_k) /
(Ap_k Bx_k + Aq_k By_k + Ap_k By_k + Aq_k Bx_k) - 1 ) ) =
arccos( sqrt( Sum_{ trials k }_(
(Ap_k Bx_k + Aq_k By_k) /
(Ap_k Bx_k + Aq_k By_k + Ap_k By_k + Aq_k Bx_k) ) ) ) =
arccos( sqrt( Intensity ) ),
where Ap_k and Aq_k denote the counts in trial k obtained in one
particular two-valued coordinate system, A_{ p, q },
Bx_k and By_k denote the counts in the same trial k obtained in another
two-valued coordinate system, B_{ x, y },
and the "orientation_angle" is to be measured from those correlated counts,
as a relation of those two coordinate systems wrt. each other, in this
particular set of trials.
For example, one might measure the "orientation_angle" of coordinate
systems A_{ on, off } and B_{ hit, no_hit } wrt. each other.
Terms of the form "cos( angle )" can be found throughout many
QM text books. If those terms weren't defined via Malus' procedure,
then how else, if at all?
> > I'll take a closer look at your paper, and I may post some further
> > questions or comments.
> I look forward to it.
Well, here's are at least a few preliminary impressions:
You seem to be making extensive use of "creation operators" and
. the idea that particles of the same type are identical.
Fine; but the question arises
_how to determine whether or to which extent_
particles are pairwise "of the same type" and/or "identical".
Perhaps, given that there are quite independent ways for obtaining
what you derive (i.e. most notably Dirac's and Maxwell's equations),
your approach may _in turn provide_ such a procedure in the first place.
Best regards, Frank W ~@) R
p.s.
Further, since you mentioned that
> > > My papers [...] describe the standard model
I was a little disappointed that you didn't derive some of its main
features: three spatial dimensions, three particle generations,
spin 1/2 constituents. But without explicitly considering
calibration procedures I wouldn't know how to derive those either.
Tom Roberts
> The standard model does not explain why no
> particle can go faster than c.
Sure it does: The standard model is locally Lorentz invariant.
If you don't accept that as explanation, then please tell me what sort
of "explanation" you would accept for the fact that the length of a
meter stick remains 1 meter no matter how it is oriented?
The constancy of the speed of light is isomorphic to that, and c
as a speed limit for timelike objects inevitably follows.
> It does not give a causal explanation
> for gravity and gravitational time dilation.
Because in GR these are _geometrical_ effects, not physical ones. You
attempt to restrict the universe to conform to your personal predjudices,
and then complain when modern physical theories do not conform to them.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Louis Savain
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@newscientist.net> wrote:
>
> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7ul1es$hj8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > They can model it as much as they want but it's still rank
> > superstition and it does not belong in science. Crackpottery
> >in high places!
>
> You seem to have drifted from the original topic but never mind. Your
> remark is still relevant: the whole EPR paradox is "crackpottery"!
I may disagree with the modeling of space as if it were a physical
entity with a priori physical properties, but that does not mean I
reject QT altogether. We seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum
when it comes to quantum entanglement.
> In case anyone really wants to know, what it amounts to is that back
> in 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen wrote this paper showing that
> quantum theory made some impossible predictions. By the time anyone
> came near to being able to test them (the late 1960's) QT was well
> entrenched and had become used to using its own logic. That logic
> seems to have said, among other things, that if you couldn't disprove
> something experimentally it must be true, regardless of how
> impossible it seemed!
I could say the same thing to those who subscribe to exclusive
relativity and acausal motion but there is a flip side to this argument
that weakens it considerably: just because you think something is
impossible does not necessarily mean it is.
> Anyway, so far as I'm concerned, EPR proved that QT was impossible
> and they were right. However, the experiments couldn't prove QT
> wrong, but if you look at my web site you will find some of the
> reasons why. The experimenters had forgotten how to search for true
> causes of things! They did not dare explore alternative hypotheses
> to the full, as this would have meant challenging QT ideas on the
> existence of the photon, as well as the existence of "entanglement"
> and that action at a distance.
>
> So there is no "EPR paradox", only an EPR proof of the impossibility
> of QT being a true model of our world. Unfortunately Einstein
> himself believed in "photons", so he might have had difficulty in
> accepting my explanations of how the actual "Bell test" experiments
> work. Have a look for yourself, though, at my site. I've looked
> hard at the details of experiments such as Aspect's. In order to see
> what is going on, you need to look also at related experiments that
> are supposed to establish the particle nature of light. They don't.
>
> Caroline Thompson
Well I completely disagree. The so-called wave nature of light is a
sham, IMO. Ondulatory phenomena are *macroscopic* phenomena. As such
they could not possibly be part of the nature of light since the nature
of light forcibly resides in the realm of the microscopic. The problem
with waves is that they require the existence of continuous
structures. Let me come right out and say that I think continuity is
one of the most crackpotish concept ever invented by science. The
universe is discrete.
Having said that, I'll go ahead and take a close look at your ideas.
I'm not one to hold on to my erroneous views in the face of strong
evidence or arguments to the contrary. If I think your objections are
valid I'll be the first to switch sides. But I doubt very much that I
will. Quantum entanglement is in perfect agreement with my
understanding of nature. It is a direct concequence of the ONENESS of
the UNIverse, as the name implies.
Charles Francis
>. but, according to the principle of homogeneity, two clocks will give
>. the same unit of time if the physical processes in each are identical.
>
>... indicates that you _are_ unfamiliar with calibration procedures
>in general: how should be _determined whether_ or to which extent
>"physical processes in" of two distinct clocks are "identical"
>in the first place, especially while they're separated?
>
>Einstein's calibration procedure is a (and AFAIK the conventional)
>solution:
>
>"Pairs of events/states/clock_readings/proper_times of two observers
>correspond to each other (they are simultaneous) if they contain
>observations of the same light signals from the middle between
>those two observers".
>
for example the laws obeyed by the particles in an accelerator, it
appears to presume that we can arrange for a light source travelling at
'half' the speed of the particles. Even for a space-ship I do not see
how to apply it, in practice. I know you give a definition, but it begs
the question as to whether it is feasible to set up the auxiliary
observer, and whether the derived laws would be the same if it were not.
The definition I use, in terms of identical physical processes, is an
attempt to circumnavigate the issue (not ignore it), by relying on the
principle of homogeneity (laws everywhere the same) and psycho-physical
parallelism to assert that if we can examine and describe a clock
mechanically then we can also compare the mechanisms. An alternative
might be to bring the clocks together to calibrate them, then assert
from the principle of homogeneity that since they are self-contained
systems, they must continue to keep time in the same way when they are
separated and moving wrt each other. If I remember rightly Bondi did
something like that, but I was uncomfortable because I could not easily
describe how to accelerate a clock while being sure that its mechanism
was not put out of balance. I felt that much greater knowledge of
physics than I was assuming would be required to do that satisfactory.
>Note that the distance definition (on which we seem to agree)
>_requires completed_ calibration procedures already:
<snip, in agreement>
> it must be calibrated between
>those two observers in order to be mutually meaningful.
Yes, observers can carry out measurements individually, but not compare
them without first agreeing on calibration.
>
>
Thanks for the info on Synge & Malus
>
>
>Terms of the form "cos( angle )" can be found throughout many
>QM text books. If those terms weren't defined via Malus' procedure,
>then how else, if at all?
>
I have wondered. I don't find it easy to go from two dimensions to four.
>You seem to be making extensive use of "creation operators" and
>. the idea that particles of the same type are identical.
>
>Fine; but the question arises
>_how to determine whether or to which extent_
>particles are pairwise "of the same type" and/or "identical".
Yes, it is, at least in part, a metaphysical assumption that matter
reduces to a finite number of types of particles, and that particles of
the same type are identical (though I am not sure what else one can
reasonably assume). Mostly my paper is abstract, and avoids the issue of
how we actually determine that particles are identical. In this approach
I derive laws on the basis of a finite number of particle types and
later expect to identify particles empirically when it is observed that
they obey the same laws. So long as the observed particles are solutions
of the Dirac equation, or composites of solutions of the Dirac equation,
that should be adequate, but the actual procedures I leave to the
experimentalists.
>
>
>Further, since you mentioned that
>
>> > > My papers [...] describe the standard model
>
>I was a little disappointed that you didn't derive some of its main
>features: three spatial dimensions, three particle generations,
>spin 1/2 constituents. But without explicitly considering
>calibration procedures I wouldn't know how to derive those either.
>
I do not know how to derive three particle generations - do you have an
insight on that? Three space dimensions and spin half constituents seem
to come out of the requirement for a continuous equation into which the
solution of the discrete equation in any reference frame can be
embedded. I do not think I can improve on Dirac's original argument, as
it was presented in lectures. If I were able to write a text book, it
would obviously be included, but it does not seem suitable for an
already long pre-print. There is a great deal of work which has been
done on this by mathematical physicists, and I would have to do an
extensive literature search before saying anything about the
possibilities for other solutions in other dimensions.
I am not sure how calibration procedures would help in this context,
because for anything we do in practice, three dimensions are already
present, so it seems impossible to avoid taking three dimensions as an
assumption. But we do already have a requirement of Lorentz covariance
(which is independent of dimension) and satisfying it in a simple manner
seems to require 3 dimensions and spin.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Charles Francis
scientist.net> writes
>
>So there is no "EPR paradox", only an EPR proof of the impossibility of QT
>being a true model of our world.
This is true in so far as qt is not a description of the world. A ket,
or 'state' in quantum does not *describe* an actual state or matter, it
is simply a label for the result of a measurement. Measurement results
are not sufficient to describe the ontological properties or matter.
It is false in so far as the laws of quantum mechanics make correct
statistical predictions about relationships between fore and after
measurements. Quantum mechanics might be seen as a calculus for
predictions of measurement results, not as a model of reality.
To illustrate the point, since quantum mechanics is a naming system for
states which are directly or indirectly measured, the entanglement which
appears in the EPR paradox is merely an entanglement of names, not
evidence of ontological entanglement.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
c.h.thompson
Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IJVxBNAt...@clef.demon.co.uk...
> In article <38120...@news2.vip.uk.com>, c.h.thompson <c.h.thompson@new
> scientist.net> writes
> >
> >So there is no "EPR paradox", only an EPR proof of the impossibility of
QT
> >being a true model of our world.
>
> This is true in so far as qt is not a description of the world.
>
> It is false in so far as the laws of quantum mechanics make correct
statistical predictions about > relationships between fore and after
measurements. Quantum mechanics might be seen as a
> calculus for predictions of measurement results, not as a model of
reality.
But that's the point! It does NOT, in the case of "nonlocal entanglement"
give "correct" predictions! This impression is the result of most unnatural
and, if I may say so, unscientific, interpretation of the evidence. QT
predicts that even in perfect conditions Bell's inequality would be
violated, but this has never been proved. Since to violate this inequality
is impossible (in these conditions) the only logical thing to do is to
believe that QT will fail in a rigorous test. It is NOT a perfect theory!
It is not hard to show why it gives correct statistical predictions in many
cases, but it gives a wrong one for EPR experiments. The real experiments
show no sign of the nonlocality that MUST be there according to QT.
Again, please do look at my web site (http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat). The
powers that be have been keeping very quiet about the alternative, local
realist, explanations of the results. They have also played down the known
experimental faults, such as the totally unjustifiable data adjustment that
is made in many experiments before analysis. They have ignored the fact
that the "visibility" ((max-min)/(max+min)) of a coincidence curve is the
most unreliable statistic you can imagine, given that the recorded "min"
depends on the way the experimenter sets his detectors! (I've nearly
finished a new paper on this, but there are several useful old ones on my
site.)
> To illustrate the point, since quantum mechanics is a naming system for
> states which are directly or indirectly measured, the entanglement which
> appears in the EPR paradox is merely an entanglement of names, not
> evidence of ontological entanglement.
No, it is more than this. You seem to have learned a certain amount of
double-think!
