The True Basis of Special Relativity - The Principle of Relativity and its true basis Symetry.
Marion Hobba
attempts to justify the existence of an aether or in some way or another
show that SR is false.
I believe it is now time for me to lay my cards on the table and say what I
believe. Please note in the following I will be using the type of
mathematical rigour found in elementary Euclidian geometry. My
understanding is that the ideas I will be putting forward can be put on a
much more rigorous basis much the same as Euclidian geometry was put on such
a basis by Hilbert. While I applaud such efforts this level of rigour is
not my aim. Also I believe no one would seriously consider learning Hilbert
before being exposed to ordinary Euclidian Geometry.
Central to Special Relativity (SR) in the idea of an inertial reference
frame. A reference frame is a conventional standard of rest on which
experiments can be conducted. An inertial reference frame is assumed to
have the following properties:
1. Spatial relations for stationary points and lines are assumed Euclidian.
2. It has a universal time by which is meant it is conceptually possible to
synchronise stationary clocks placed at arbitrary points. To be clear what
we assume is that conceptually we can imagine every point to have a
stationary clock attached to it and all such clocks will read the same time
for any event that occurs at any other point.
3. The frame is free from outside or internal influences.
From the very basis of science we believe such frames should exist - at
least conceptually. Otherwise experimental repeatability would go out the
door and so would science.
The key point we will concentrate on is 3. As expressed this is a bit
imprecise so we will try and see if it can be made better. Now suppose we
conduct an experiment in an inertial reference frame and it gives a
particular result. Suppose we conduct the same experiment in another frame
at perhaps a different point, in a different direction or time in that
frame. What will we expect? Suppose we had a different result then how
would we account for it? We would assume some kind of influence was present
in one of both of the frames at that point and time to account for it. This
is almost by definition what we mean by influence - something that accounts
for observed differences. But we have assumed such a frame is influence
free. Thus we are led to believe in such a frame the result of all
experiments will be the same. Hence in an inertial frame we are led, from
its definition, to the following principle - the laws of physics are the
same in all inertial reference frames.
The above also implies three other properties of inertial reference frames:
1. The same experiment conducted at a different point will yield the same
result. Such a frame is called homogeneous in space.
2. The same experiment conducted in a different direction will yield the
same result. Such a frame is called isotropic in space.
3. The same experiment conducted at a different time will yield the same
result. Such a frame is called homogeneous in time.
In fact Landau defines an inertial reference frame to be a frame that is
homogeneous in space and time and isotropic in space. But we see this
follows from our intuitive idea expressed in 3 above.
Consider a clock placed at the origin in an inertial reference frame.
Consider it viewed from the origin of another inertial reference frame.
Assume the coordinate systems of the two frames coincide at time 0 as
measured by the clock. During one tick of the clock the origin of the
inertial reference frame not containing the clock may have moved a certain
distance. Arrange the origin of the reference frame containing the clock to
coincide with the new position of the origin of the second reference frame.
How far will the second frame move in one clock tick. We have exactly the
same experiment as before so it must move exactly the same distance. Thus
inertial reference frames move at constant velocity relative to each other.
Now we come to the real content of the principle of relativity and why it is
a simplifying symmetry principle. We have shown that all inertial reference
frames move at constant velocity relative to each other. What we have not
shown is that a reference frame moving at constant velocity relative to an
inertial frame is inertial. What is the simplest assumption. Should nature
single out one velocity as more important that another? If we believe in
the inherent simplicity of nature then we are forced to say no velocity is
more important than any other; we are forced to assume any frame travelling
at constant velocity is the same as any other. On the grounds of simplicity
we thus propose the following principle:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames or any
frame travelling at constant velocity relative to such a frame.
This is Einstein's famous Principle of Relativity.
At this point I want aetherists to note if a detectable aether did exist
then one frame would be preferred - the frame where the aether was at rest.
Note also an aether is different from the cosmic background radiation some
purport to be it equivalent to. Such can be screened out. To qualify as an
aether it must be an inherent part of an inertial reference frame and not
able to be done away with. If such did exist and was detectable then it
would violate the POR straight out. A frame moving at constant velocity
would be different - the aether would move at different speed. Nature would
not obey the simplifying symmetry demanded by the POR.
Most of you are familiar with the POR in a slightly different way. I now
wish to show the two definitions and expressions of the POR are equivalent.
Consider an inertial reference system containing only a particle
instantaneously at rest. Suppose it moves in a certain delectation. Turn
the axis so the particle moves in a different direction. But by the POR it
must more in the same direction. This means a stationary particle that is
the only thing in an inertial reference frame remains at rest. Consider a
moving particle that is the only particle in an inertial reference frame.
Suppose it is instantaneously moving at a certain velocity. Go to the
inertial frame that is moving at that velocity. It must be instantaneously
at rest in that frame. Thus it must remain at rest relative to that frame.
Hence it must move at constant velocity relative tot he first frame. Thus
we are led to the following. A particle that is the only thing in an
inertial reference frame moves at constant velocity.
Free particles are defined as particles that behave as if they were the only
thing in a system. Thus we are led to the principle of inertia. Free
particles move constant velocity in inertial reference frames.
Let us replace the third part of our inertial reference frame definition
above by the following and see what happens:
3. A frame of reference in which free particles move at constant velocity.
Consider this new definition of an inertial reference frame and apply the
POR to it. Why we see immediately that it is the same as our original
definition. Also it allows us to simplify the POR somewhat because any
frame moving at constant velocity to an inertial reference frame will still
have free particles moving at constant velocity. Thus we are led to the
alternative; and more widely used definition of an inertial reference frame:
1. Spatial relations for stationary points and lines are assumed Euclidian.
2. It has a universal time by which is meant it is conceptually possible to
synchronise stationary clocks placed at arbitrary points. To be clear what
we assume is that conceptually we can imagine every point to have a
stationary clock attached to it and all such clocks will read the same time
for any event that occurs at any other point.
3. Free particles move at constant velocity.
And the POR becomes the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
reference frames.
What the above shows is that the real principle involved in relativity is
one of a simplifying symmetry. People who wish to discuss about an
observable aether, cosmic background radiation etc must address why they
believe nature is not simple; what experimental evidence they have that
violates the POR. To be precise why does nature pick out an inertial
reference system that is more important that the rest. Without proof to the
contrary occams razor forces us to use the minimal assumptions and pick the
simplest solution.
In my opinion this is the real meaning and importance of relativity - the
symmetry of the POR which is a simplifying symmetry that we would need some
strong experimental results to abandon. Those results have simply not been
forthcoming. I believe this is because nature, when viewed rightly and
correctly is simple.
Thanks
Bill
Ilja Schmelzer
> Central to Special Relativity (SR) in the idea of an inertial reference
> frame. A reference frame is a conventional standard of rest on which
> experiments can be conducted. An inertial reference frame is assumed to
> have the following properties:
>
> 1. Spatial relations for stationary points and lines are assumed Euclidian.
> 2. It has a universal time by which is meant it is conceptually possible to
> synchronise stationary clocks placed at arbitrary points. To be clear what
> we assume is that conceptually we can imagine every point to have a
> stationary clock attached to it and all such clocks will read the same time
> for any event that occurs at any other point.
> 3. The frame is free from outside or internal influences.
>
> From the very basis of science we believe such frames should exist - at
> least conceptually.
Hm, in GR these properties do not hold, and inertial reference frames
play no role. So, or GR is outside science (I don't think so) or your
beliefs do not come from the very basis of science.
> At this point I want aetherists to note if a detectable aether did exist
> then one frame would be preferred - the frame where the aether was at rest.
You mingle, as usual, "detectable ether" with "detectable velocity of
the ether". Of course, by detecting EM waves we detect, in ether
theory, the ether.
> Note also an aether is different from the cosmic background radiation some
> purport to be it equivalent to.
I know. But in my ether the CMBR frame is a good approximation of the
preferred frame.
> A frame moving at constant velocity would be different - the aether
> would move at different speed. Nature would not obey the
> simplifying symmetry demanded by the POR.
It would obey the simplifying symmetry demanded by the POR for
observables, but not for "beables".
> Without proof to the contrary occams razor forces us to use the
> minimal assumptions and pick the simplest solution.
Of course, there is proof of the contrary, a proof sufficient for
every realist: the violation of Bell's inequality.
Of course, if you, following the mainstream, give up realism to save
Lorentz invariance, there will never be such a proof. Giving up
realism, giving up the search for realistic explanation, allows you to
ignore whatever experimental evidence you dislike. Therefore after
this rejection no such proof is possible, even in principle.
> In my opinion this is the real meaning and importance of relativity
> - the symmetry of the POR which is a simplifying symmetry that we
> would need some strong experimental results to abandon. Those
> results have simply not been forthcoming.
The violation of Bell's inequality is sufficiently strong.
But theoretical evidence is also strong: There is no quantum theory of
gravity, despite a lot of attempts. This sufficiently proves the
incompatibility between relativity and quantum principles.
If you look at modern QFT, it seems quite clear that it is only an
effective field theory. Thus, there is a more fundamental theory,
highly probable with different symmetry.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
kenseto
"Marion Hobba" <mho...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:GIwka.9566$1s1.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames or any
> frame travelling at constant velocity relative to such a frame.
>
> This is Einstein's famous Principle of Relativity.