Bell's inequality, I repeat, cannot be infringed in a real perfect
experiment, and a theory that predicts that it can is illogical if you
accept that, to be logical, it has to be compatible with the law of cause
and effect. A logical theory cannot, in my view, allow instantaneous action
at a distance. There is absolutely no evidence in our universe that this
ever happens. You can have "nonlocal effects", agreed, but there is no
evidence that these are ever due to distant causes AT THE PRESENT INSTANT.
They are due to the effect of distant events that happened at some finite
time in the past.
Incidentally, I'm glad to see you have found you audience!
Caroline
<http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat>
Tom Roberts
> I was uncomfortable because I could not easily
> describe how to accelerate a clock while being sure that its mechanism
> was not put out of balance. I felt that much greater knowledge of
> physics than I was assuming would be required to do that satisfactory.
This is physics, and one should _MEASURE_ how accelerations affect the
operation of the clocks. Bailey et al did this for the "clocks" inside
muons, and found them unaffected by their acceleration of ~10^18 g.
Hewlett-Packard does this for their commercial atomic clocks, and IIRC
they specify that the clocks maintain their accuracy for accelerations
up to 0.5 g (or so) -- sufficient for Haefle and Keating and similar
experiments.
> Yes, it is, at least in part, a metaphysical assumption that matter
> reduces to a finite number of types of particles, and that particles of
> the same type are identical (though I am not sure what else one can
> reasonably assume).
Again, one can _MEASURE_ how identical particles are. We observe discrete
classes of particles which are indistinguishable within each class. But
these classes do not appear to be fundamental (e.g. U-238 does not seem
as fundamental as does an electron). And, of course, indistinguishability
is an important aspect of quantum mechanics; the resounding success of QM
gives support to the assumption of indistinguishability. But this is at a
different level than you seem to be trying to approach....
Bottom line: make your assumptions (indistinguishability, etc.) and derive
a theory from them, and compare to experiments. Let the chips fall where
the measurements dictate. This is called science.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Louis Savain
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@newscientist.net> wrote:
>[snip]
> A logical theory cannot, in my view, allow instantaneous action at a
> distance. There is absolutely no evidence in our universe that this
> ever happens.
And you are absolutely right in this regard but it does not
invalidate nonlocality. Quantum entanglement requires no distance (and
no propagation) whatsoever. Why? Because there really is no distance
(space) between particles. Distance is an entirely abstract concept
that has no ontological existence of its own. If distance existed
physically then you would be right in your criticism. So by assuming
distance a priori, you have trapped yourself in a quandary of your own
making. When was the last time you or anyone else proved the physical
existence of distance? Why make the assumption in the first place?
> You can have "nonlocal effects", agreed, but there is no evidence
> that these are ever due to distant causes AT THE PRESENT INSTANT.
> They are due to the effect of distant events that happened at some
> finite time in the past.
This is not an example of a nonlocal effect. There is no elapsed
time in quantum entanglement. The two phenomena that make up
entanglement are part and parcel of the same effect. One does not
cause each other. On the contrary, they constitute a single effect
resulting from a separate physical cause. IOW, there is no causal link
between a change in the spin of one particle and that of the other.
The link is between a change in the entangled opposite spins of two
particles (the effect) and whatever physical interaction caused the
change.
Charles Francis
<tjro...@lucent.com> writes
>Charles Francis wrote:
>> I was uncomfortable because I could not easily
>> describe how to accelerate a clock while being sure that its mechanism
>> was not put out of balance. I felt that much greater knowledge of
>> physics than I was assuming would be required to do that satisfactory.
>
>operation of the clocks. Bailey et al did this for the "clocks" inside
>muons, and found them unaffected by their acceleration of ~10^18 g.
>Hewlett-Packard does this for their commercial atomic clocks, and IIRC
>they specify that the clocks maintain their accuracy for accelerations
>up to 0.5 g (or so) -- sufficient for Haefle and Keating and similar
>experiments.
>
>
>> reduces to a finite number of types of particles, and that particles of
>> the same type are identical (though I am not sure what else one can
>> reasonably assume).
>
>classes of particles which are indistinguishable within each class. But
>these classes do not appear to be fundamental (e.g. U-238 does not seem
>as fundamental as does an electron). And, of course, indistinguishability
>is an important aspect of quantum mechanics; the resounding success of QM
>gives support to the assumption of indistinguishability. But this is at a
>different level than you seem to be trying to approach....
>
find it a simple intuitive idea in concept. That is what my argument
relies on.
>Bottom line: make your assumptions (indistinguishability, etc.) and derive
>a theory from them, and compare to experiments. Let the chips fall where
>the measurements dictate. This is called science.
>
Absolutely.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Charles Francis
Nice to hear from you.
In article <3812d...@news1.vip.uk.com>, c.h.thompson <c.h.thompson@new
scientist.net> writes
>
>But that's the point! It does NOT, in the case of "nonlocal entanglement"
>give "correct" predictions! This impression is the result of most unnatural
>and, if I may say so, unscientific, interpretation of the evidence. QT
>predicts that even in perfect conditions Bell's inequality would be
>violated, but this has never been proved. Since to violate this inequality
>is impossible (in these conditions) the only logical thing to do is to
>believe that QT will fail in a rigorous test. It is NOT a perfect theory!
>It is not hard to show why it gives correct statistical predictions in many
>cases, but it gives a wrong one for EPR experiments. The real experiments
>show no sign of the nonlocality that MUST be there according to QT.
While I have every mistrust of experimental procedures, QT is not really
the non-local theory it appears. Locality is a very firm principle in
relativistic quantum electrodynamics, which subsumes QT and is the most
accurate physical theory ever devised.
>
>Again, please do look at my web site (http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat).
I have looked at it, and at your papers. It does not surprise me that
they will not look properly at your papers, which appear to be solid
pieces of work, properly rooted in statistical analysis and worthy of
serious consideration. Peer review is a sham.
>> To illustrate the point, since quantum mechanics is a naming system for
>> states which are directly or indirectly measured, the entanglement which
>> appears in the EPR paradox is merely an entanglement of names, not
>> evidence of ontological entanglement.
>
>No, it is more than this.
There is obviously more to it if you want everything expressed
rigorously and logically within the ket notation. But in essence that is
it. Have you looked at my papers?
>You seem to have learned a certain amount of
>double-think!
I do not think double-think is not prohibited from my thinking. What I
do allow, however, is many valued logic - the recognition that language
is inherently inaccurate and misleading, the quantification of
uncertainty, the use of mathematical reasoning on the basis of
that quantification.
>Bell's inequality, I repeat, cannot be infringed in a real perfect
>experiment, and a theory that predicts that it can is illogical if you
>accept that, to be logical, it has to be compatible with the law of cause
>and effect. A logical theory cannot, in my view, allow instantaneous action
>at a distance. There is absolutely no evidence in our universe that this
>ever happens. You can have "nonlocal effects", agreed, but there is no
>evidence that these are ever due to distant causes AT THE PRESENT INSTANT.
>They are due to the effect of distant events that happened at some finite
>time in the past.
>
Bell's inequality does not show the existence of non-local effects. It
may show the existence of some backwards in time causality, but that is
not clear. The spins of the particles in are causally related at the
time of their emission, but the meaning of spin is its experimental
determination, and that is also dependent upon the environment. Of its
nature the environment is non-local.
Just to recap, the Bell's theorem predictions are also be made by qed,
and qed is very clear about the absence of physical effects outside the
light cone.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Louis Savain
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> Louis Savain wrote:
> > The standard model does not explain why no
> > particle can go faster than c.
>
> Sure it does: The standard model is locally Lorentz invariant.
Lorentz invariance is not a causal explanation. It is an observed
effect. Are you feigning not to know the diference between cause and
effect? Or are you just stupid?
> If you don't accept that as explanation, then please tell me what sort
> of "explanation" you would accept for the fact that the length of a
> meter stick remains 1 meter no matter how it is oriented?
An explanation involving physical interactions between particles
would be nice, which said interactions depend on the postulated
intrinsic properties of said particles.
>[snip]
> > It does not give a causal explanation
> > for gravity and gravitational time dilation.
>
> Because in GR these are _geometrical_ effects, not physical ones.
Let's see now. We have a physical phenomenon (gravity) and you are
telling the world with a straight face that it is caused by non-
physical phenomena? You pompous asses in the physics community must
really believe that you have huevos the size of planets, don't you?
How else can one explain the blatant in-your-face nature of your
crackpottery? Well I've got news for you: your huevos are microscopic
and they're all in your minds! Besides, the context of this discussion
is QT not GR. But no matter, GR gives even less of a causal
explanation of gravity than QT: doodly squat! GR has nothing to say
about particles, their intrinsics properties and their interactions.
So how can it possibly explain what's going on in terms of causes and
effects? Did you learn to be this dumb or were you born that way?
> You
> attempt to restrict the universe to conform to your personal
> predjudices, and then complain when modern physical theories do not
> conform to them.
You are a first class idiot, Roberts. If you (and Nathan Urban and
all the other so-called "physicists" who post here) are what physicists
are supposed to be after years of brainwashing by other pompous idiots,
I pity the physics community. You are a joke. And it ain't that funny.
Louis Savain
-A short list of crackpottery, courtesy of the physics community:
Exclusive relativity
Acausal motion
The a priori existence of space
Worm holes
Advanced and retarded waves
Motion in spacetime along geodesics
Spacetime geometry is a causal explanation of gravity (my favorite so
far)
Louis Savain
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
>[I have to interject here]
>[snip]
> Bell's inequality does not show the existence of non-local effects. It
> may show the existence of some backwards in time causality, but that
> is not clear.
I take it that you are referring to so-called retarded waves in
spacetime. 'Unclear' is not the word here; 'superstition' is more like
it. Time travel (which would be required for anything to move backward
or forward in time) has no place in science. Nothing moves in
spacetime (deny at your own detriment) period. Non-local effects have
nothing to do with a temporal dimension (a physical time dimension is
nonsense). Non-locality is a manifestation of the non-spatiality of
the universe.
Having said that, I should point out that you are making the same
mistake that everyone seems to make regarding quantum entanglement.
You assume that there is a causal link between entangled particles and
that a change in one *causes* a change in the other. This is false.
Both changes are facets of single effect which is caused by a separate
interaction. Certainly one of the changes (does not matter which one)
is co-local with the interaction but the other is not. Quantum
entanglement is due to conservation principles at work.
Louis Savain
c.h.thompson
No, I haven't seen your site, but what's its address? I did try and follow
that paper you showed me ...
What you say about QED and locality is interesting. It's what I suspected,
except that I had higher expectations of the consistency of the theory! I
had an idea that if the rules of QED were applied carefully it would be
found that the prediction of violations of Bell's inequalities would not be
made.
Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BcVxnMAH...@clef.demon.co.uk...
> While I have every mistrust of experimental procedures, QT is not really
> the non-local theory it appears. Locality is a very firm principle in
> relativistic quantum electrodynamics, which subsumes QT and is the most
> accurate physical theory ever devised.
But if it (QED) makes the same prediction for EPR experiments as QT does it
must have inbuilt bias! I'm afraid that, to me, this is a fact and means
that my scepticism about QT must extend to QED.
> >Again, please do look at my web site (http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat).
>
> I have looked at it, and at your papers. It does not surprise me that
> they will not look properly at your papers, which appear to be solid
> pieces of work, properly rooted in statistical analysis and worthy of
> serious consideration. Peer review is a sham.
Many thanks for this support. I've just butted into Jim Carr's discussion
in another thread ("Exactly what math did Bell use ...") and experience a
couple of years ago leads me to expect a fight there. Care to join us?
> >You seem to have learned a certain amount of double-think!
>
> I do not think double-think is not prohibited from my thinking. What I
> do allow, however, is many valued logic - the recognition that language
> is inherently inaccurate and misleading,
Agreed - it is very difficult sometimes to be unambiguous - but maths is
supposed to be different. The kind of maths I did at school and in a maths
degree course was totally rigorous. Unfortunately the so-called
mathematical theories of physics are only part maths. The other parts are
assumptions and approximations. When you approximate it can make a
difference in which order you do things. Nancy Cartwright has some
interesting examples of this in "How the Laws of Physics Lie" (Clarendon
Press 1983).
> Bell's inequality does not show the existence of non-local effects. It
> may show the existence of some backwards in time causality
What's the difference?
> The spins of the particles in are causally related at the
> time of their emission, but the meaning of spin is its experimental
> determination, and that is also dependent upon the environment. Of its
> nature the environment is non-local.
A prime example of what you were just saying about the inadequacy of
language! You are using "nonlocal" here to mean just the ordinary fact that
events are influenced by distant ones via the environment. This is like the
woman working in meteorology who wrote to me thinking her work on the
butterfly effect etc was in some way similar to mine, both involving
nonlocality. I assured her there was a major difference. The kind of
nonlocality involved in Bell test violations is the kind that involves
instantaneous action over indefinitely long distances, or backwards
causality or negative probabilities or perhaps other species of absurdity.
Caroline
<http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat>
Charles Francis
scientist.net> writes
>Hi Charles
>
>No, I haven't seen your site, but what's its address?
I've put my papers under the sig. As a mathematician and statistician
you may be interested in
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909047
A Model of Classical and Quantum Measurement
This aims to show why the conventional laws of probability would not be
expected to hold in certain types of structure, namely if measurement is
simply the production of a number within the structure, as opposed from
the measurement of a pre-existent quantity.
>What you say about QED and locality is interesting. It's what I suspected,
>except that I had higher expectations of the consistency of the theory! I
>had an idea that if the rules of QED were applied carefully it would be
>found that the prediction of violations of Bell's inequalities would not be
>made.
It is far more subtle that than. I can construct the equations of QED by
assuming that any background space does not influence the actual results
of measurement. The net effect is that a local theory is compatible with
quantum mechanics and violates the Bell inequalities.
>
>Many thanks for this support. I've just butted into Jim Carr's discussion
>in another thread ("Exactly what math did Bell use ...") and experience a
>couple of years ago leads me to expect a fight there. Care to join us?
I shall see if there is anything I can pick up on.
>
>> >You seem to have learned a certain amount of double-think!
>>
>> I do not think double-think is not prohibited from my thinking. What I
>> do allow, however, is many valued logic - the recognition that language
>> is inherently inaccurate and misleading,
>
>Agreed - it is very difficult sometimes to be unambiguous - but maths is
>supposed to be different. The kind of maths I did at school and in a maths
>degree course was totally rigorous.
Many valued logic is completely rigorous mathematics. I spent years
thinking it was trivial or not relevant, but now I find the idea
stunning, especially in its application to quantum logic. It is actually
much more than fuzzy logic, that I was using to try and describe the
ideas.
> Unfortunately the so-called
>mathematical theories of physics are only part maths. The other parts are
>assumptions and approximations. When you approximate it can make a
>difference in which order you do things.
Yes. Physics has always depended on approximation, and approximation and
inaccurate language is built into the culture. But the empirical
evidence of quantum mechanics can only be understood by being
pedantically accurate about the philosophy of physics, and physicists
can't resolve it within their own discipline.
>> Bell's inequality does not show the existence of non-local effects. It
>> may show the existence of some backwards in time causality
>
>What's the difference?
>
>> The spins of the particles in are causally related at the
>> time of their emission, but the meaning of spin is its experimental
>> determination, and that is also dependent upon the environment. Of its
>> nature the environment is non-local.
>
>A prime example of what you were just saying about the inadequacy of
>language! You are using "nonlocal" here to mean just the ordinary fact that
>events are influenced by distant ones via the environment. This is like the
>woman working in meteorology who wrote to me thinking her work on the
>butterfly effect etc was in some way similar to mine, both involving
>nonlocality. I assured her there was a major difference. The kind of
>nonlocality involved in Bell test violations is the kind that involves
>instantaneous action over indefinitely long distances, or backwards
>causality or negative probabilities or perhaps other species of absurdity.
>
It is the difference between environment in space, and environment in
space and time. Because we must consider environment in space and time
it does not require instantaneous action over a distance - a concept I
wholely reject. The point is that spin is not properly defined as a
property of a particle in isolation, but only exists when the particle
interacts with the environment. Thus the word spin evokes the
environment and a non-local description. When we apply it to the
particle we are speaking inaccurately. Within a non-local description it
appears as though something has been transmitted instantaneously, but
that is a function of the inaccuracy of language, not an ontological
property of matter.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909047
A Model of Classical and Quantum Measurement
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909048
Conceptual Foundations of Special and General Relativity
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051
A Pre-Geometric Model Exhibiting Physical Law
Charles Francis
deja.com> writes
>I should point out that you are making the same
>mistake that everyone seems to make regarding quantum entanglement.
>You assume that there is a causal link between entangled particles and
>that a change in one *causes* a change in the other. This is false.
>Both changes are facets of single effect which is caused by a separate
>interaction. Certainly one of the changes (does not matter which one)
>is co-local with the interaction but the other is not.
Entanglement is to do with what we can say about particles, not what
they are. A change in what we can say causes a change in what we can say
about the other, that is quite distinct from a causal link. In the case
of Bell's theorem there is a bit more to it. Changing one measurement
affects the results of the other, although the effect cannot be detected
until after bringing both sets of results together.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
z@z
I find your site http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/ very interesting.
The work showing the "loopholes", adjustments and hypotheses
the "results" of modern QM experiments are based on is highly
important.
You write in http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Tangled/tangled.html
"As a statistician, I was taught that you should always
present sufficient information so that readers could check
the significance of the results for themselves. This means
that all assumptions should be clearly stated, together with
discussion of their importance and what attempts have been
made to check their validity. In order to assess the EPR
experiments, one also really needs to know what happened
when parameters were set differently.
Now, in a subject such as particle physics, I fully understand
that this is not feasible in a published paper, as there is
simply too much data, but in these "entanglement" experiments
there is relatively little. At the very least, supplementary
information should be available on request, but some should be
in the original report. It is clearly bad practice to publish
adjusted data without making clear both the assumptions behind
the adjustment and its size. In the case of a major adjustment,
it would not go amiss to publish the effect on the final test
statistic!"
How right you are! I suppose that you don't believe in all
"results" of particle physics too, because they rely on even
more adjustments and ad-hoc-hypotheses than these "entanglement"
experiments. It would be worth to extend your work to particle
physics. I'm not even sure whether I shall believe in neutrinos
or not.
But I certainly do believe in photons.
"Spacial extension of photons can be defined at least
probabilistically. Photons are neither material points nor
waves. They have more reality and their behaviour is more
complex than assumed by quantum mechanics. As mathematical
formulae do not precede reality, there is no need to assume
that all properties of photons can be described completely
by simple formulae. The spacial extension of photons can
depend on several factors (e.g. on frequency, density of
photons). Photons tend to appear and travel in groups. For
circular polarisation at least two photons travelling together
are needed. One must distinguish between interfence of a
photon with itself and interference between photons. Actions
at a distance can explain conservation of energy in all cases
of interference. If a balloon filled with an incompressible
liquid is compressed at one position, it expands at the same
time at another postion."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a07
There is a huge difference between "common sense" actions at a
distance and "spooky" EPR actions.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=538880440
In http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Tangled/supp_A.html you write:
"The quantum theory idea is that individual atoms emit light
as they change energy levels, and Einstein's formalism of this
assumed that they all act independently. There is now a great
deal of evidence that this is not always so, yet the
experimenters drifted into making this a standard assumption.
If the emissions were independent, then they could justify the
practice of adjusting their data by the "subtraction of
accidentals". So far as the "visibility" test is concerned,
the adjustment is simply a matter of subtracting a constant
from every term, and it is a simple fact of algebra that this
will increase the value."
Einstein has published in 1917 a work (Quantentheorie der
Strahlung, Phys. Zeitschrift, 18) showing that Planck's
radiation formula can be derived under the assumption that
radiation increases not only the probability of absorption
but also of emission of photons of the same frequency.
"Induced emission" of photons of the same frequency, phase,
polarisation and direction is a fundamental principle of lasers.
So I'm surprised that the "standard assumption" is independent
emission.
In any case, I think that each photon has a given polarisation
direction and each electron a given spin direction. The simplest
assumptions are always the best and I see no reason at all why
I should believe in the strange and complicated assumptions of
QM concerning polarisation and spin. The whole EPR debate results
only from the unwillingness of the fathers of QM (especially Bohr
and Heisenberg) to admit that their mathematical formalisations
of the then known "quantum" facts were simply wrong.
Cheers, Wolfgang
Wolfgang Gottfried G.
Liechtenstein, Europe
Frank Wappler
> Frank Wappler [wrote:]
> > "Pairs of events/states/clock_readings/proper_times of two observers
> > correspond to each other (they are simultaneous) if they contain
> > observations of the same light signals from the middle between
> > those two observers".
> > [... "the middle between" a given pair of observers, A and B,
> > trial by trial, may be identified as the (auxiliary) observer
> > (or observer system) who satisfies the following requirements:
> > - "the middle" must find the light signal roundtrip interval
> > to A (and back) same as to B (and back);
> > - A must find two roundtrips to "the middle" same as one to B;
> > - B must find two roundtrips to "the middle" same as one to A;
> > (one can formulate additional requirements, involving additional
> > auxiliary observers).]
> [...] I do not see how to apply it, in practice.
In practice, one derives measurements from the observations
which one has actually collected; and one may consider which
measurements _could have_ been derived if the (additional)
corresponding observations _had been_ collected; or may only
become available later; or will be collected when another trial
is being conducted and another measurement will be obtained.
> it begs the question as to whether it is feasible to set up
> the auxiliary observer
That's indeed a big drawback of Einstein's procedure:
it can _fail_ for many pairs, in many trials, to yield any definite
result (besides the implied result _that_ calibration failed, in
this trial, for this pair; that "they moved wrt. each other").
However, since the procedure at least succeeds for pairs who determine
(even only momentary) zero roundtrip intervals and zero distance
wrt. each other (in which case either one constitutes "the middle"),
it still allows measure certain (secondary) coordinate relations,
although only through the introduction of even more auxiliary
observers: the "frames" of the various participants.
> and whether the derived laws would be the same if it were not.
The same as - what else?
Different measurement procedures surely can yield different results
from the same set of observations/data; and different results, trial by
trial, can surely be summarized by different algorithms/theories/laws.
Important is that the measurement procedures are _reproducible_,
i.e. that their results can be unambiguously communicated and
understood and agreed upon by all observers, at least in principle.
Then they can meaningfully _compare_ their individual results,
even if their values happen to be different; and they can summarize
them together by the same (or equivalent) algorithms/theories/laws.
Consider "distances by car, in Manhattan", of A and B wrt. each other.
Distance from A to B is not necessarily equal to distance from B to A,
but both should be able to determine and agree on both values,
using the same procedure.
> The definition I use, in terms of identical physical processes,
> is an attempt to circumnavigate the issue (not ignore it),
> by relying on the principle of homogeneity (laws everywhere the same)
I reject this assumption.
One may formulate reproducible measurement procedures which may allow
all observers to _find out_ whether or not or to which extent
their results are equal, trial by trial.
But the results may not be equal, and consequently the laws which
summarize them may not satisfy homogeneity.
(Obvious example: _I_ am writing this post, not _you_.)
> observers can carry out measurements individually,
> but not compare them without first agreeing on calibration.
I wouldn't call their results "measurements" otherwise,
but their individual "assertions/observations/statements".
Calibration is the essential and difficult step.
And of course: what has been done in one trial
might as well be attempted in the next, too.
> Three space dimensions and spin half constituents seem to come
> out of the requirement for a continuous equation into which the
> solution of the discrete equation in any reference frame can be
> embedded. I do not think I can improve on Dirac's original argument,
> as it was presented in lectures.
I don't think that I know of the arguments you mention,
can you please give a reference?
However, with regards to the spin 1/2 "problem" I very much like
the following argument which is also due to Dirac, AFAIK:
Someone who's singly connected to someone else is identically
transformed only under a rotation of 4Pi.
This ties in nicely with the description of observers who determine
their coordinate relations pairwise with each other, being thereby
singly connected with each other. (Wrt. Einstein's procedure above,
consider "the middle" as being "lined up along the connection".)