>
> At this point I want aetherists to note if a detectable aether did exist
> then one frame would be preferred - the frame where the aether was at
rest.
The ether frame is detectable if the correct experiment is performed. Even
Einstein predicted the existence of a stationary ether as follows:
He asserted that to measure the one-way speed of light with two spatially
separated clocks the distant clock must be off-set (advanced)by an
appropriate amount for the measurement to come out to be c. The reason for
the off-set time is to eliminate the effect of absolute motion. The off-set
time and absolute motion for two spatially separated clocks 100 meters apart
can be determined experimentally by the experiment described in the
following link:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
> Note also an aether is different from the cosmic background radiation some
> purport to be it equivalent to. Such can be screened out. To qualify as
an
> aether it must be an inherent part of an inertial reference frame and not
> able to be done away with. If such did exist and was detectable then it
> would violate the POR straight out.
No it would not violate PoR. Why? Because PoR is based on a clock second and
a clock second has a different absolute time content in different frames and
this is the reason why the POR is valid
>
> And the POR becomes the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
> reference frames.
>
> What the above shows is that the real principle involved in relativity is
> one of a simplifying symmetry. People who wish to discuss about an
> observable aether, cosmic background radiation etc must address why they
> believe nature is not simple; what experimental evidence they have that
> violates the POR. To be precise why does nature pick out an inertial
> reference system that is more important that the rest. Without proof to
the
> contrary occams razor forces us to use the minimal assumptions and pick
the
> simplest solution.
>
> In my opinion this is the real meaning and importance of relativity - the
> symmetry of the POR which is a simplifying symmetry that we would need
some
> strong experimental results to abandon. Those results have simply not
been
> forthcoming. I believe this is because nature, when viewed rightly and
> correctly is simple.
The law of physics are the same in all inertial frames because a meter rod
have a different light path length in different frames and a clock second
contains a different amount of absolute time in differentr frames.
The postulates for a correct ether theory that includes SR and LET as
subsets are as follows:
1) The laws of physics based on a clock second is the same for all observers
in all inertial reference frames.
2) The speed of light in free space based on a clock second has the same
mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames.
3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is different in
different frames of reference.
4) The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute second has a
different mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames.
The speed of light based on a defined absolute second is maximum in the rest
frame of the aether.
In addition, this correct aether theory defines that the speed of light is
not a universal constant as asserted by SR. It defines the speed of light
as a constant math ratio c as follows:
The light path length of a rod (299,631,458 m long) in any
moving frame / the absolute time content for a clock second
co-moving with the rod
The above postulates along with this new definition for light speed gives
rise to a new theory of motion ---called Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT).
DRT includes SR and LET as a subsets. Its equations are valid in all
environments---including gravity.
Please visit my website for a full description of DRT:
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
Ken Seto
Dennis McCarthy
>then one frame would be preferred - the frame where the aether was at rest.
Hmm, you mean the aether "frame" would be "preferred" for light and EM
experiments -- just as the atmosphere frame would be preferred for sound
experiments, right? So one would expect in the "preferred" frame that is where
analyses would be simplest, EM clocks would run fastest, and the speed of light
would be isotropic. Frames moving at high velocity with respect to this
preferred frame would find that clocks run slower and that the speed of light
is anisotropic, correct?
Well, we do know of such a frame. It's called the Earth Centered Inertial
frame. Atomic clocks and light experiments are analyzed with respect to this
frame (as in Vessot, Hafele-Keating, Alley, Around-the-World Sagnac's,
GPS-related phenomena, etc) because that is where analyses are simplest, that's
where clocks run the fastest, and that's where the speed of light is isotropic.
QED.
Dennis McCarthy
Titan Point
>
> "Marion Hobba" <mho...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:GIwka.9566$1s1.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames or any
>> frame travelling at constant velocity relative to such a frame.
>>
>> This is Einstein's famous Principle of Relativity.
>>
>> At this point I want aetherists to note if a detectable aether did exist
>> then one frame would be preferred - the frame where the aether was at
> rest.
>
> The ether frame is detectable if the correct experiment is performed. Even
> Einstein predicted the existence of a stationary ether as follows:
> He asserted that to measure the one-way speed of light with two spatially
> separated clocks the distant clock must be off-set (advanced)by an
> appropriate amount for the measurement to come out to be c. The reason for
> the off-set time is to eliminate the effect of absolute motion. The off-set
> time and absolute motion for two spatially separated clocks 100 meters apart
> can be determined experimentally by the experiment described in the
> following link:
> http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
>
Please everybody read this document. You won't get a better laugh this
year.
>> Note also an aether is different from the cosmic background radiation some
>> purport to be it equivalent to. Such can be screened out. To qualify as
> an
>> aether it must be an inherent part of an inertial reference frame and not
>> able to be done away with. If such did exist and was detectable then it
>> would violate the POR straight out.
>
> No it would not violate PoR. Why? Because PoR is based on a clock second and
> a clock second has a different absolute time content in different frames and
> this is the reason why the POR is valid
An obsession with "clock seconds" without ever admitting that a "clock
second" is based on the speed of light.
>>
>> And the POR becomes the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
>> reference frames.
>>
>> What the above shows is that the real principle involved in relativity is
>> one of a simplifying symmetry. People who wish to discuss about an
>> observable aether, cosmic background radiation etc must address why they
>> believe nature is not simple; what experimental evidence they have that
>> violates the POR. To be precise why does nature pick out an inertial
>> reference system that is more important that the rest. Without proof to
> the
>> contrary occams razor forces us to use the minimal assumptions and pick
> the
>> simplest solution.
>>
>> In my opinion this is the real meaning and importance of relativity - the
>> symmetry of the POR which is a simplifying symmetry that we would need
> some
>> strong experimental results to abandon. Those results have simply not
> been
>> forthcoming. I believe this is because nature, when viewed rightly and
>> correctly is simple.
>
> The law of physics are the same in all inertial frames because a meter rod
> have a different light path length in different frames and a clock second
> contains a different amount of absolute time in differentr frames.
Dirk: This HAS to go in the fumble archive...
With recommendations on the dustjacket by Dr. Tom Potter, Dr James
Driscoll Jr., Dr Jos Boersma and Nobel Prize idiot, Professor Henri Wilson
A snip at any price....
Qwfe67
a conflict between Special Relativity (STR) and the Lorentz Transformation
Aether Theory (LTET). They are identical theories, yield the same predictions,
and one can be derived from the other. LTET is a special case solution of STR.
It asserts that one of the infinite number of "stationary" reference frames
allowed by STR is the true "stationary" reference frame but we cannot find it
because we cannot communicate faster than the velocity of light. STR asserts
that, because we cannot find the "stationary" refernce frame,.all velocity
reference frames between the limits of +/- C are equally valid. THE FACT THAT
WE CANNOT FIND SOMETHING IS NOT A LEGITIMATE PROOF THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST! As
Dr. Einstein warned, "we have not proven that the Aether does not exists, we
have proven that we do not need it for computations".
He is also reported to have exclaimed that the current concept of space-time
would require the existence of an infinite number oaf Aethers.
The idea of Special Relativity no in vogue can only be held if one is too lazy
and/or too stupid to work through the behavior of the Lorentz Transformations
between multiple reference frames in combinations with the finite velocity of
light. It a lot of tedious work, but until you have done it yourself, you
cannot understand the subject.
Robert Kolker
Qwfe67 wrote:
> Dr. Einstein warned, "we have not proven that the Aether does not exists, we
> have proven that we do not need it for computations".
In other words, aether is irrelevent. It is not needed to produce
correct theories describing physical reality. Since it can't be
detected, and it need not be assumed of what use is it?
Bob Kolker
Marion Hobba
> >At this point I want aetherists to note if a detectable aether did exist
> >then one frame would be preferred - the frame where the aether was at
rest.
>
Dennis McCarthy
> Hmm, you mean the aether "frame" would be "preferred" for light and EM
> experiments -- just as the atmosphere frame would be preferred for sound
> experiments, right? So one would expect in the "preferred" frame that is
where
> analyses would be simplest, EM clocks would run fastest, and the speed of
light
> would be isotropic. Frames moving at high velocity with respect to this
> preferred frame would find that clocks run slower and that the speed of
light
> is anisotropic, correct?
> Well, we do know of such a frame. It's called the Earth Centered Inertial
> frame. Atomic clocks and light experiments are analyzed with respect to
this
> frame (as in Vessot, Hafele-Keating, Alley, Around-the-World Sagnac's,
> GPS-related phenomena, etc) because that is where analyses are simplest,
that's
> where clocks run the fastest, and that's where the speed of light is
isotropic.
>
Considering the interconnected of physics and that matter is made up of
electrical particles it is highly doubtful one could say just what
constitutes EM
experiments ie where to we draw the line?
Marion Hobba
> > Central to Special Relativity (SR) in the idea of an inertial reference
> > frame. A reference frame is a conventional standard of rest on which
> > experiments can be conducted. An inertial reference frame is assumed to
> > have the following properties:
> >
> > 1. Spatial relations for stationary points and lines are assumed
Euclidian.
> > 2. It has a universal time by which is meant it is conceptually
possible to
> > synchronise stationary clocks placed at arbitrary points. To be clear
what
> > we assume is that conceptually we can imagine every point to have a
> > stationary clock attached to it and all such clocks will read the same
time
> > for any event that occurs at any other point.