A 3D argument derives from the most general calibration procedure
which I know ("minimal calibration"):
Two exchange signals, the roundtrip intervals can be derived by both:
"Aq_sees_B3_seeing/echoing_Ak" and "Az_sees_B7_seeing/echoing_Aq"
are two measured values of roundtrip function a: { A } --> { A },
but they give A also a value of b: { B } --> { B },
namely b( B7 ) = B3.
Having obtained both roundtrip functions, a and b, (except for
a few states at the beginning and at the end of the exchange),
both can solve for the calibration function f: { B } <--> { A },
through a f = f b (the "calibration equation").
Now, for every solution f, the operator a^r f b^s is a solution as well.
That's a class of solutions in terms of two independent real parameters,
r and s.
Through f they can express distances (individually, in terms of
intervals between their own states), e.g.
distance_A_B( ) == c {Aq_sees_B3, f( B3 )}
== c { f^-1( Aq_sees_B3 ), B3 }.
As with f above, they obtain a class of distances in terms of the
two independent real parameters r and s.
There will be a "shortest distance", by some measure, for certain
values of r and s; and varying r and s independently wrt. those
is "stretching" the distance - that's a distance in 3D space.
> I do not know how to derive three particle generations -
> do you have an insight on that?
AFAIK, the evolution of particle configurations (from a, "before",
to b, "after") can be described by a calibration equation as above
(though in this context it's called an "intertwiner equation").
Then why not make the same argument, for a suitable notion of
pairwise "distance".
Frank Wappler
> This is physics, and one should _MEASURE_ how accelerations
> affect the operation of the clocks.
This is physics, and if one demands that the effect of
accelerations on the operation of the clocks be _MEASURED_
then one should first of all specify _HOW and wrt. to WHOM_
"acceleration" and "operation" of the clock are to be determined.
> Bailey et al did this for the "clocks" inside muons,
> and found them unaffected by their acceleration of ~10^18 g.
Did Bailey et. al.'s find (Nature 268, 301, '77)
involve measurements of pairwise coordinate relations?
Which measurement procedures did they conduct, or assume?
What do the symbols "s" and "m" mean in the statement of
their result and their description of the experimental setup?
Did they determine the temperature and the flux of neutrinos
in their apparatus, throughout their experiment?
> Hewlett-Packard does this for their commercial atomic clocks,
> and IIRC they specify that the clocks maintain their accuracy
> for accelerations up to 0.5 g (or so)
(Down-to-earth users who consider applications in 1g or so -
read the fine-print! :)
> -- sufficient for Haefle and Keating and similar experiments.
Btw., did Haefle and Keating determine "the mass of earth",
throughout their experiment?
> one can _MEASURE_ how identical particles are.
Which procedures do you suggest to obtain those measurements?
Are those procedures unambiguously reproducible?,
and the results unambiguously understandable?
> Bottom line: make your assumptions (indistinguishability, etc.)
> and derive a theory from them, and compare to experiments.
> Let the chips fall where the measurements dictate.
Your chips have already slipped away through a huge hole:
Instead, the firm bottom line in physics is to set up, conduct and
analyze experiments, and to compare the measured results.
Regards, Frank W ~@) R
Charles Francis
deja.com> writes
>In article <3812d...@news1.vip.uk.com>,
> "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@newscientist.net> wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>> A logical theory cannot, in my view, allow instantaneous action at a
>> distance. There is absolutely no evidence in our universe that this
>> ever happens.
>
>invalidate nonlocality. Quantum entanglement requires no distance (and
>no propagation) whatsoever. Why? Because there really is no distance
>(space) between particles. Distance is an entirely abstract concept
>that has no ontological existence of its own. If distance existed
>physically then you would be right in your criticism. So by assuming
>distance a priori, you have trapped yourself in a quandary of your own
>making. When was the last time you or anyone else proved the physical
>existence of distance? Why make the assumption in the first place?
>
>> that these are ever due to distant causes AT THE PRESENT INSTANT.
>> They are due to the effect of distant events that happened at some
>> finite time in the past.
>
>time in quantum entanglement. The two phenomena that make up
>entanglement are part and parcel of the same effect. One does not
>cause each other. On the contrary, they constitute a single effect
>resulting from a separate physical cause. IOW, there is no causal link
>between a change in the spin of one particle and that of the other.
>The link is between a change in the entangled opposite spins of two
>particles (the effect) and whatever physical interaction caused the
>change.
>
change in orientation of one measuring apparatus alters the results
obtained at the other, without suggesting that changing the orientation
of the detection of the photon must have changed the orientation of its
prior emission?
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Charles Francis
<fw7...@csc.albany.edu> writes
>> [...] I do not see how to apply it, in practice.
>
>In practice, one derives measurements from the observations
>which one has actually collected; and one may consider which
>measurements _could have_ been derived if the (additional)
>corresponding observations _had been_ collected; or may only
>become available later; or will be collected when another trial
>is being conducted and another measurement will be obtained.
I accept the principle, but I think this principle applies to other
simpler ways of establishing calibration, and I believe the analysis of
the mechanics of a clock is one such way. If this principle is accepted
then I think it unifies all the different (valid) methods of
callibration, ensuring that they do, in fact give the same results.
>
>> The definition I use, in terms of identical physical processes,
>> is an attempt to circumnavigate the issue (not ignore it),
>> by relying on the principle of homogeneity (laws everywhere the same)
>
>I reject this assumption.
>One may formulate reproducible measurement procedures which may allow
>all observers to _find out_ whether or not or to which extent
>their results are equal, trial by trial.
>But the results may not be equal, and consequently the laws which
>summarize them may not satisfy homogeneity.
>(Obvious example: _I_ am writing this post, not _you_.)
>
Individual circumstance do not amount to changes in fundamental laws. If
we were to obtain radio contact with a scientifically advanced alien
culture, we could both describe atomic structure and the periodic table
of the elements, and we could describe a standard ruler in terms of the
structure of matter. That would be a callibration procedure which would
enable further communication.
>
>> Three space dimensions and spin half constituents seem to come
>> out of the requirement for a continuous equation into which the
>> solution of the discrete equation in any reference frame can be
>> embedded. I do not think I can improve on Dirac's original argument,
>> as it was presented in lectures.
>
>I don't think that I know of the arguments you mention,
>can you please give a reference?
Dirac felt that time evolution in quantum mechanics must be determined
by a covariant first order differential equation. The simplest non-
trivial equation is the Dirac equation, and requires three space-
dimensions and spin. As I recall this is essentially the content of his
1928 paper. The string theorists seem to play with equations in higher
dimensions, but I cannot regard them as physical.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
DJMenCk
>experiment, and a theory that predicts that it can is illogical if you
>accept that, to be logical, it has to be compatible with the law of cause
>at a distance. There is absolutely no evidence in our universe that this
>evidence that these are ever due to distant causes AT THE PRESENT INSTANT.
>They are due to the effect of distant events that happened at some finite
>time in the past.
Dennis: Your arguments on your website are very interesting and seem well
supported. Although I happen to be even more radical in my argument for local
realism (I don't believe in non-local effects without an intervening material
medium) than you, I wish you luck in getting more attention for the loopholes
you seem to have uncovered.
--Dennis McCarthy
c.h.thompson
> In article <3812d...@news1.vip.uk.com>,
> "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@newscientist.net> wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> > distance. There is absolutely no evidence in our universe that this
> > ever happens.
>
> invalidate nonlocality. Quantum entanglement requires no distance (and
> no propagation) whatsoever. Why? Because there really is no distance
> (space) between particles. Distance is an entirely abstract concept
> that has no ontological existence of its own. If distance existed
> physically then you would be right in your criticism. So by assuming
> distance a priori, you have trapped yourself in a quandary of your own
> making.
Christ almighty Louis! Which universe do inhabit? I fear that you just
like playing with semantics and somewhere way back along the line lost sight
of physics.
Cheers
Caroline
c.h.thompson
> > "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@newscientist.net> wrote:
> >
> >>[snip]
> >> A logical theory cannot, in my view, allow instantaneous action at a
> >> distance. There is absolutely no evidence in our universe that this
> >> ever happens.
Louis:
> > And you are absolutely right in this regard but it does not
> >invalidate nonlocality. Quantum entanglement requires no distance (and
> >no propagation) whatsoever.
[snip]
> >The link is between a change in the entangled opposite spins of two
> >particles (the effect) and whatever physical interaction caused the
> >change.
Charles:
> You are right, Louis,
How can you say this, Charles? He's talking utter rubbish - I think. If he
means what I think he means, then he's inventing this physical interaction,
as in reality the "spins" don't change after emission. He can't altogether
be blamed as he has evidently been told that those experiments really do
demonstrate quantum entanglement, but all the same. Shouldn't any sane
person query the evidence rather than invent an impossible world?
Or have I totally misunderstood him?
Caroline
Louis Savain
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@newscientist.net> wrote:
>
> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7uvejj$j5e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@newscientist.net> wrote:
> >
> > >[snip]
> > > A logical theory cannot, in my view, allow instantaneous action
> > > at a distance. There is absolutely no evidence in our universe
> > > that this ever happens.
> >
> > invalidate nonlocality. Quantum entanglement requires no distance
> > distance (space) between particles. Distance is an entirely
> > abstract concept that has no ontological existence of its own. If
> > distance existed physically then you would be right in your
> > criticism. So by assuming distance a priori, you have trapped
> > yourself in a quandary of your own making.
>
> Christ almighty Louis! Which universe do inhabit? I fear that you
> just like playing with semantics and somewhere way back along the
> line lost sight of physics.
On the contrary, I'm trying to open the eyes of a few to help them
see reality as it really is. Most will never see it and that's ok
with me. Your arguments against nonlocality basically hinge upon the
existence of space. If you are so sure that space exists physically
between particles, please answer this question:
If things that exist must exist somewhere in space and space is
something that exists, where in space does space exist?
Now you (and others) can hide your head in the sand and ignore the
undeniable fact that the concept of space is hopelessly circular, but
in the end you will not be the better for it. You can come up with all
sorts of rationalizations but you will loose. A new physics will have
emerged and passed you by without your notice. There's no stopping it.
Louis Savain
- The position of a particle is not a property of an extrinsic space
but the intrinsic property of the particle. Distance is but the
abstract vector difference between two such intrinsic properties.
Things do not exist in space. They just exist.
Tom Roberts
> In article <38125C6A...@lucent.com>,
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > Sure it does: The standard model is locally Lorentz invariant.
> Lorentz invariance is not a causal explanation. It is an observed
> effect. Are you feigning not to know the diference between cause and
> effect?
My point is: "cause and effect" are not relevant here.
And you failed to provide "cause and effect" for a similar situation:
> > If you don't accept that as explanation, then please tell me what sort
> > of "explanation" you would accept for the fact that the length of a
> > meter stick remains 1 meter no matter how it is oriented?
> An explanation involving physical interactions between particles
> would be nice, which said interactions depend on the postulated
> intrinsic properties of said particles.
"would be nice" implies you don't have an explanation. Why don't you
doubt this and insist people provide an explanation for this in the
same manner you do so for the constancy of c?
Note that an "explanation" along the lines of: "the inter-atomic
spacing of the atoms in the meter stick remain constant, independent
of orientation" is equally acausal -- this merely pushes the conundrum
from "meter stick" to "inter-atomic spacing", which is useless.
Bottom line: geometry affects physical systems in a non-causal manner.
Your search for a "cause" is doomed.
> Let's see now. We have a physical phenomenon (gravity) and you are
> telling the world with a straight face that it is caused by non-
> physical phenomena?
_YOU_ call gravity a "physical phenomenon", but provide no support for
that assertion. In GR it is best described as geometrical, as I said.
> GR has nothing to say
> about particles, their intrinsics properties and their interactions.
> So how can it possibly explain what's going on in terms of causes and
> effects?
GR does not use "causes and effects" to "explain" gravitation -- that's
_YOUR_ phrase. In GR, gravitation is geometrical (other interpretations
are possible).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Robert J. Kolker
Louis Savain wrote:
> no propagation) whatsoever. Why? Because there really is no distance
> (space) between particles. Distance is an entirely abstract concept
> that has no ontological existence of its own.
Could you tell that to the two ends of my meter stick which really do
exist. Honest.
Bob Kolker
c.h.thompson
> > > In article <3812d...@news1.vip.uk.com>,
> > > "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@newscientist.net> wrote:
> > > > A logical theory cannot, in my view, allow instantaneous action
> > > > at a distance. There is absolutely no evidence in our universe
> > > > that this ever happens.
Louis:
> > > ... by assuming distance a priori, you have trapped yourself in a
quandary ...
Caroline:
> > I fear that you just like playing with semantics and somewhere way back
along the
> > line lost sight of physics.
>
> On the contrary, I'm trying to open the eyes of a few to help them
> see reality as it really is. Most will never see it and that's ok
> with me. Your arguments against nonlocality basically hinge upon the
> existence of space. If you are so sure that space exists physically
> between particles, please answer this question:
>
> If things that exist must exist somewhere in space and space is
> something that exists, where in space does space exist?
I'm afraid I'm just not interested in these abstractions. My idea of what
physics about is that the whole point is that it should explain how
everything works. I want to understand the physics that allows us to
communicate like this! I want to know how superconductivity works, how
liquid helium is able to climb against gravity, how telescopes manage to
absorb enough energy to turn starlight from totally invisible sources into
images we can see ...
For these purposes it is surely legitimate to take the existence of space as
given?
> A new physics will have emerged and passed you by without your notice.
I don't think so. I think what you see as "new physics" is a rather absurd
fabrication of many human minds, all struggling to make sense of some
supposed facts that really are not facts at all. I'm talking, of course,
primarily about the "nonlocal" entanglements in the EPR experiments.
Sorry, Louis, but I think that you and a great many others have absorbed so
much quantum logic that you've forgotten what ordinary logic is!
Ordinary logic - including elementary probabiltiy theory - tells us that
Bell's inequality can't be violated, or not in a perfect experiment anyway.
To understand how it gets violated in real experiments, you look at the
details of those real experiments! You don't go waffling on about the
existence of space! This is just not relevant, since even if there were no
distance at all between the detectors the violation would still be
impossible. It is against the ordinary laws of probability theory, which
say that you multiply independent probabilities to get joint ones.
But a physicist should not really need to do this probability theory! It's
not physics. The whole thing is best forgotten - I don't feel that my
effort in getting to grips with it has helped my "physics" one iota! (It
has, however, taught me a great deal about human nature!)
Caroline
c.h.thompson
DJMenCk <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991025072424...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
> Your arguments on your website are very interesting and seem well
supported.
Thanks.
> Although I happen to be even more radical in my argument for local
> realism (I don't believe in non-local effects without an intervening
material
> medium) than you, I wish you luck in getting more attention for the
loopholes
> you seem to have uncovered.
I too believe in an intervening material medium, though I've recently spent
a lot of mental energy trying to understand various people's ideas as to its
nature. I believe we have every reason to assume the existence of an
aether. Personally, I think this aether is more like a liquid than anything
else, but I've had to shelve the question for the time being! It is, after
all, the ultimate question of physics.
Fortunately we can get quite a long way without knowing more than that it
exists, so that we can have a firm mental picture of light as a wave. I
feel that if Einstein had clung to this picture, he could not have invented
special relativity. If quantum theorists clung to it they couldn't so
calmly accept the possibility of nonlocal entanglement.
Sorry! I'm talking to the converted, I suspect!
Caroline
Frank Wappler
> I believe the analysis of the mechanics of a clock is
> one such way [...] of establishing calibration
How do you suggest to "analyse the mechanics" of some system?
If this involves determination of coordinate relations
of various components wrt. each other then how do you
suggest that those relations be measured in the first place?
Frank Wappler wrote:
> > One may formulate reproducible measurement procedures which may allow
> > all observers to _find out_ whether or not or to which extent
> > their results are equal, trial by trial.
> > But the results may not be equal, and consequently the laws which
> > summarize them may not satisfy homogeneity.
> > (Obvious example: _I_ am writing this post, not _you_.)
> Individual circumstance do not amount to changes in fundamental laws.
Which "fundamental laws" were _not_ obtained from (sets of)
individual actual circumstances and measured results?
Which "fundamental laws" were not subject to the individual actual
circumstances and measured results that may be found in the _next_ trial?
> If we were to obtain radio contact with a scientifically advanced alien
> culture, we could both describe atomic structure and the periodic table
> of the elements, and we could describe a standard ruler in terms of the
> structure of matter.
One can easily construct examples which don't satisfy such an assumption:
consider for instance a scientifically advanced alien culture who
haven't even undergone baryosynthesis yet.
The assumption that they're "scientifically advanced" can imply
that they know how to compare/count/do_math, at least in principle,
but one cannot assume any resemblance between our individual results.
Still, if we describe _how_ we're determining atomic structure
(assuming we've selected a reproducible procedure for this to begin with)
and _that_ we're obtaining the periodic table (counts and numbers as an
unambiguous result), then one can expect them to be able to understand
our procedure and findings, even if they've no results/experience about
them yet, or even if in reproducing the described procedure they might
obtain very different results.
In general:
One specifies and selects a priori _how_ to measure, and only then one
finds out _which_ results are obtained by this procedure, trial by trial.
> > Charles Francis wrote:
> > > Three space dimensions and spin half constituents seem to come
> > > out of the requirement for a continuous equation into which the
> > > solution of the discrete equation in any reference frame can be
> > > embedded.
> > I don't think that I know of the arguments you mention
> Dirac felt that time evolution in quantum mechanics must be determined
> by a covariant first order differential equation. The simplest non-
> trivial equation is the Dirac equation, and requires three space-
> dimensions and spin. As I recall this is essentially the content
> of his 1928 paper.
AFAIU, in his (first) 1928 paper (Proc. Roy. Soc. London, A117, p. 610)
Dirac doesn't seem to use this argument in order to _derive_ the number
of spatial dimensions, but he assumes three from the start.
Also: the formulation of a corresponding equation in one spatial dimension
may be considered simpler, and still non-trivial.
Louis Savain
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@newscientist.net> wrote:
>[snip]
> I'm afraid I'm just not interested in these abstractions
I guess we don't have much else to say to each other. The way I see
it, we're wasting each other's time.
Louis Savain
Louis Savain
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> Louis Savain wrote:
> > In article <38125C6A...@lucent.com>,
> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > > Sure it does: The standard model is locally Lorentz invariant.
> > Lorentz invariance is not a causal explanation. It is an observed
> > effect. Are you feigning not to know the diference between cause
> > and effect?
>
> My point is: "cause and effect" are not relevant here.
Your point is nonsense since cause and effect has everything to do
with explaining how things work, including gravity.
> And you failed to provide "cause and effect" for a similar situation:
I did not see any effect in your "situation". It was all about
abstract nonsense. Causality only has to do with particle interactions.
Besides it was a ridiculous situation and I ignored it for that reason.
> > > If you don't accept that as explanation, then please tell me what
> > > sort of "explanation" you would accept for the fact that the
> > > length of a meter stick remains 1 meter no matter how it is
> > > oriented?
The length of meter stick will always be a meter. Indeed this is the
reason why c is always measured constant: c is part and parcel of our
measuring tools, therefore measuring c is like using a meter stick (or
any ruler) to measure itself. You always get the same result.
> > An explanation involving physical interactions between particles
> > would be nice, which said interactions depend on the postulated
> > intrinsic properties of said particles.
>
> "would be nice" implies you don't have an explanation. Why don't you
> doubt this and insist people provide an explanation for this in the
> same manner you do so for the constancy of c?
See above.
> Note that an "explanation" along the lines of: "the inter-atomic
> spacing of the atoms in the meter stick remain constant, independent
> of orientation" is equally acausal -- this merely pushes the conundrum
> from "meter stick" to "inter-atomic spacing", which is useless.
This is all crap as I explained above.
> Bottom line: geometry affects physical systems in a non-causal manner.
> Your search for a "cause" is doomed.
You are more of a fool than I originally thought.
>[snip]
> GR does not use "causes and effects" to "explain" gravitation --
GR does never did explain gravitation and could not even if it
tried. It simply describes the **effect** of gravitation at the
macroscopic level in a 100% abstract manner. Big whoopdeedo! I don't
need a freaking theory to tell me that things fall. I need a theory to
tell me why they fall. You are boring me Roberts.
Charles Francis
<fw7...@csc.albany.edu> writes
>Charles Francis wrote:
>
>> I believe the analysis of the mechanics of a clock is
>> one such way [...] of establishing calibration
>
>How do you suggest to "analyse the mechanics" of some system?
>If this involves determination of coordinate relations
>of various components wrt. each other then how do you
>suggest that those relations be measured in the first place?
>
>Frank Wappler wrote:
>> > all observers to _find out_ whether or not or to which extent
>> > their results are equal, trial by trial.
>> > But the results may not be equal, and consequently the laws which
>> > summarize them may not satisfy homogeneity.
>> > (Obvious example: _I_ am writing this post, not _you_.)
>
>
>Which "fundamental laws" were _not_ obtained from (sets of)
>individual actual circumstances and measured results?
>Which "fundamental laws" were not subject to the individual actual
>circumstances and measured results that may be found in the _next_ trial?
>
>
>> If we were to obtain radio contact with a scientifically advanced alien
>> culture, we could both describe atomic structure and the periodic table
>> of the elements, and we could describe a standard ruler in terms of the
>> structure of matter.
>
>One can easily construct examples which don't satisfy such an assumption:
>consider for instance a scientifically advanced alien culture who
>haven't even undergone baryosynthesis yet.
>
>The assumption that they're "scientifically advanced" can imply
>that they know how to compare/count/do_math, at least in principle,
>but one cannot assume any resemblance between our individual results.
>
>Still, if we describe _how_ we're determining atomic structure
>(assuming we've selected a reproducible procedure for this to begin with)
>and _that_ we're obtaining the periodic table (counts and numbers as an
>unambiguous result), then one can expect them to be able to understand
>our procedure and findings, even if they've no results/experience about
>them yet, or even if in reproducing the described procedure they might
>obtain very different results.
>
You really believe they might find a different periodic table? I'm
afraid I think the periodic table is determined by counting protons
neutrons and electrons, and other values, atomic mass etc follow from
that. The detail of the experimental procedure is in this case largely
irrelevent, except that it must be sufficiently rigorous to allow only
one consistent result. Then another sufficiently rigorous procedure will
produce the same result.
>In general:
>One specifies and selects a priori _how_ to measure, and only then one
>finds out _which_ results are obtained by this procedure, trial by trial.
>
Some laws, such as Lorentz covariance, can be found by analysing the
procedures, not the results.
>> > Charles Francis wrote:
>> > > Three space dimensions and spin half constituents seem to come
>> > > out of the requirement for a continuous equation into which the
>> > > solution of the discrete equation in any reference frame can be
>> > > embedded.
>
>> > I don't think that I know of the arguments you mention
>
>> Dirac felt that time evolution in quantum mechanics must be determined
>> by a covariant first order differential equation. The simplest non-
>> trivial equation is the Dirac equation, and requires three space-
>> dimensions and spin. As I recall this is essentially the content
>> of his 1928 paper.
>
>AFAIU, in his (first) 1928 paper (Proc. Roy. Soc. London, A117, p. 610)
>Dirac doesn't seem to use this argument in order to _derive_ the number
>of spatial dimensions, but he assumes three from the start.
It is technically possible to carry out the argument by assuming
different numbers of dimensions from the start. I admit that I have not
myself attempted to consider all the possible numbers of dimensions, or
even carried out rigorous arguments, but it does appear to me that the
simplest solution is four dimensional.
>
>Also: the formulation of a corresponding equation in one spatial dimension
>may be considered simpler, and still non-trivial.
>
No, that one doesn't work.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Charles Francis
scientist.net> writes
>How can you say this, Charles? He's talking utter rubbish - I think. If he
>means what I think he means, then he's inventing this physical interaction,
>as in reality the "spins" don't change after emission. He can't altogether
>be blamed as he has evidently been told that those experiments really do
>demonstrate quantum entanglement, but all the same. Shouldn't any sane
>person query the evidence rather than invent an impossible world?