> > 3. The frame is free from outside or internal influences.
> >
> > From the very basis of science we believe such frames should exist - at
> > least conceptually.
>
I. Schmelzer replied:
> Hm, in GR these properties do not hold, and inertial reference frames
> play no role. So, or GR is outside science (I don't think so) or your
> beliefs do not come from the very basis of science.
So? GR reduces to SR when no gravity is present. It is normal practice to
exclude outside influences on experiments. While unimportant for many
purposes gravity is important for some which is why their are some
experiment we would like to do on the space station. The whole point of the
post is that, conceptually the repeatability of experiments is important.
For many purposes gravity can be ignored and we can assume we are dealing
with a frame containing no influences.
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > At this point I want aetherists to note if a detectable aether did exist
> > then one frame would be preferred - the frame where the aether was at
rest.
>
I. Schmelzer wrote:
> You mingle, as usual, "detectable ether" with "detectable velocity of
> the ether". Of course, by detecting EM waves we detect, in ether
> theory, the ether.
>
Detectable is a superset of detectable velocity of the aether.
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > Without proof to the contrary occams razor forces us to use the
> > minimal assumptions and pick the simplest solution.
>
I. Schmelzer wrote:
> Of course, there is proof of the contrary, a proof sufficient for
> every realist: the violation of Bell's inequality.
>
Come again. Bells inequality has nothing to with the aether - it puts
bounds on legitimate theories of the aether. It means to hold a realist
position you must accept non locality.
I. Schmelzer wrote:
> Of course, if you, following the mainstream, give up realism to save
> Lorentz invariance, there will never be such a proof. Giving up
> realism, giving up the search for realistic explanation, allows you to
> ignore whatever experimental evidence you dislike. Therefore after
> this rejection no such proof is possible, even in principle.
>
Now you are getting to the basis of the real reason you would like an
aether. It allows you to hold the view that length shortening etc has a
real basis - interaction with an undetectable aether.
Marion Hobba
> > The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames or any
> > frame travelling at constant velocity relative to such a frame.
> >
> > This is Einstein's famous Principle of Relativity.
> >
> > At this point I want aetherists to note if a detectable aether did exist
> > then one frame would be preferred - the frame where the aether was at
> rest.
kenseto replied:
> The ether frame is detectable if the correct experiment is performed.
Then perform it and have it peer reviewed. If true you will win a Nobel
prize for sure. Got your ticked booked to Stockholm yet?
Thanks
Bill
Marion Hobba
I am the first to admit that LET is a legitimate theory even though I do not
believe in it. I have even stood up for it against those who assumed it was
not and subjected myself to abuse because of it. I could have avoided
speaking out and not been subjected to the outbursts that followed.
Fortunately Stephen helped me and the fallout was limited. I tell you this
so you understand I am interested in the truth.
Tom Roberts, myself and many others have all championed the validity of LET
as a theory and will always continue to do so.
With regard to my recent posting I encourage you to read it carefully. It
in no way is at odds with LET. If you do read it properly you will notice I
speak of a DETECTABLE aether. LET does not have a detectable aether and is
therefore not subject to my criticism.
However the reason I do not believe in LET is I do not believe in things
that are inherently undetectable.
To be sure I will state it again. LET is legit from the only gold coin of
the realm in science - experiment.
But I will aso state SR, in my opinon, simply make smore sence.
Thanks
Bill
kenseto
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> > > The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames or
any
> > > frame travelling at constant velocity relative to such a frame.
> > >
> > > This is Einstein's famous Principle of Relativity.
> > >
> > > At this point I want aetherists to note if a detectable aether did
exist
> > > then one frame would be preferred - the frame where the aether was at
> > rest.
>
> kenseto replied:
> > The ether frame is detectable if the correct experiment is performed.
I would if I have the money. I was trying to refute your blanket statement
that the ether frame is not detectable. You should have said that attempts
to detect the ether frame were not successful.
>
> Then perform it and have it peer reviewed. If true you will win a Nobel
> prize for sure. Got your ticked booked to Stockholm yet?
This is a typical SR runt remark.
Ken Seto
FrediFizzx
news:3E93439B...@attbi.com...
That was then, this is now. It is not proven now that we don't need it for
computations. We do need to include the quantum vacuum for accurate
calculations in QED. Now we have high energy photons "magically" turning
into virtual pairs briefly. The aether is back IMHO. It is a minimum
energy state of an infinite number of what can become virtual pairs (I don't
know what to really call them because they are even below the requirements
for virtual-ness). And it has no absolute reference frame.
However, I have one big problem with this concept. A frame that is moving
sees the speed of light as c.
FrediFizzx
Tom M-G
> frames move at constant velocity relative to each other. >>
Consider one body hurtling towards earth under gravity and another slowly
drifting away from earth. They can both be considered inertial frames, but
if one of them shines a beam of light to the other, the properties of the
photons on reception will indicate that there is no such constant velocity
between them - rather, it'll show that gravitational acceleration is real,
and is therefore the manifestation of a force which differs from
artificially applied forces only in that the latter cannot, on the whole, be
applied uniformly (or with a gradient similar to that of a gravitational
field) throughout the entire ponderable body.
Tom.
Robert Kolker
FrediFizzx wrote:
>
> That was then, this is now. It is not proven now that we don't need it for
> computations. We do need to include the quantum vacuum for accurate
> calculations in QED. Now we have high energy photons "magically" turning
> into virtual pairs briefly. The aether is back IMHO. It is a minimum
> energy state of an infinite number of what can become virtual pairs (I don't
> know what to really call them because they are even below the requirements
> for virtual-ness). And it has no absolute reference frame.
That is not your grandpaw's aether. The aether of Maxwell and Michelson
was Cosmic Space Jello that jiggled when light went through it. You
aether you are postulating has nothing to do with the fluid, or jello
postulated back in the 19-th century.
In one of Maxwell's papers he even postulated that space was filled with
hexagonal nuts with itty bitty roller bearings in between. How is that
for aether?
Bob Kolker
FrediFizzx
|
| I am the first to admit that LET is a legitimate theory even though I do
not
| believe in it. I have even stood up for it against those who assumed it
was
| not and subjected myself to abuse because of it. I could have avoided
| speaking out and not been subjected to the outbursts that followed.
| Fortunately Stephen helped me and the fallout was limited. I tell you
this
| so you understand I am interested in the truth.
|
| Tom Roberts, myself and many others have all championed the validity of
LET
| as a theory and will always continue to do so.
|
| With regard to my recent posting I encourage you to read it carefully. It
| in no way is at odds with LET. If you do read it properly you will notice
I
| speak of a DETECTABLE aether. LET does not have a detectable aether and
is
| therefore not subject to my criticism.
|
| However the reason I do not believe in LET is I do not believe in things
| that are inherently undetectable.
So do you think that virtual pairs and particles are just a fantasy?
FrediFizzx
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong/photong.html
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong.ps
FrediFizzx
That is some messed up stuff for aether there. Hehe. Exactly my point. We
should have a better idea of what the aether is now-a-days. It is not like
what Maxwell imagined at all. The "aether" is composed of whatever a
virtual pair is before it becomes "virtual". It has to be or something is
wrong with QED. And that is not likely. Photons do not "magically" turn
into virtual pairs. I don't care what anyone says, you will have a real
hard time of convincing me of that. High energy photons can turn into
hadronic virtual pairs briefly. Excuse me? What magic is this? The
precursors are already in the quantum vacuum and the right energy, etc.
makes them become "virtual".
Like I said though, I can't figure out how this works with the observer in a
moving frame seeing the speed of light as c. But there are an infinite
number of these virtual pair precursors so there would have to be a set that
are moving along with the observer. No matter what we do, we end up with
fantasy crap.
Bilge
Since it's possible for a virtual particle to radiate, why would they
be a fantasy?
FrediFizzx
news:slrnb978ra....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
I don't think they are a fantasy. Probably bad semantics on my part.
Virtual pairs and particles are "inherently undetectable" directly. But
there are a lot of people that think they exist including myself.
FrediFizzx
Ilja Schmelzer
> I. Schmelzer replied:
>> Bill Hobba wrote:
>>> Central to Special Relativity (SR) in the idea of an inertial reference
>>> frame. A reference frame is a conventional standard of rest on which
>>> experiments can be conducted. An inertial reference frame is assumed to
>>> have the following properties:
>>>
>>> 1. Spatial relations for stationary points and lines are assumed Euclidian.
>>> 2. It has a universal time by which is meant it is conceptually possible to
>>> synchronise stationary clocks placed at arbitrary points. To be clear what
>>> we assume is that conceptually we can imagine every point to have a
>>> stationary clock attached to it and all such clocks will read the same time
>>> for any event that occurs at any other point.
>>> 3. The frame is free from outside or internal influences.
>>> From the very basis of science we believe such frames should exist - at
>>> least conceptually.
>> Hm, in GR these properties do not hold, and inertial reference frames
>> play no role. So, or GR is outside science (I don't think so) or your
>> beliefs do not come from the very basis of science.
> So? GR reduces to SR when no gravity is present.
Yep. But this does not prove that SR axioms hold in GR.
> It is normal practice to exclude outside influences on
> experiments. While unimportant for many purposes gravity is
> important for some which is why their are some experiment we would
> like to do on the space station. The whole point of the post is
> that, conceptually the repeatability of experiments is important.