>
>Or have I totally misunderstood him?
>
and myth in conventional scientific thought, but then, when he is down
to the minimum, instead of proceeding by pure mathematical reason and
showing that the minimum is sufficient to formulate scientific law
without paradox, he spoils it by introducing a whole load of false
religious assumptions himself. He is also very rude.
Consider the issue of spin. Can it really be a property of a particle in
space, if space is as we think it is? If you turn around through 360
without touching the particle, you find the spin axis has only turned
through 180. That is obviously not possible, and yet we cannot deny the
appearance that it is what happens.
We can understand this by saying that spin is not just a property of a
particle, but has something to do with the whole space-time environment.
Thus the concepts studied in the EPR experiment do not make sense until
the whole setup is considered. The violation of Bell indicates the break
down of concepts such as distance under the circumstances of the
experiment. While the concept of distance breaks down, the concept of
locality does not.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
DAg
didn't verified Bell theorem. Therefore we still don't know
if a local realistic description of nature is possible.
The problem with all experiments is that either the
visibility of interferometric fringes or the quantum
efficiency of detectors are to low to exclude a local
and realistic description.
You also wrote that violation of Bell inequality
meant that there was "action at a distance". Well,
this isn't what Bell theorem says. Violation of Bell
inequalities means that either realism or locality
is violated (or both).
I think that the best description of Bell theorem you can
find in Peres' book or in some articles in
quant-ph.xxx.lanl.gov.
Best wishes
Dagomir Kaszlikowski
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find releated Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Tom Roberts
> The length of meter stick will always be a meter. Indeed this is the
> reason why c is always measured constant: c is part and parcel of our
> measuring tools, therefore measuring c is like using a meter stick (or
> any ruler) to measure itself. You always get the same result.
OK. Then we are agreed on this point.
Now: where's the "causality" in this? What "causes" c to be "part and
parcel of our measuring tools"? As far as I can see, there _IS_ no
"causality" here, this is just the way things are (i.e. geometry).
> cause and effect has everything to do
> with explaining how things work, including gravity.
But you just said that "cause and effect" has no part of explaining why
c is always measured constant -- "c is part and parcel of our measuring
tools". But in GR, gravitation is _LIKEWISE_ "part and parcel of our
measuring tools". And likewise needs no "causal" explanation.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Charles Francis
A...@iftia6.univ.gda.pl.invalid> writes
>You also wrote that violation of Bell inequality
>meant that there was "action at a distance". Well,
>this isn't what Bell theorem says. Violation of Bell
>inequalities means that either realism or locality
>is violated (or both).
Or that locality is not defined the way in which we imagine, or that
causal relationships can work backwards in time. These ideas are wholly
consistent with the fundamental ideas of elementary particle physics.
Bell's theorem is not the only problem in quantum mechanics. The quantum
Zeno effect is at least as intractible, but appears to admit the same
type of solution.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Robert J. Kolker
DAg wrote:
> To tell the truth, Aspect experiment and many others
> didn't verified Bell theorem. Therefore we still don't know
> if a local realistic description of nature is possible.
The whole point of those experiments was to show that
Bells inequality does NOT hold, therefore showing non
local nature of reality. The problem with many of these
experiments is that there are loopholes. Although I
heard of an experiment done in Zurich (I think) in
which the two observation points were many kilometers
apart. I wish I could remember the name of the chief
experimenter. Can someone help out here?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Charles Francis wrote:
>
> Bell's theorem is not the only problem in quantum mechanics. The quantum
> Zeno effect is at least as intractible, but appears to admit the same
> type of solution.
>
What is the Zeno effect. Is it named after the Greek philosopher who
came up with the paradoxes with his name?
Bob Kolker
Louis Savain
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <17599f0b...@usw-ex0110-076.remarq.com>, DAg
<dagNOdaSP
> A...@iftia6.univ.gda.pl.invalid> writes
> >You also wrote that violation of Bell inequality
> >meant that there was "action at a distance". Well,
> >this isn't what Bell theorem says. Violation of Bell
> >inequalities means that either realism or locality
> >is violated (or both).
>
> Or that locality is not defined the way in which we imagine, or that
> causal relationships can work backwards in time. These ideas are
> wholly consistent with the fundamental ideas of elementary particle
> physics.
They may be consistent with current ideas in the physics community
but they are woefully inconsistent with elementary logic. The notion
of causal relationships that work backwards in time has got to be one
the most absurd ideas in phsysics, rivaling Abian's (bless his
soul) 'time is mass' rantings in sheer stupidity and depth of
crackpottery.
Louis Savain
-Nothing moves in spacetime, including causal relationships.
The Evil Twin of _Paradox_ fame
>In article <38144...@news1.vip.uk.com>, c.h.thompson <c.h.thompson@new
>scientist.net> writes
>>How can you say this, Charles? He's talking utter rubbish - I think. If he
>>means what I think he means, then he's inventing this physical interaction,
>>as in reality the "spins" don't change after emission. He can't altogether
>>be blamed as he has evidently been told that those experiments really do
>>demonstrate quantum entanglement, but all the same. Shouldn't any sane
>>person query the evidence rather than invent an impossible world?
>>
>>Or have I totally misunderstood him?
>>
>Louis is funny.
Ad hominem.
> He correctly identifies and dismisses false assumptions
>and myth in conventional scientific thought, but then, when he is down
>to the minimum, instead of proceeding by pure mathematical reason and
>showing that the minimum is sufficient to formulate scientific law
>without paradox, he spoils it by introducing a whole load of false
>religious assumptions himself.
I thought he was doing exactly the opposite. He has challenged everyone
to provide evidence for the existence of "space" and, unsurprisingly,
they have not been able to.
> He is also very rude.
Ad hominem.
>Consider the issue of spin. Can it really be a property of a particle in
>space, if space is as we think it is?
No it can't, since "space" doesn't exist.
With respect, you need to expand your thinking. You are happy to accept
a "particle" with no real physical meaning (as far as anyone can tell).
You are even happy to accept that this ill-defined entity can have
properties like "spin" which nobody is able to define in any meaningful
way - other than as a description of how the "particle" behaves in
certain interactions.
In spite of all this vagueness, you insist that "space" *must* exist,
even if only as a place for the particle to have these properties in.
You cite this as your "proof". This seems somewhat fallacious, unless I
have missed something?
> If you turn around through 360
>without touching the particle, you find the spin axis has only turned
>through 180. That is obviously not possible, and yet we cannot deny the
>appearance that it is what happens.
It is "obviously" not possible if the "space" you have assumed to exist
has the properties you have assumed it to have, which clearly it does
not.
>We can understand this by saying that spin is not just a property of a
>particle, but has something to do with the whole space-time environment.
This is essentially where your argument falls down. You can just as
easily understand it by saying that "space" as our perceptions present
it is merely the brain's way of making sense of perceived data, and that
things like "position" in physics terms are really ill-defined
properties inherent to particle systems. Just like "spin". Just like
"charge".
In fact, the experimental proof of this has been known since before
Newton's time, and really ought to have been utterly conclusive. But
then you only have to look at the Evil Twin Paradox to see how people
will insist on following their intuition, even when it is hopelessly
wrong.
>Thus the concepts studied in the EPR experiment do not make sense until
>the whole setup is considered.
Sure, you *can* fudge the issue by arguing in circles about "probability
waves", and how they must propagate through "space". But there are
easier ways.
> The violation of Bell indicates the break
>down of concepts such as distance under the circumstances of the
>experiment. While the concept of distance breaks down, the concept of
>locality does not.
Now you're just plain baffling.
What is "locality", if not an allusion to "distance"? And what is
"distance", if not a measure of positional separation?
Frank Wappler
> Frank Wappler [wrote:]
> > In general:
> > One specifies and selects a priori _how_ to measure, and only then one
> > finds out _which_ results are obtained by this procedure, trial by trial.
> Some laws, such as Lorentz covariance, can be found by analysing the
> procedures, not the results.
Yes, IMHO that's a very important point.
Altough it is apparently not understood by certain posters who propose
"experimental tests" of Lorentz covariance, of isotropy of c in vacuum
and somesuch.
> > The assumption that they're "scientifically advanced" can imply
> > that they know how to compare/count/do_math, at least in principle,
> > but one cannot assume any resemblance between our individual results.
> You really believe they might find a different periodic table?
Sure: insofar as the procedure by which to "find a periodic table"
allows a range of different results at all, at least in principle,
how would one know the result in any trial before measuring?
One may _expect_ that the result "won't change a lot, from one trial
to the next" (at least if the result involves determination of
"the most probable potential", via the principle of stationary action);
but one surely doesn't _know_ the result of the next measurement.
> I'm afraid I think the periodic table is determined by counting
> protons neutrons and electrons, and other values, atomic mass
> etc follow from that.
How does one measure "mass" of any of those charges, trial by trial?
> The detail of the experimental procedure is in this case largely
> irrelevent, except that it must be sufficiently rigorous to allow
> only one consistent result.
Then which result should one allow, a priori???
Or, if one admits a range of results, in which sense should
they have to be "consistent" with each other?
Why should there be any relation between some pair of trials
other than that they're being conducted and analyzed by the same
(reproducible) procedure?
If you'd discard some results, then why not all others, too?
> Then another sufficiently rigorous procedure will produce the same result.
Could one not compare the results to each other, even if they're not equal?
> > > Dirac felt that time evolution in quantum mechanics must be determined
> > > by a covariant first order differential equation. The simplest non-
> > > trivial equation is the Dirac equation, and requires three space-
> > > dimensions and spin. As I recall this is essentially the content
> > > of his 1928 paper.
> > AFAIU, in his (first) 1928 paper (Proc. Roy. Soc. London, A117, p. 610)
> > Dirac doesn't seem to use this argument in order to _derive_ the number
> > of spatial dimensions, but he assumes three from the start.
> It is technically possible to carry out the argument by assuming
> different numbers of dimensions from the start. I admit that I have not
> myself attempted to consider all the possible numbers of dimensions, or
> even carried out rigorous arguments, but it does appear to me that the
> simplest solution is four dimensional.
> > Also: the formulation of a corresponding equation in one spatial
> > dimension may be considered simpler, and still non-trivial.
> No, that one doesn't work.
It appears to me that the one dimensional case
-d2/dt^2() = -d2/dx^2() + m^2
is satisfied for instance by
[ 1 0 ] i d/dt() == sqrt( 1/2 ) [ 1 -1 ] i d/dx() - sqrt( 1/2 ) [ 1 1 ] m,
[ 0 1 ] [ -1 -1 ] [ 1 -1 ]
resulting in the corresponding covariant first order differential equation
sqrt( 1/2 ) [ 1 1 ] i d/dt() - [ 0 -1 ] i d/dx() = [ 1 0 ] m.
[ 1 -1 ] [ 1 0 ] [ 0 1 ]
Louis Savain
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> Louis Savain wrote:
> > The length of meter stick will always be a meter. Indeed this
> > is the reason why c is always measured constant: c is part and
> > parcel of our measuring tools, therefore measuring c is like using
> > a meter stick (or any ruler) to measure itself. You always get the
> > same result.
>
> OK. Then we are agreed on this point.
>
> Now: where's the "causality" in this? What "causes" c to be "part and
> parcel of our measuring tools"? As far as I can see, there _IS_ no
> "causality" here, this is just the way things are (i.e. geometry).
You really enjoy abuse don't you? The very fact that there is a
speed c implies that there is change, a change in position to be
precise. Change implies effect and effect implies cause. In my
partially baked theory, c is discrete and is the fundamental speed of
causality or interaction: two particles of equal mass/energies will
interact at the speed of c, i.e., their interaction time is Planck
time. If the particles have unequal mass/energies, the interaction
time is quasi-random, as can be seen in the half life of certain
composite particles.
> > cause and effect has everything to do
> > with explaining how things work, including gravity.
>
> But you just said that "cause and effect" has no part of explaining
> why c is always measured constant -- "c is part and parcel of our
> measuring tools".
I don't think that stating that "c is part and parcel of our
measuring tools" means that causality should be thrown out the window.
OTC, it places causality at the center of all processes.
> But in GR, gravitation is _LIKEWISE_ "part and parcel of our
> measuring tools". And likewise needs no "causal" explanation.
Only in your brainwashed, crackpot mind. Gravity causes objects to
move towards each other. This motion is a series of effects, whether
you like it or not. And they are certainly not caused by geometry
since the geometry of spacetime is part of an abstract description of
the measured effect. No effect is its own cause although, given your
track record, I wouldn't put it past you to assert that an effect can
be its own cause. BTW, I've been meaning to ask you this: are you a
real physicist or are you just playing one on the net? Also, what
school did you attend and who was your thesis advisor? Better respond
via email on this one, otherwise you risk embarassing your teachers and
alma mater becasue the kind of physics you preach on these boards is
what I call chicken shit physics.
Louis Savain
c.h.thompson
I agree, BTW, about Louis Savin! Just about the most inconsistent person
I've yet encountered. But I don't feel you're so very consistent yourself.
The message I wanted to reply to has totally vanished! Most odd. I saw it
and printed it out when I was in Aberystwyth but now it's just not there!
Anyway, there were just a couple of small but important points I wanted to
make. You'd said that you showed in your paper (quant-ph/9909047) that
there were conditions in which the conventional laws of probability did not
apply. I'm afraid the subject of the paper does not interest me, but I can
tell you that you must be deluding yourself - unless, by some strange
chance, you are thinking of the kinds of real factors such as differing
detector response times that I know really can make the measured
"probabilities" behave oddly. But in the real world this is simply a matter
of the measurements not being fair estimates of any well-defined relative
frequencies. We want the frequency of "coincidence" of detection of two
light pulses, but if each is extended in time and we choose a short
"coincidence window" we may not get an unbiased answer.
But no, this is not what you are talking about. You say: "the conventional
law of probability would not be expected to hold in certain types of
structure, namely if measurement is simply the production of a number within
the structure, as opposed from the measurement of a pre-existent quantity."
This makes no sense to me.
My real point, as I keep saying, is that you and so many others have been
trying to rationalise a phenomenon that just does not happen! To me, it is
just as unacceptable to muck around with the laws of probability in order to
explain apparent instantaneous action at a distance as it is to
straigthforwardly accept that you can have "nonlocal interactions". You
have been influenced by false reports.
To say, as you do, "The net effect is that a local theory is compatible with
quantum mechanics and violates the Bell inequalities" does not help the
cause of realism and common sense.
"Many-valued logic" is no use to us here, even if it may be a perfectly
legitimate branch of rigorous mathematics!
Caroline
Charles Francis
_Paradox_ fame <i...@pathfindermail.com> writes
>Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>Louis is funny.
>
>Ad hominem.
>
>> He correctly identifies and dismisses false assumptions
>>and myth in conventional scientific thought, but then, when he is down
>>to the minimum, instead of proceeding by pure mathematical reason and
>>showing that the minimum is sufficient to formulate scientific law
>>without paradox, he spoils it by introducing a whole load of false
>>religious assumptions himself.
>
>I thought he was doing exactly the opposite. He has challenged everyone
>to provide evidence for the existence of "space" and, unsurprisingly,
>they have not been able to.
I agree with Louis 100% on this, and have been saying the same thing.
>>Consider the issue of spin. Can it really be a property of a particle in
>>space, if space is as we think it is?
>
>No it can't, since "space" doesn't exist.
>
>With respect, you need to expand your thinking. You are happy to accept
>a "particle" with no real physical meaning (as far as anyone can tell).
I don't think my particles are ill-defined. There is much less to them
than you surmise. The properties are found in the Quantum Space time
paper, and given at beginning of
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051
A Pre-Geometric Model Exhibiting Physical Law
Particles only have properties of indivisibility, time, and interaction.
>You are even happy to accept that this ill-defined entity can have
>properties like "spin" which nobody is able to define in any meaningful
>way - other than as a description of how the "particle" behaves in
>certain interactions.
No, I do not accept that the particle can have a property of spin of
itself. Spin is just a description of how the particle behaves in
certain interactions.
>
>In spite of all this vagueness, you insist that "space" *must* exist,
>even if only as a place for the particle to have these properties in.
>You cite this as your "proof". This seems somewhat fallacious, unless I
>have missed something?
No. I insist that space does not exist.
>
>> If you turn around through 360
>>without touching the particle, you find the spin axis has only turned
>>through 180. That is obviously not possible, and yet we cannot deny the
>>appearance that it is what happens.
>
>It is "obviously" not possible if the "space" you have assumed to exist
>has the properties you have assumed it to have, which clearly it does
>not.
Precisely. That is the point of the argument.
>
>>We can understand this by saying that spin is not just a property of a
>>particle, but has something to do with the whole space-time environment.
>
>This is essentially where your argument falls down. You can just as
>easily understand it by saying that "space" as our perceptions present
>it is merely the brain's way of making sense of perceived data, and that
>things like "position" in physics terms are really ill-defined
>properties inherent to particle systems. Just like "spin". Just like
>"charge".
That is, effectively, what I mean by space.
>
>In fact, the experimental proof of this has been known since before
>Newton's time, and really ought to have been utterly conclusive. But
>then you only have to look at the Evil Twin Paradox to see how people
>will insist on following their intuition, even when it is hopelessly
>wrong.
>
>>Thus the concepts studied in the EPR experiment do not make sense until
>>the whole setup is considered.
>
>Sure, you *can* fudge the issue by arguing in circles about "probability
>waves", and how they must propagate through "space".
But I don't. This is the (common) misinterpretation of a mathematical
formula, defined on R^3, not on space.
>
>> The violation of Bell indicates the break
>>down of concepts such as distance under the circumstances of the
>>experiment. While the concept of distance breaks down, the concept of
>>locality does not.
>
>Now you're just plain baffling.
>
>What is "locality", if not an allusion to "distance"? And what is
>"distance", if not a measure of positional separation?
>
Locality is simply a statement that two particles must come into contact
in order to interact, and that any direct effect between particles can
only be transmitted by contact. On the most primitive level, we only
have "contact" or "no contact". When two particles are not in contact,
there is no direct, a priore, definition of the distance between them.
For a definition of distance several interactions are necessary. The
minimal description of distance requires that a photon is passed from
one particle to the other, and that another one returns. Then distance
is defined to be half the lapsed time. As more complex situation are
considered other ways of determining distance can be considered, but
they must be consistent with this minimal definition.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909047
A Model of Classical and Quantum Measurement
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909048
Conceptual Foundations of Special and General Relativity
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909055
An Alternative Model of Quark Confinement
Charles Francis
<fw7...@csc.albany.edu> writes
>> You really believe they might find a different periodic table?
>
>Sure: insofar as the procedure by which to "find a periodic table"
>allows a range of different results at all, at least in principle,
>how would one know the result in any trial before measuring?
>
repeated and the same throughout the universe. So our results would be
found where ever and whatever procedure was used, provided only that the
procedure can determine the properties of a carbon atom. Any difference
between our periodic table and another one would only be a cosmetic
change in the description, and there would be a way of converting one
description to another, (like a co-ordinate transformation, of no real
significance)
>One may _expect_ that the result "won't change a lot, from one trial
>to the next" (at least if the result involves determination of
>"the most probable potential", via the principle of stationary action);
>but one surely doesn't _know_ the result of the next measurement.
>
>> I'm afraid I think the periodic table is determined by counting
>> protons neutrons and electrons, and other values, atomic mass
>> etc follow from that.
>
>How does one measure "mass" of any of those charges, trial by trial?
>
>> The detail of the experimental procedure is in this case largely
>> irrelevent, except that it must be sufficiently rigorous to allow
>> only one consistent result.
>
>Then which result should one allow, a priori???
>Or, if one admits a range of results, in which sense should
>they have to be "consistent" with each other?
>Why should there be any relation between some pair of trials
>other than that they're being conducted and analyzed by the same
>(reproducible) procedure?
>If you'd discard some results, then why not all others, too?
I'm not intending to discard results. I appear to be assuming a level of
realism which you don't accept???
>
Thank you for bringing my attention to the one dimensional solution. I
am somewhat rusty on this derivation and will give it some thought.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Charles Francis
deja.com> writes
>They may be consistent with current ideas in the physics community
>but they are woefully inconsistent with elementary logic. The notion
>of causal relationships that work backwards in time has got to be one
>the most absurd ideas in phsysics,
Unlike many of your rantings which I like, I don't actually know why you
say this. I can find no logical reason why causality should not be a two
way time symmetric process, and clear cut reasons why causal symmetry
should be broken on the macroscopic scale.
>rivaling Abian's (bless his
>soul) 'time is mass' rantings in sheer stupidity and depth of
>crackpottery.
>
I wouldn't say "time is mass" but there is a relationship between time
and mass for elementary particles, reflected in the law of inertia as
well as the law of gravity. Particles having "slow" clocks interact more
slowly, so have higher inertia and generate a greater curvature in
geometry.
>
>-Nothing moves in spacetime, including causal relationships.
>
Movement in space-time is a dead dodgy concept.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Charles Francis
<bobk...@usa.net> writes
>What is the Zeno effect. Is it named after the Greek philosopher who
>came up with the paradoxes with his name?
>
predicted in 1973. There is a write up in "Conceptual Foundations of
Quantum Physics, an overview from modern perspectives", by Dipankar
Home, (though I think Plenum deserve the wrath of a bunch of armed and
mad anarchists such as yourself for their pricing of the book)
Essentially it is a result showing that the measurement of radioactive
decays slows down the decay process- a "watched pot" effect. Ultimately
continuous measurement (not considered physically real) could freeze the
decay altogether - hence the name Zeno.
I am not an expert. Home (published 1997) says it has not been
unambiguously detected, though at the conference I thought it was being
discussed as though it was a definite observed effect. Andrew Whitaker
of Queen's Belfast was looking at some very Bell-like predictions with
two detectors. Moving one detector was shown to alter the predicted rate
of detection at the other, outside the light cone.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Charles Francis
>
>But no, this is not what you are talking about. You say: "the conventional
>law of probability would not be expected to hold in certain types of
>structure, namely if measurement is simply the production of a number within
>the structure, as opposed from the measurement of a pre-existent quantity."
>
>This makes no sense to me.
>
This is the key to it. Reality does not have to be as we suppose, but it
does have to make sense.
>My real point, as I keep saying, is that you and so many others have been
>trying to rationalise a phenomenon that just does not happen! To me, it is
>just as unacceptable to muck around with the laws of probability
I wouldn't dream of mucking around with the laws of probability. Let me
try to say that a different way. In the structure I consider strictly
probabilistic statements obey probabilistic law. But I show that certain
types of statement are not probabilistic in the same way.
> You
>have been influenced by false reports.
For me every real problem in quantum mechanics is no more than the
measurement problem. You can mess with tricky theorems and tricky
experiments, but the bottom line is that the measurement problem appears
in simple established experiments, such as Young's slits.
>
>To say, as you do, "The net effect is that a local theory is compatible with
>quantum mechanics and violates the Bell inequalities" does not help the
>cause of realism and common sense.
>
Nature is subtle, not malicious. The common sense required to understand
nature needs to be equally as subtle. But ultimately it is still realism
and common sense.
>"Many-valued logic" is no use to us here, even if it may be a perfectly
>legitimate branch of rigorous mathematics!
>
Many valued logic is useful because of the type of statement we are
making about measurement is inherently inexact. We cannot assume that
there is an unknown quantity, which we then come and measure. Only that
the quantity is generated in the measurement. The assumption of an
unknown quantity leads to conventional probability theory. The
assumption of a quantity generated in measurement, described in the
language as though it already existed, leads to quantum logic, which can
be seen both as a branch of conventional probability theory and as a
many valued logic.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
DAg
was done in Innsbruck by Weihs, Weinfurter, Simon,
Zeilinger and Jennewein. Alice and Bob (two observers)
were 400m apart from each other. This distance the light
travels in 1.3 microseconds whereas they switched the
direction of the measurement once per 100 nanoseconds (it
means no communication between Alice and Bob).