Conceptually, the repeatability of experiments is not as important as
usually assumed. In Popper's methodology, it is falsification by
observation which counts. At least in principle, a single falsifying
observation is sufficient to falsify a theory. (In practice, we
require more to exclude the typical human sources of error, but not
too much).
Moreover, the point is not what is the point of your posting, the
point is that you have made false claims about the "very basis of
science".
> For many purposes gravity can be ignored and we can assume we are
> dealing with a frame containing no influences.
For many purposes, but a discussion of the "very basis of science" is
not among them.
>>> At this point I want aetherists to note if a detectable aether did
>>> exist then one frame would be preferred - the frame where the
>>> aether was at rest.
>> You mingle, as usual, "detectable ether" with "detectable velocity of
>> the ether". Of course, by detecting EM waves we detect, in ether
>> theory, the ether.
> Detectable is a superset of detectable velocity of the aether.
??????? We can easily detect a lot of interesting properties of the
ether, for example the sound waves of the ether. We cannot measure
its velocity. An object such that some properties are observable,
other not, is usually named observable.
>>> Without proof to the contrary occams razor forces us to use the
>>> minimal assumptions and pick the simplest solution.
>> Of course, there is proof of the contrary, a proof sufficient for
>> every realist: the violation of Bell's inequality.
> Come again. Bells inequality has nothing to with the aether - it puts
> bounds on legitimate theories of the aether. It means to hold a realist
> position you must accept non locality.
And therefore it has a lot to do with the ether. If I'm realist, I
have to accept non-local causal influences: A->B or B->A for any pair
of space-like separated events. If I accept them, but don't want to
accept closed causal loops, I have to accept a preferred foliation t
of spacetime which describes causality A->B <=> t(A)<t(B).
If I have a preferred frame, I'm already very close to an ether.
BTW, if you are interested in the math of modern ether theory, see
gr-qc/0205035
>> Of course, if you, following the mainstream, give up realism to
>> save Lorentz invariance, there will never be such a proof. Giving
>> up realism, giving up the search for realistic explanation, allows
>> you to ignore whatever experimental evidence you dislike. Therefore
>> after this rejection no such proof is possible, even in principle.
> Now you are getting to the basis of the real reason you would like
> an aether. It allows you to hold the view that length shortening etc
> has a real basis - interaction with an undetectable aether.
This has nothing to do with any "real reason I would like an aether".
I suggest you not to speculate too much about my "real reasons".
Marion Hobba
Regarding some experiment to detect an aether frame Ken Seto wrote:
> I would if I have the money. I was trying to refute your blanket statement
> that the ether frame is not detectable. You should have said that attempts
> to detect the ether frame were not successful.
Regarding such an experiment Bill hobba wrote:
> >
> > Then perform it and have it peer reviewed. If true you will win a Nobel
> > prize for sure. Got your ticked booked to Stockholm yet?
>
Ken Seto replied:
> This is a typical SR runt remark.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you cant convince someone to
put money up for what would be a groundbreaking experiment then the most
reasonable assumption is people have looked at it at were not interested.
You can fool most of the people some of the time ........ Get the point?
Thanks
Bill
Marion Hobba
experimental grounds even though he does not believe in it.
Fred Frizz replied:
> >
> >So do you think that virtual pairs and particles are just a fantasy?
> >
>
Bilge correctly retorted:
> Since it's possible for a virtual particle to radiate, why would they
> be a fantasy?
What a joke bringing up virtual pairs (and I presume the vacuum state) to
support an aether. Virtual particles are a AFT effect. QFT more or less
results from combining QM and SR. Those that propose the vacuum state to be
some kind of aether show scant regard for the basis of its existence. Its
existence is based on the rejection of an aether so can not be used to
support it.
Thanks
Bill
Marion Hobba
> <<We have shown that all inertial reference
> > frames move at constant velocity relative to each other. >>
>
Tom M-G replied:
> Consider one body hurtling towards earth under gravity and another slowly
> drifting away from earth. They can both be considered inertial frames, but
> if one of them shines a beam of light to the other, the properties of the
> photons on reception will indicate that there is no such constant velocity
> between them - rather, it'll show that gravitational acceleration is real,
> and is therefore the manifestation of a force which differs from
> artificially applied forces only in that the latter cannot, on the whole,
be
> applied uniformly (or with a gradient similar to that of a gravitational
> field) throughout the entire ponderable body.
> Tom.
Inertial frames containing gravity? How so when gravity curves space-time
so violates the axiom of Euclidian geometry.
Thanks
Bill
Ilja Schmelzer
> What a joke bringing up virtual pairs (and I presume the vacuum state) to
> support an aether.
I don't want to defend the original proposal, but there are strong
similarities between the vacuum state and an ether. Strong enough to
suggest that "vacuum state" is a modern name for "ether".
> Virtual particles are a AFT [QFT] effect. QFT more or less
> results from combining QM and SR.
and, therefore, not in conflict with the Lorentz ether (which is
mathematically equivalent to SR). Which part of QFT could not have
been done with the Lorentz ether instead of SR? (Purely rhetorical
question, of course, there is no such part.)
> Those that propose the vacuum state to be some kind of aether show
> scant regard for the basis of its existence. Its existence is based
> on the rejection of an aether
Not at all. The rejection of the ether is only ideology, not physics.
QFT is mostly computation of scattering parameters, physics.
> so can not be used to support it.
I would not use it in support, except in an indirect way, for example
by quoting
hep-th/9803075 (Wilczek, quantum field theory)
"... the continuing interchange of ideas between condensed matter and
high energy theory, through the medium of quantum field theory, is a
remarkable phenomenon in itself. A partial list of historically
important examples includes global and local spontaneous symmetry
breaking, the renormalization group, effective field theory, solitons,
instantons, and fractional charge and statistics."
kenseto
A lot of poeple have looked at it. Specifically the reviewers and editors of
Galilean Electrodynamics, Internet Journal EPISTEME and Journal Of The
Theoretic. They all agree that the experiment will detect the ether if it
exists. Galilean Electrodynamics approved the pubication of the experiment.
Journal Of The Theoretic put the experiment up in their permanent papers
website. EPISTEME published a version of the experiment. Furthermore the
experiment is based on Einstein's assertion that to measure the one way
speed of light with two clocks the distant clock must be off-set (advanced)
by an appropriate amount to get c. The reason for the off-set is to
eliminate the effect of absolute motion of the distant clock. Notice that
that means that if you use truly synchronized clocks you will not get c.
You ask: Why don't people put up the money to do the experiment??
The answer: I am now trying. But I doubt that anybody who got the money is
interested in refuting the claims of SR.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6vupc$9g88v$1...@ID-185976.news.dfncis.de...
A description of the correct structure of the aether is in the following
link:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
>
> Like I said though, I can't figure out how this works with the observer in
a
> moving frame seeing the speed of light as c.
The answer: The aether is stationary and c is a constant math ratio in all
frames as follows:
The light path length of rod (299,792,458 m)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the rod.
Ken Seto
Tom M-G
I am not admitting the hypothesis that Einstein's conclusions about
geometry are correct and and don't think that should be anybody's starting
point if they want to make an objective appraisal of relativity, so let's
not play with non-Euclidean geometry at this stage, because it was *based*
on a hypothesis that employed the concept of the inertial frame.
By 'containing gravity' I assume you refer to the gravitational gradient
within them. Are you saying that objects in freefall are not inertial
frames? No perfect inertial frame exists, it is true, but nevertheless we
can make allowances for gravitational gradients (one could, for example,
generate counterbalancing gravitational gradients by way of weights that are
co-moving with the falling body). I simply cannot see any basis for
supposing that inertial frames are at uniform velocity with respect to each
other, unless, circularly, they are defined as being such.
Cheers,
Tom
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Bill Hobba wrote:
>> >At this point I want aetherists to note if a detectable aether did exist
>> >then one frame would be preferred - the frame where the aether was at
>rest.
>>
>
>Dennis McCarthy
>> Hmm, you mean the aether "frame" would be "preferred" for light and EM
>> experiments -- just as the atmosphere frame would be preferred for sound
>> experiments, right? So one would expect in the "preferred" frame that is
>where
>> analyses would be simplest, EM clocks would run fastest, and the speed of
>light
>> would be isotropic. Frames moving at high velocity with respect to this
>> preferred frame would find that clocks run slower and that the speed of
>light
>> is anisotropic, correct?
>> Well, we do know of such a frame. It's called the Earth Centered Inertial
>> frame. Atomic clocks and light experiments are analyzed with respect to
>this
>> frame (as in Vessot, Hafele-Keating, Alley, Around-the-World Sagnac's,
>> GPS-related phenomena, etc) because that is where analyses are simplest,
>that's
>> where clocks run the fastest, and that's where the speed of light is
>isotropic.
>>
Hobba:
>Considering the interconnected of physics and that matter is made up of
>electrical particles it is highly doubtful one could say just what
>constitutes EM
>experiments ie where to we draw the line?
>
Dennis: Well, I'm referring to SR experiments that allegedly support the
validity of SR like Hafele-Keating, Alley, Around-the-World-Sagnac,
Michelson-Gale, Sagnac-ring-gyros -- the ECI frame is the frame that is
preferred for such analyses because that is where they are simplest, that is
where the speed of light is isotropic, and where clocks run the fastest.
You seemed to imply above that we don't prefer a frame for such analyses.
But the fact is we do. We ignore Earth-surface frame, the frame of the
satellites, etc. and use the ECI frame.
--Dennis
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis: Just like the atmosphere. We can't see it. Since we can just rely on
equations, it isn't needed to describe atmospheric phenomena. Some kooky
atmospherists may claim the fact that sound waves or that the atmosphere
embodies many invisible forcese (e.g., wind or pressure) are "evidence" of the
atmosphere -- but kooky etherists say the same thing about the vacuum.
Hey, why do we need material causality when all you have to do is memorize
the equations?
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis: Wrong. Maxwell provided some helpful visual aids but like many other
etherists did not commit to a particular vision of the ether. He just knew
there was some type of material in the vacuum that was responsible for the
effects.
Yours is just an excuse that people on the wrong side of scientific history
always trot out once they are knocked off the present paradigm. They either
invent or point to irrelevant differences between the accepted revolutionary
theory and a few of its more elementary versions.
The name of the revolutionary theory is then changed so as not to embarrass
all the mainstream types who had rejected it, often quite obnoxiously, for
decades:
Thus, the name of "Continental drift" is changed to "plate tectonics;"
"sociobiology" is changed to "evolutionarly psychology;" "ether" will be
changed to "physical vacuum" or some such nonsense as well.
But lots of theories evolve and are augmented and pruned without changing
names -- just look at the Standard Model in physics. Changing names is done
purely to avoid embarrassment.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>in no way is at odds with LET. If you do read it properly you will notice I
>speak of a DETECTABLE aether. LET does not have a detectable aether and is
>therefore not subject to my criticism.
>
That's false of course. When we "detect" light waves this is a physical
manifestation of the ether. You, as always, confuse "detectable" with
"determining the velocity of something."
BTW, what do you think "detects" the atmosphere?
Dennis McCarthy
Robert Kolker
kenseto wrote:
>
>
> A lot of poeple have looked at it. Specifically the reviewers and editors of
> Galilean Electrodynamics, Internet Journal EPISTEME and Journal Of The
> Theoretic. They all agree that the experiment will detect the ether if it
> exists.
When will we see the experiment done? Any time in the 21-st century? If
it is such a great experiment, why hasn't anyone bothered to do it? Why
haven'y you done it. From the way you describe it an amiteur and $10,000
should be able to do it.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
kenseto wrote:
> electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
> proposed experiment to detect physical space.
The key word here is proposed. Proposed experiments do not count. Only
done and reproduced experiments do.
Bob Kolker
kenseto
>
>
> kenseto wrote:
> >
> >
> > A lot of poeple have looked at it. Specifically the reviewers and
editors of
> > Galilean Electrodynamics, Internet Journal EPISTEME and Journal Of The
> > Theoretic. They all agree that the experiment will detect the ether if
it
> > exists.
>
> When will we see the experiment done? Any time in the 21-st century?
Is there no limit to your stupidity?? Can't you read?
>If
> it is such a great experiment, why hasn't anyone bothered to do it?
Possibly because I just put it up in the internet a few months ago. Also it
is doubtful that any SRians would be interested in doing it.
>Why
> haven'y you done it. From the way you describe it an amiteur and $10,000
> should be able to do it.
Again this shows your stupidity. An "amiteur" and $10,000 should be able to
do it???
Ken Seto
kenseto
Marion Hobba
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > So? GR reduces to SR when no gravity is present.
>
Ilja Schmelzer replied:
> Yep. But this does not prove that SR axioms hold in GR.
I never said they did. But now that you bring it up, they do locally.
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > It is normal practice to exclude outside influences on
> > experiments. While unimportant for many purposes gravity is
> > important for some which is why their are some experiment we would
> > like to do on the space station. The whole point of the post is
> > that, conceptually the repeatability of experiments is important.
>
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> Conceptually, the repeatability of experiments is not as important as
> usually assumed. In Popper's methodology, it is falsification by
> observation which counts. At least in principle, a single falsifying
> observation is sufficient to falsify a theory. (In practice, we
> require more to exclude the typical human sources of error, but not
> too much).
>
> Moreover, the point is not what is the point of your posting, the
> point is that you have made false claims about the "very basis of
> science".
>
Do an experiment - postulate a result. Do exactly the same experiment get a
different result. Try to find what cased the different result. Like in QM
try and formulate statistical laws and test. Unless you can com up with a
hypothosis that stands up to experimental scrutiny by being repeatable
(whether you hold to Popper or not) then science is simply not possible.
Experimental repeatability is the basis of science. This is not
philosophical mash mash - it is basic science.
Boil Hobba wrote:
> > For many purposes gravity can be ignored and we can assume we are
> > dealing with a frame containing no influences.
>
Ilja Schmelzer replied:
> For many purposes, but a discussion of the "very basis of science" is
> not among them.
>
Which is why I did not introduce such practicalities.
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> >> You mingle, as usual, "detectable ether" with "detectable velocity of
> >> the ether". Of course, by detecting EM waves we detect, in ether
> >> theory, the ether.
>
Bill Hobba replied
> > Detectable is a superset of detectable velocity of the aether.
>
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> ??????? We can easily detect a lot of interesting properties of the
> ether, for example the sound waves of the ether. We cannot measure
> its velocity. An object such that some properties are observable,
> other not, is usually named observable.
>
Sound waves of the aether? - you mean light waves. Light is electromagnetic
waves an possess properties nothing like an aether which is a strong reason
for rejecting it.
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > Come again. Bells inequality has nothing to with the aether - it puts
> > bounds on legitimate theories of the aether. It means to hold a realist
> > position you must accept non locality.
>
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> And therefore it has a lot to do with the ether. If I'm realist, I
> have to accept non-local causal influences: A->B or B->A for any pair
> of space-like separated events. If I accept them, but don't want to
> accept closed causal loops, I have to accept a preferred foliation t
> of spacetime which describes causality A->B <=> t(A)<t(B).
>
> If I have a preferred frame, I'm already very close to an ether.
>
The laws of QM from which Bells Inequality is deduced hold equally true in
all inertial reference frames. I would be very interested in the details of
how a law that is the same in all inertial reference frames implies one that
is preferred - local or non local interpretation.
Thanks
Bill
Patrick Reany
[snip]
> The name of the revolutionary theory is then changed so as not to embarrass
> all the mainstream types who had rejected it, often quite obnoxiously, for
> decades:
> Thus, the name of "Continental drift" is changed to "plate tectonics;"
>
thing as a continent. The latter is just much more accurate a
description of what's going on, which explains the shift in
terminology. No conspiracy at all.
Patrick
Paul Stowe
>>>
>>> That was then, this is now. It is not proven now that we don't need it for
>>> computations. We do need to include the quantum vacuum for accurate
>>> calculations in QED. Now we have high energy photons "magically" turning
>>> into virtual pairs briefly. The aether is back IMHO. It is a minimum
>>> energy state of an infinite number of what can become virtual pairs (I
>>> don't know what to really call them because they are even below the
>>> requirements for virtual-ness). And it has no absolute reference frame.
>>
>> That is not your grandpaw's aether. The aether of Maxwell and Michelson
>> was Cosmic Space Jello that jiggled when light went through it. You
>> aether you are postulating has nothing to do with the fluid, or jello
>> postulated back in the 19-th century.
>>
>> In one of Maxwell's papers he even postulated that space was filled with
>> hexagonal nuts with itty bitty roller bearings in between. How is that
>> for aether?
>
> Dennis: Wrong. Maxwell provided some helpful visual aids but like many
> other etherists did not commit to a particular vision of the ether.
> He just knew there was some type of material in the vacuum that was
> responsible for the effects.
He knows this Dennis. Ask him to produce a (as in ANY) valid reference
to Maxwell's works where it says ANYTHING about hexagonal nuts!!!
To deliberately continue this line AFTER being provide concrete evidence
to the contrary is direct evidence of DELIBERATE dishonesty, and
clear unscientific behavior.
AGAIN KOLKER, give one single solitary shred of evidence for your
claims above. Maxwell NEVER mentions Hexagonal nuts OR roller
bearings. He does mention 'idler wheels' and only an ANALOGY, to
suggest 'means of conception' of 'how' two opposing rotational
elements could mechanistically 'slide' pass each other without
'mechanical friction'.
I have no problem with anyone views as long as they remain honest.
Even false beliefs are OK, as long as one can explain why they hold
them, BUT, when DIRECT evidence is provided (in this case Maxwell's
own writings) that refute said belief, to continue make one out to
be either an irrational fool, or a deliberate liar, take your pick...
What sadden's me the most however is the lack by FrediFizzz to at least
admonish Kolker for this act. He knows this to be a lie (doesn't he?).
It is one thing to not accept an idea, but quite another to have to
resort to deliberately lies in order to attempt to refute it.
Kolker lied, and failure to correct the propagation such falsehoods is
being an accessory after the fact.
Paul Stowe
FrediFizzx
news:7d262f42.03040...@posting.google.com...
Well, I am no expert on Maxwell, but I did figure that our chains were being
yanked somewhat by Mr. Kolker. I just try to be a nice person as much as I
can and leave the admonishing to someone that might know more than I do. I
was thinking mostly that Bob was presenting it as more of a joke. That is
why I responded: "That is some messed up stuff for aether there. Hehe."
So don't be sad on my account. I just try to be an easy going person whilst
I am learning more about all this.