They observed violation but there was the detection
loophole. Therefore, it wasn't the real test of local
realism...
Bye.
DAg.
DAg
> Or that locality is not defined the way in which we
> imagine, or that
> causal relationships can work backwards in time.
I partially agree. But I think that locality defined
in a "Bell way" is very reasonable.
Backward in time action is something I'm not worried
about for in QM you deal only with information about
correlations you can observe in experiments. There were
experiments that showed the so called quantum ereasure.
If you want to explain these experiments using the picture
of particles responsible for the correlations you will
have to assume backward in time influence. I get read of
this
problem treating QM as an information theory about
correlations. What lies behind them? That's a good question.
Best wishes
DAgomir Kaszlikowski
Gerry Quinn
>My real point, as I keep saying, is that you and so many others have been
>trying to rationalise a phenomenon that just does not happen! To me, it is
>just as unacceptable to muck around with the laws of probability in order to
>explain apparent instantaneous action at a distance as it is to
>straigthforwardly accept that you can have "nonlocal interactions". You
>have been influenced by false reports.
>
>To say, as you do, "The net effect is that a local theory is compatible with
>quantum mechanics and violates the Bell inequalities" does not help the
>cause of realism and common sense.
>
>"Many-valued logic" is no use to us here, even if it may be a perfectly
>legitimate branch of rigorous mathematics!
>
>Caroline
Take a look at Cramer's Transactional interpretation:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/
If you drop the idea of a fundamental arrow of time, you can get a
quantum theory that is both realistic and in a certain sense can be
described as local - no direct spacelike interactions are needed.
Cramer's is one such theory, there may be others which achieve the same
ends. The key is to see the arrow of time as an artifact of the entropy
gradient of the universe.
- Gerry Quinn
Louis Savain
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <7v5cc9$qcc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
<louis_savain@my-
> deja.com> writes
> >They may be consistent with current ideas in the physics community
> >but they are woefully inconsistent with elementary logic. The notion
> >of causal relationships that work backwards in time has got to be one
> >the most absurd ideas in phsysics,
>
> Unlike many of your rantings which I like, I don't actually know why
> you say this. I can find no logical reason why causality should not
> be a two way time symmetric process, and clear cut reasons why causal
> symmetry should be broken on the macroscopic scale.
Causation bakward (or forward, it does not matter) in time assumes
the existence of a time dimension. There is no such animal. The so-
called arrow of time is pure crackpottery. Why? again because it
assumes a temporal dimension. Why is a temporal dimension illogical?
because nothing moves in time, something that the Eleatic school
figured out over three thousand years ago. Why is it impossible for
something to move in time? because at each point in time it is not
moving. IOW, a temporal dimension is pure unadulterated crackpottery.
IMO, causation only needs the present, the NOW. As with all things,
the NOW of a moving particle consists of a pair of yin-yang like
opposites: its *before* state and its *after* state. The two states
coexist for a length of time (time here is the abstract inverse of
change). After an interaction the particle reverts back to a single
state. Nothing moves without cause and cause in my book is synonymous
with interaction. It is for this reason that I say that gravitation
must be explained in terms of particle interactions.
>[snip]
> >-Nothing moves in spacetime, including causal relationships.
> >
> Movement in space-time is a dead dodgy concept.
Now what the heck is a dead dodgy concept? Are you agreeing with me
or what? If you are, then you are contradicting yourself by insisting
on such a crackpottish concept as backward causation.
Louis Savain
-Acausal motion is crackpottery.
c.h.thompson
I'm afraid I've got bad news for you: after reading most of the paper you
recommended http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a07 I totally
disagree about the need for "psychons" in this universe. The good news is,
though, that I can see why people think this "final cause" idea is
necessary, and it's simply because quantum theory is an inadequate theory!
If QT were doing its job, it would be much easier to see how complex
molecules formed, and it would be obvious that there was no need for photons
or psychons.
In my own mind, I'm certain that a reductionist theory is possible, but it
is one that bypasses QT. The way I see it, structures such as DNA exist;
moths can home in on pheromone trails; I've just been reading how ants can
tell when their "guards" have been kidnapped. I don't accept that there is
valid evidence for the paranormal, but I do accept that there must be
electromagnetic waves emitted by molecules all the time. Other molecules
can sense these and react with them. The result is that the emitted waves
guide appropriate receptor molecules towards the sources.
QT does allow in an obscure kind of way for the coupling of matter with
fields, but mostly it assumes far too much randomness. It assumes the
vacuum to be filled with random "virtual particles", not allowing for the
fact that these are really waves and some of the waves carry information
needed for the formation of those complex molecules.
The paper explains quite convincingly how the idea that "random thermal
motions (with energy minimization and entropy maximization) together with
other currently accepted physical laws are enough to explain life" is
ridiculous. It is not reductionism that is wrong, though, but the
"currently accepted laws".
To return to the matter of EPR - the nominal subject of the thread. I
maintain that if the truth about the experiments had been publicised - if
fundamental physics had been conducted with the same openness as biology -
quantum theory would have been ridiculed and thrown out in the early 1970's.
The way would have been open, in principle, for exploration, for the genuine
search for understanding, and physics could have become once more exciting,
rewarding, comprehensible!
So please look again at the "facts" that have led you to accept photons. If
this amounts to just QT propaganda, why are you accepting it? Have you ever
seen proof that the photon can't be subdivided? I've looked at one or two
experiments that are supposed to show particle-like behaviour, and they
depend on the same kind of doubtful assumptions as the EPR experiments.
They are conducted by the same group of people ...
Cheers
Caroline
<http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat>
The Evil Twin of _Paradox_ fame
Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>>> He correctly identifies and dismisses false assumptions
>>>and myth in conventional scientific thought, but then, when he is down
>>>to the minimum, instead of proceeding by pure mathematical reason and
>>>showing that the minimum is sufficient to formulate scientific law
>>>without paradox, he spoils it by introducing a whole load of false
>>>religious assumptions himself.
>>
>>I thought he was doing exactly the opposite. He has challenged everyone
>>to provide evidence for the existence of "space" and, unsurprisingly,
>>they have not been able to.
>
>I agree with Louis 100% on this, and have been saying the same thing.
I apologise, I must have misunderstood something. From the above it
looked as though you disagreed with him.
>>>Consider the issue of spin. Can it really be a property of a particle in
>>>space, if space is as we think it is?
>>
>>No it can't, since "space" doesn't exist.
>>
>>With respect, you need to expand your thinking. You are happy to accept
>>a "particle" with no real physical meaning (as far as anyone can tell).
>
>I don't think my particles are ill-defined.
Your theory presents no definition of a particle, only a description.
(It's no worse than other theories in this respect, of course.) You
can't say what a particle is, other than in terms of what it does. So
why not take the logical step - make that the definition.
You were so close. You *almost* defined a particle purely in terms of
the sum of its potential interactions with other particles. That would
have been cool. But you wimped out by qualifying it with "given the
information available from observation" (page 5).
This sounds suspicous and makes it look like a hidden-variable theory,
which I don't think it is.
> There is much less to them
>than you surmise. The properties are found in the Quantum Space time
>paper, and given at beginning of
>
>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051
>A Pre-Geometric Model Exhibiting Physical Law
>
>Particles only have properties of indivisibility, time, and interaction.
Why drag time into it? You seem to be suggesting here that "time" is
some independent entity, orthogonal to {indivisibility, interaction}.
This is confusing, because in the paper (page 2) you treat time as a
consequence of particle behaviour. There, you posit an exchange
particle called a "chronon". But even this seems unnecessary.
Why not treat time as a property of interactions too, eg: time is
measured by some function of the number of states whose probability has
decayed to zero or unity.
You agree that stuff doesn't need space to be in. Accept that neither
do things need time to happen in.
[...]
>>> The violation of Bell indicates the break
>>>down of concepts such as distance under the circumstances of the
>>>experiment. While the concept of distance breaks down, the concept of
>>>locality does not.
>>
>>Now you're just plain baffling.
>>
>>What is "locality", if not an allusion to "distance"? And what is
>>"distance", if not a measure of positional separation?
>>
>Locality is simply a statement that two particles must come into contact
>in order to interact, and that any direct effect between particles can
>only be transmitted by contact.
But what do you mean by "contact"? Merely using a different word for a
phenomenon is not explaining it.
The problem is that all these words have connotations of spatial
proximity in ordinary usage. It might have been better if you had
avoided such confusing terminology altogether. Anyway.
By definition, two particles are "local" if there might potentially be
some interaction between them, ie their spatial separation is such that
they are within each others' light cones. Conversely, the probability
of an interaction is precisely zero iff two particles are outside each
others' light cones.
> On the most primitive level, we only
>have "contact" or "no contact". When two particles are not in contact,
>there is no direct, a priore, definition of the distance between them.
If they are unlocal, each might as well not exist as far as the other is
concerned. And the distance between two things that don't exist is
undefined.
I'll buy that.
>For a definition of distance several interactions are necessary. The
>minimal description of distance requires that a photon is passed from
>one particle to the other, and that another one returns. Then distance
>is defined to be half the lapsed time.
That sounds dangerously like you're reverting to an "intuitive"
description of time, not a physical one.
It's more complicated once you start looking at what actually happens in
terms of individual interactions, especially if you aren't allowed to
make any unjustified assumptions about frames (interactions, by
definition, change particle state).
Suppose the state of particle A changes to, A'. This causes a photon to
be emitted, which photon is absorbed by B. Since the speed of light is
finite, this interaction does not happen instantaneously in either rest
frame. And since we don't assume that A and B are in the same rest
frame, we must write:
[A -> A'](t0) : [B -> B'](t'1)
(Note that this is time-symmetric.) Assuming that the photon excited
the state of B to B', B' now decays to B" (this is assumed to be
instantaneous), and spontaneously re-emits the photon back at A'.
Hence:
[B' -> B"](t'1) : [A' -> A"](t2)
So the distance is "half the lapsed time", or c(t2-t0)/2.
But is it?
You set out to measure AB, but you ended up measuring A'B" - for a
Universe which has no A' because it has an A" instead. This is probably
quite important.
In conventional theories, it follows naturally from geometry (ignoring
recoil effects) that the rest frame of A" is the same as that of A, and
that the distance AA = AA' = A'A" = 0. But you are not using
"common-sense" metrics, and you can't make that assumption.
> As more complex situation are
>considered other ways of determining distance can be considered, but
>they must be consistent with this minimal definition.
I'm not dissing your theory. I really think you're on to something.
But you need to be a lot more clear about what is axiomatic. And to
give better justification for your hidden assumptions.
Frank Wappler
> In my view there really is such a thing as, e.g. a carbon atom,
> which is repeated and the same throughout the universe.
Only insofar as the procedure you'll prescribe by which to find out
_whether_ or not some particular thing is a "carbon atom"
can be unambiguously repeated by everyone (at least in principle),
in any trial, throughout the universe.
Then, conducting this procedure yourself, or relying on others
to reproduce the procedure as you would yourself, you can
_determined that_ some particular thing was a "carbon atom",
or that this particular thing was not a "carbon atom", trial by trial.
> Any difference between our periodic table and another one
> would only be a cosmetic change in the description
You have not yet specified how one should determine a "periodic table";
what of it may be preselected description and what of it may be
results of nontrivial measurements.
The former may be understood and agreed upon a priori, at least by anyone
who can count, in principle; the latter must be measured trial by trial
and may or may not be found equal.
> > > The detail of the experimental procedure is in this case largely
> > > irrelevent, except that it must be sufficiently rigorous to allow
> > > only one consistent result.
> > Then which result should one allow, a priori???
> > Or, if one admits a range of results, in which sense should
> > they have to be "consistent" with each other?
> > Why should there be any relation between some pair of trials
> > other than that they're being conducted and analyzed by the same
> > (reproducible) procedure?
> > If you'd discard some results, then why not all others, too?
> I'm not intending to discard results.
Which other procedure can guarantee "only one consistent result"?
Regards, Frank W ~@) R
p.s.
> I appear to be assuming a level of realism which you don't accept???
Does it appear realistic that everyone accepts your level of assumptions?