FrediFizzx
Dennis McCarthy
>
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote in message
>[snip]
>> The name of the revolutionary theory is then changed so as not to
>embarrass
>> all the mainstream types who had rejected it, often quite obnoxiously, for
>> decades:
>> Thus, the name of "Continental drift" is changed to "plate tectonics;"
>>
Reany:
>They're NOT the same thing at all. A geological plate is not the same
>thing as a continent. The latter is just much more accurate a
>description of what's going on, which explains the shift in
>terminology.
Dennis: The reason for the change in names is ludicrous of course. In
continental drift, you had a Pangean supercontinent in the Late Triassic that
takes up one side of the globe with Panthalassa ocean on the other. The Tethyan
embayment separated eastern Laurasia and Eastern Gondwana. The connection of
the past continents explain the geological and biogeographic conformity of the
circum-Atlantic and circum-Indian regions. This supercontinent rifted apart
into essentially the present continents and they slowly moved to their present
location. In plate tectonics, you have...well, you have the same thing. The
boundaries of the rifting sections have changed -- but countless theories go
through such modifications. In fact, the 1970's version of "plate tectonics" is
**far, far** more similar to "continental drift" than to the present version of
"plate tectonics." How many plates and microplates are there now? 100+? How
many vanished oceans? Who can count.
Oh, yeah, and what's the mechanism again for drift and things like yellowstone
volcanism?
Reany: No conspiracy at all.
Dennis :As with Tolstoy (or was it Trotsky?) I never attribute to conspiracy
that which is adequately explained by ignorance. Or in this case, self-interest
of the ignorant...
Dennis McCarthy
FrediFizzx
Excuse me? What else could an ether be? If it is not virtual pair
precursors what else could it be? I think you maybe have too much QFT on
the brain (heck, maybe we all do). If we think more in actual particle
terms, then it is not too hard to imagine what might be happening. To me,
an electron is the manifestation of a bare charged point-like particle
spread out over a certain "local" volume of space. When this bare particle
meets its mate (positron), does it really disappear forever? Doubtful.
They most likely make a virtual pair precursor. Zero spin with minimum
vacuum energy. Smack one of these suckers with the proper quanta of EM
energy, you end up with a spin 1 virtual pair briefly until the energy
passes on to the next precursor(s) or interacts with something else. Viola!
We have an ether. And maybe an explanation of vacuum polarization.
FrediFizzx
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong/photong.html
Ilja Schmelzer
> Ilja Schmelzer replied:
>> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> Conceptually, the repeatability of experiments is not as important as
>> usually assumed. In Popper's methodology, it is falsification by
>> observation which counts. At least in principle, a single falsifying
>> observation is sufficient to falsify a theory. (In practice, we
>> require more to exclude the typical human sources of error, but not
>> too much).
>> Moreover, the point is not what is the point of your posting, the
>> point is that you have made false claims about the "very basis of
>> science".
> Do an experiment - postulate a result. Do exactly the same experiment get a
> different result. Try to find what cased the different result. Like in QM
> try and formulate statistical laws and test. Unless you can com up with a
> hypothosis that stands up to experimental scrutiny by being repeatable
> (whether you hold to Popper or not) then science is simply not possible.
> Experimental repeatability is the basis of science. This is not
> philosophical mash mash - it is basic science.
Please decide: Do you want to discuss the "very basis of science" in a
serious way or not? In the first case, inform yourself about this
domain, for example by reading Popper (as well as his opponents). If
not, don't talk about this domain - you only disqualify yourself.
>>>> You mingle, as usual, "detectable ether" with "detectable velocity of
>>>> the ether". Of course, by detecting EM waves we detect, in ether
>>>> theory, the ether.
>>> Detectable is a superset of detectable velocity of the aether.
>> ??????? We can easily detect a lot of interesting properties of the
>> ether, for example the sound waves of the ether. We cannot measure
>> its velocity. An object such that some properties are observable,
>> other not, is usually named observable.
> Sound waves of the aether? - you mean light waves.
Yep. The ether is a hypothetical material so that light waves are
some type of sound waves of this material.
> Light is electromagnetic waves an possess properties nothing like an
> aether which is a strong reason for rejecting it.
The reasons for rejecting the ether are quite weak.
>>> Come again. Bells inequality has nothing to with the aether - it puts
>>> bounds on legitimate theories of the aether. It means to hold a realist
>>> position you must accept non locality.
>> And therefore it has a lot to do with the ether. If I'm realist, I
>> have to accept non-local causal influences: A-> B or B-> A for any pair
>> of space-like separated events. If I accept them, but don't want to
>> accept closed causal loops, I have to accept a preferred foliation t
>> of spacetime which describes causality A-> B <=> t(A)<t(B).
>> If I have a preferred frame, I'm already very close to an ether.
> The laws of QM from which Bells Inequality is deduced hold equally true in
> all inertial reference frames. I would be very interested in the details of
> how a law that is the same in all inertial reference frames implies one that
> is preferred - local or non local interpretation.
The wave function is not a covariant object. Especially, the Bohmian
interpretation (where the wave function is considered to be really
existing) requires a preferred frame.
What is Lorentz invariant in QFT are only the predictions about
observables.
But it is quite obvious that what really exists and what is observable
for internal observers are quite different things.
Oriel36
> I am the first to admit that LET is a legitimate theory even though I do not
> believe in it. I have even stood up for it against those who assumed it was
> not and subjected myself to abuse because of it. I could have avoided
> speaking out and not been subjected to the outbursts that followed.
> Fortunately Stephen helped me and the fallout was limited. I tell you this
> so you understand I am interested in the truth.
>
> Tom Roberts, myself and many others have all championed the validity of LET
> as a theory and will always continue to do so.
>
Of course you will champion the ether theories,without the etherist's
careless use of relative motion of the Earth to some etherial
substance,relativity cannot go on to do a hatchet job on Newton's
Absolute/Relative distinctions of time space and motion.
Anyone who has the patience to go through the relevant scholium of the
Principia where these distinctions are set out discovers that Newton
is just formulating well known computations such as the equation of
time which is the difference between diurnal motion of 24 hours
through 360 degrees against elliptical annual motion which makes the
days unequal,Kepler's second law where there are differences between
apparent motion and true motion,the geocentric/heliocentric
comparisons in other words.
Absolute time (24hrs/360 degrees) + Equation of Time = Relative
motion (relative time)
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm
Anyone who reads the scholium and then reads the nonsense of this man
will be appalled at the hatchet job.
" I. Newton's endeavors to represent his system
as necessarily conditioned by experience and to
introduce the smallest possible number of concepts
not directly referable to empirical objects is
everywhere evident; in spite of this he set up the
concept of absolute space and absolute time. For
this he has often been criticized in recent years.
But in this point Newton is particularly consistent.
He had realized that observable geometrical quantities
(distances of material points from one another) and
their course in time do not completely characterize
motion in its physical aspects. He proved this in the
famous experiment with the rotating vessel of water.
Therefore, in addition to masses and temporally
variable distances, there must be something else that
determines motion. That "something" he takes to be
relation to "absolute space." He is aware that space
must possess a kind of physical reality if his laws
of motion are to have any meaning, a reality of the
same sort as material points and their distances.
The clear realization of this reveals both Newton's
wisdom and also a weak side to his theory. For the
logical structure of the latter would undoubtedly be
more satisfactory without this shadowy concept; in that
case only things whose relations to perception are
perfectly clear (mass-points, distances) would enter
into the laws.
-- Einstein, THE MECHANICS OF NEWTON AND THEIR
INFLUENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS,
Ideas and Opinions, p. 258.
> With regard to my recent posting I encourage you to read it carefully. It
> in no way is at odds with LET. If you do read it properly you will notice I
> speak of a DETECTABLE aether. LET does not have a detectable aether and is
> therefore not subject to my criticism.
>
> However the reason I do not believe in LET is I do not believe in things
> that are inherently undetectable.
>
> To be sure I will state it again. LET is legit from the only gold coin of
> the realm in science - experiment.
>
> But I will aso state SR, in my opinon, simply make smore sence.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
Ilja Schmelzer
> I am the first to admit that LET is a legitimate theory even though I do not
> believe in it.
Fine. As well, I am the first to admit that SR as well as GR are legitimate
theories even though I do not believe in them.
BTW, do you extend your consideration to my ether theory of gravity
presented in gr-qc/0205035?
> However the reason I do not believe in LET is I do not believe in things
> that are inherently undetectable.
Hm. Assume there is some reality. Then, part of this reality are
observers - real, and, therefore, internal observers. It seems quite
natural, in some sense even unavoidable, that these internal observers
are unable to observe all properties of reality. Last not least, they
are restricted by physical laws, including physical symmetries.
How this works in math, you can see in gr-qc/0205035, where the
Einstein equivalence principle follows, essentially, from
translational invariance and the "action equals reaction" symmetry of
the Lagrange formalism.
> To be sure I will state it again. LET is legit from the only gold
> coin of the realm in science - experiment. But I will aso state SR,
> in my opinon, simply makes more sence.
I don't think it makes sense to mingle time with clock measurements or
space with distance measurements. This is philosophical nonsense,
which follows from the wrong simplicistic positivistic scheme of
science:
experiment -> theory.
In Poppers fallibilism:
theory -> prediction -> falsification -> modified theory
there is no necessity to derive all elements of the theory from
observation.
Bilge
Bill Hobba:
>> The laws of QM from which Bells Inequality is deduced hold equally true
>> in all inertial reference frames. I would be very interested in the
>> details of how a law that is the same in all inertial reference frames
>> implies one that is preferred - local or non local interpretation.
>
>The wave function is not a covariant object.
> Especially, the Bohmian
>interpretation (where the wave function is considered to be really
>existing) requires a preferred frame.
are incompatible with quantum mechanics. "Quantum Correlations
with Spacelike Separated Beamsplitters in Motion: Experimental
Test of Multisimultaneity", A. Stefanov, H. Zbindin, N. Gisin,
A. Suarez, PRL 88 12 (2002). A reprint of the article may be found
at:
http://www.gap-optique.unige.ch/Publications/Pdf/Suarez.pdf
>What is Lorentz invariant in QFT are only the predictions about
>observables.
I don't see the point here. Quantum field theories make predictions
about things we can measure.
>
>But it is quite obvious that what really exists and what is observable
>for internal observers are quite different things.
In what way? There is no reality to something that cannot be quantified
and measured.
Ilja Schmelzer
> Ilja Schmelzer:
>> Bill Hobba:
>>> The laws of QM from which Bells Inequality is deduced hold equally true
>>> in all inertial reference frames. I would be very interested in the
>>> details of how a law that is the same in all inertial reference frames
>>> implies one that is preferred - local or non local interpretation.
>> The wave function is not a covariant object.
> Measurements are not covariant processes.
Hm. And?
>> Especially, the Bohmian interpretation (where the wave function is
>> considered to be really existing) requires a preferred frame.
> There is yet another experiment which shows that such theories,
> are incompatible with quantum mechanics. "Quantum Correlations
> with Spacelike Separated Beamsplitters in Motion: Experimental
> Test of Multisimultaneity", A. Stefanov, H. Zbindin, N. Gisin,
> A. Suarez, PRL 88 12 (2002). A reprint of the article may be found
> at:
>
> http://www.gap-optique.unige.ch/Publications/Pdf/Suarez.pdf
This falsifies some "theories of multisimultaneity", which have
nothing to do with Bohmian mechanics (which makes predictions
identical to QM).
>> What is Lorentz invariant in QFT are only the predictions about
>> observables.
> I don't see the point here.
I don't wonder. Relativists often mingle real and observable.
Elementary philosophical confusion.
>> But it is quite obvious that what really exists and what is observable
>> for internal observers are quite different things.
> In what way?
In a very simple way. Assume (in a realistic theory) that there is
some reality. Part of this reality are observers. The whole thing
follows physical laws. How probable is it that for these internal
observers the following claim is true? I guess close to zero:
> There is no reality to something that cannot be quantified
> and measured.
This seems to be something close to a religious dogma. (Certainly it
is a metaphysical claim, because you cannot falsify this claim by
observation.)
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) writes:
>> Measurements are not covariant processes.
>
>Hm. And?
Measurements yield values in the frame in which the measurement is
performed. I don't see your point. Name a single measurement that
yields a covariant number (measurements yield real numbers).
>> There is yet another experiment which shows that such theories,
>> are incompatible with quantum mechanics. "Quantum Correlations
>> with Spacelike Separated Beamsplitters in Motion: Experimental
>> Test of Multisimultaneity", A. Stefanov, H. Zbindin, N. Gisin,
>> A. Suarez, PRL 88 12 (2002). A reprint of the article may be found
>> at:
>>
>> http://www.gap-optique.unige.ch/Publications/Pdf/Suarez.pdf
>
>This falsifies some "theories of multisimultaneity", which have
>nothing to do with Bohmian mechanics (which makes predictions
>identical to QM).
Then how does bohmian mechanics differ? In paricular, why would a fixed
reference frame (such as the CMBR) not imply a multisimultaneity model of
bohmian mechanics? The fixed reference frame defines an absolute time,
which appears to be necessary for bohmian mechanics to otherwise
internally consistent. If measuring A affects B and Measuring B affects A,
then it should matter which is measured first with respect to the absolute
reference frame. That is what the experiment sought to determine.
>>> What is Lorentz invariant in QFT are only the predictions about
>>> observables.
>
>> I don't see the point here.
>
>I don't wonder. Relativists often mingle real and observable.
>Elementary philosophical confusion.
I take "real" to be that which I can quantify with measurements
and specific predictions.
>
>>> But it is quite obvious that what really exists and what is observable
>>> for internal observers are quite different things.
>
>> In what way?
>
>In a very simple way. Assume (in a realistic theory) that there is
>some reality. Part of this reality are observers. The whole thing
>follows physical laws. How probable is it that for these internal
>observers the following claim is true? I guess close to zero:
That's because you attribute reality to metaphysical objects.
>> There is no reality to something that cannot be quantified
>> and measured.
>
>This seems to be something close to a religious dogma. (Certainly it
>is a metaphysical claim, because you cannot falsify this claim by
>observation.)
I can't see how to falsify a tautology. If any construct can possibly
effect the outcome of some experiment, then one has the means to quantify
the construct at one's disposal merely by manipulating the parameters
of the experiment. If that construct cannot be quantified better than
random chance, then the construct is random chance. To the extent that
experimental uncertainty allows the possibility of something different,
one still can set limits on that difference in exactly the same way
that one sets upper limits on the photon mass. Any theory which would
predict radioactive decay is something other than random chance, should
predict the extent to which the decays should not be random so that the
theory may be tested. Bohmian mechanics falls into that category.
If the guiding equation describes real trajectories, then bohmian
mechanics should predict how those trajectories differ from a purely
probabilistic description. Otherwise, the trajectories are equivalent
to a coin toss and have no significance.
Bill Hobba
> >>> The laws of QM from which Bells Inequality is deduced hold equally
true
> >>> in all inertial reference frames. I would be very interested in the
> >>> details of how a law that is the same in all inertial reference frames
> >>> implies one that is preferred - local or non local interpretation.
>
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> >> The wave function is not a covariant object.
>
Bilge correctly asserted:
> > Measurements are not covariant processes.
>
The reality is that the POR says the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial reference frames. This is equivalent to saying experiments done
under exactly the same conditions will yields the same results. Note the
keywords exactly the same conditions. This means for example a particle at
rest in one inertial frame may move at a constant velocity in another. The
conditions are not exactly the same - the particle is at rest in one frame,
moving in another so it is not possible to deduce anything from that. What
the law says is free particles move at constant velocity. This covers all
inertial reference frames.
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> >> Especially, the Bohmian interpretation (where the wave function is
> >> considered to be really existing) requires a preferred frame.
While knowing the basics, I am no expert on the Bohmian interpretation but
my understanding is his pilot waves are fully compatible with conventional
SR. They may be non-local but can't be used to send information so SR
remains intact. While I of course did not know Bohm personally, nor is he
one of my heroes, I believe he would turn over in his grave at such a
misinterpretation of his theory. For the record I do not hold to Bohm's
interpretation because of the difficulty in extending it to QFT. Then again
all interpretations I have come across, except the simple probabilistic
interpretation of the mathematics, seem to run into that problem.
Bilge wrote:
> > There is yet another experiment which shows that such theories,
> > are incompatible with quantum mechanics. "Quantum Correlations
> > with Spacelike Separated Beamsplitters in Motion: Experimental
> > Test of Multisimultaneity", A. Stefanov, H. Zbindin, N. Gisin,
> > A. Suarez, PRL 88 12 (2002). A reprint of the article may be found
> > at:
> >
> > http://www.gap-optique.unige.ch/Publications/Pdf/Suarez.pdf
I have not studied the paper in detail but my fist impression is it does not
falsify Bohms model. However I thank Bilge for the reference as it does
look an interesting paper. But my understanding of his model is it in no
way implies an aether frame or am I missing something? If any poster has
details on how Bohms pilot wave interpretation stacks up against SR I would
be glad to here it.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
Bilge wrote:
> Then how does bohmian mechanics differ? In paricular, why would a fixed
> reference frame (such as the CMBR) not imply a multisimultaneity model of
> bohmian mechanics? The fixed reference frame defines an absolute time,
> which appears to be necessary for bohmian mechanics to otherwise
> internally consistent. If measuring A affects B and Measuring B affects A,
> then it should matter which is measured first with respect to the absolute
> reference frame. That is what the experiment sought to determine.
>
Thanks for writing that. I had a quick look at my bible on Bohemian
mechanics, Quantum Implications, but still cant see the problem with it and
SR. I am probably doing something stupid. Could you elaborate? In the
meantime I will go more carefully through my references and see what I can
dig up.
Thanks
Bill
Bilge
> Bilge wrote:
>> Then how does bohmian mechanics differ? In paricular, why would a fixed
>> reference frame (such as the CMBR) not imply a multisimultaneity model of
>> bohmian mechanics? The fixed reference frame defines an absolute time,
>> which appears to be necessary for bohmian mechanics to otherwise
>> internally consistent. If measuring A affects B and Measuring B affects A,
>> then it should matter which is measured first with respect to the absolute
>> reference frame. That is what the experiment sought to determine.
>>
>
>Thanks for writing that. I had a quick look at my bible on Bohemian
>mechanics, Quantum Implications, but still cant see the problem with it and
>SR. I am probably doing something stupid. Could you elaborate?
Probably not and you certainly aren't doing anything stupid. Personally,
I'm beginning to suspect there is no such thing other than in the name.
It seems to be indistinguishable from quantum mechanics by definition but
requires a preferred frame to be self-consistent and indistinguishable
from quantum mechanics which doesn't need a preferred frame. Also, the
only resemblance to bohm's original theory seems to be the notion of a
guiding equation, but unlike bohm's original proposal, in which differ-
entiating between standard quantum theory and bohmian mechanics was
possible, in principle, it appears the guiding equation is mainly of
symbolic value rather than a distinguishing feature.
>In the meantime I will go more carefully through my references and see
>what I can dig up.
Good luck. I've essentially decided that bohmian mechanics means
whatever the article I'm reading says it means.
Stephen Speicher
>
> I had a quick look at my bible on Bohemian
> mechanics, Quantum Implications, but still cant see the problem with it and
> SR.
There are Bohm advocates who claim Bohm's name while
simultaneously contradicting Bohm's ideas. Do not go by the
current crop of Bohm "advocates" -- read Bohm himself.
"... there is no possibility of generalizing this
theory to include relativistic phenomena if the
equation of motion is retained in its present form,
which incorporates an explicit causal mechanism whereby
any effect in one part of space is instantaneously
transmitted to another part. The theory is therefore
limited to nonrelativistic phenomena."
--D. Bohm and J. Bub, "A proposed Solution of the
Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics by a Hidden
Variable," _Reviews of Modern Physics_, Vol. 38, No. 3,
pp. 453-469, 1966.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hobba
> > Bilge wrote:
> >> Then how does bohmian mechanics differ? In paricular, why would a
fixed
> >> reference frame (such as the CMBR) not imply a multisimultaneity model
of
> >> bohmian mechanics? The fixed reference frame defines an absolute time,
> >> which appears to be necessary for bohmian mechanics to otherwise
> >> internally consistent. If measuring A affects B and Measuring B
affects A,
> >> then it should matter which is measured first with respect to the
absolute
> >> reference frame. That is what the experiment sought to determine.
> >>
> >
Bill Hobba replied
> >Thanks for writing that. I had a quick look at my bible on Bohemian
> >mechanics, Quantum Implications, but still cant see the problem with it
and
> >SR. I am probably doing something stupid. Could you elaborate?
>
Bilge answered:
> Probably not and you certainly aren't doing anything stupid. Personally,
> I'm beginning to suspect there is no such thing other than in the name.
> It seems to be indistinguishable from quantum mechanics by definition but
> requires a preferred frame to be self-consistent and indistinguishable
> from quantum mechanics which doesn't need a preferred frame. Also, the
> only resemblance to bohm's original theory seems to be the notion of a
> guiding equation, but unlike bohm's original proposal, in which differ-
> entiating between standard quantum theory and bohmian mechanics was
> possible, in principle, it appears the guiding equation is mainly of
> symbolic value rather than a distinguishing feature.
>
> >In the meantime I will go more carefully through my references and see
> >what I can dig up.
>
> Good luck. I've essentially decided that bohmian mechanics means
> whatever the article I'm reading says it means.
>
I have gone through the literature I have on hand as well as having a good
look at your article.
IMHO of key importance in that article is:
'Further, if one assumes that a privileged reference frame (e.g., defined by
the cosmic microwave background radiation) determines the time ordering,
then this model is self-consistent. However, when time is relative, as in
special relativity, it is ambiguous. Indeed, it is then no longer defined
which measurement modifies the wave first and which particle is then
guided.'
I had never thought of this before. Indeed it seems to be something my
admittedly skimpy books of Bohms views ignore. The argument seems
compelling. While it does not invalidate the pilot wave model the
ambiguarity added would seem to be even more of a nail in its coffin than my
QFT argument. I must confess Bohms pilot wave model has taken a turn for
the worse in my view and I now have it really low on my list of possible
interpretations. I will need to think through the implications for his
implicate order ideas though before forming a view on that.
BTW I have never considered the cosmic background radiation to define a
preferred frame because it can be screened out, so, in my opinion does not
justify as something inherent in a preferred aether frame which is what I
think such a thing, if it existed, should have.
I noticed Stephen has also given a reply which may shed some light.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> > I had a quick look at my bible on Bohemian
> > mechanics, Quantum Implications, but still cant see the problem with it
and
> > SR.
>
Stephen Spiecher
> There are Bohm advocates who claim Bohm's name while
> simultaneously contradicting Bohm's ideas. Do not go by the
> current crop of Bohm "advocates" -- read Bohm himself.
>
> "... there is no possibility of generalizing this
> theory to include relativistic phenomena if the
> equation of motion is retained in its present form,
> which incorporates an explicit causal mechanism whereby
> any effect in one part of space is instantaneously
> transmitted to another part. The theory is therefore
> limited to nonrelativistic phenomena."
>
> --D. Bohm and J. Bub, "A proposed Solution of the
> Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics by a Hidden
> Variable," _Reviews of Modern Physics_, Vol. 38, No. 3,
> pp. 453-469, 1966.
>
As I now am only too well aware of. Unfortunately I must say this is a bit
of a nail in its coffin, but maybe not his ideas on the implicate order. As
I replied to Bilge I will need a bit of time to integrate this and form a
view. At this stage I must say IMHO things are looking a bit dim for Bohm.
I still like the simple statistical interpretation the best. It has
problems in defining exactly at what point a measurement has occurred but to
my mind that is kiddy stuff when compared to a theory that can't be
generalized to SR.
Thanks
Bill
Stephen Speicher
Bohm's actual theory was bad enough, as was that of Lorentz, but
when people such as Ilja Schmelzer appropriate their names --
when they capitalize on the value attached to these famous
people, while simultaneously not understanding and contradicting
the originator's views -- _that_ is really pathetic.
My best advice to you is to move on and don't dwell on Bohm
unless, like myself, you have an interest in the historical
context. For what it is worth, my opinion is that Bohm's actual
theory is of little benefit to understanding QM, though it is
light years ahead of the mishmash of these modern interpreters
who abuse his good name.
p.s. Bill, I know you do not do it intentionally, but you have
spelled my name perhaps a dozen different ways. Please try to
stick with Stephen Speicher. Thanks.
Ilja Schmelzer
> Ilja Schmelzer:
>> dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) writes:
>>> Measurements are not covariant processes.
>> Hm. And?
> Measurements yield values in the frame in which the measurement is
> performed. I don't see your point. Name a single measurement that
> yields a covariant number (measurements yield real numbers).
Hm. I don't understand why I should name such things.
>>> There is yet another experiment which shows that such theories,
>>> are incompatible with quantum mechanics. "Quantum Correlations
>>> with Spacelike Separated Beamsplitters in Motion: Experimental
>>> Test of Multisimultaneity", A. Stefanov, H. Zbindin, N. Gisin,
>>> A. Suarez, PRL 88 12 (2002). A reprint of the article may be found
>>> at:
>>>
>>> http://www.gap-optique.unige.ch/Publications/Pdf/Suarez.pdf
>>
>> This falsifies some "theories of multisimultaneity", which have
>> nothing to do with Bohmian mechanics (which makes predictions
>> identical to QM).
>
> Then how does bohmian mechanics differ?
Its predictions are identical to QM predictions (despite some other
claims).
> In paricular, why would a fixed reference frame (such as the CMBR)
> not imply a multisimultaneity model of bohmian mechanics?
I don't know why, because I don't know any multisimultaneity models.
I see no necessity in such models. A single absolute time is
sufficient.
> The fixed reference frame defines an absolute time,
> which appears to be necessary for bohmian mechanics to otherwise
> internally consistent. If measuring A affects B and Measuring B affects A,
There is no "and", but an "or" between these possible explanations of
violations of Bell's inequality.
> then it should matter which is measured first with respect to the
> absolute reference frame. That is what the experiment sought to
> determine.
Unfortunately, there is a theorem that experiment is unable to
determine this question.
>>>> What is Lorentz invariant in QFT are only the predictions about
>>>> observables.
>>
>>> I don't see the point here.
>>
>> I don't wonder. Relativists often mingle real and observable.
>> Elementary philosophical confusion.
>
> I take "real" to be that which I can quantify with measurements
> and specific predictions.
This does not change the fact that, doing this, you confuse ontology
and epistemology.
>>>> But it is quite obvious that what really exists and what is observable
>>>> for internal observers are quite different things.
>>
>>> In what way?
>>
>> In a very simple way. Assume (in a realistic theory) that there is
>> some reality. Part of this reality are observers. The whole thing
>> follows physical laws. How probable is it that for these internal
>> observers the following claim is true? I guess close to zero:
> That's because you attribute reality to metaphysical objects.
I attribute, as an assumption, reality to the reality of some
hypothetical word.
>>> There is no reality to something that cannot be quantified
>>> and measured.
>> This seems to be something close to a religious dogma. (Certainly it
>> is a metaphysical claim, because you cannot falsify this claim by
>> observation.)
> I can't see how to falsify a tautology.
It is certainly not a tautology. If, according to your "definition of
reality", it becomes a tautology, then your "definition of reality"
should be rejected as causing confusion and introducing unnecessary
terms into the discussion. Indeed, for what can be quantified and
measured we have already another term: "observable". Two terms for
the same thing is simply causing confusion.
> If any construct can possibly effect the outcome of some experiment,
> then one has the means to quantify the construct at one's disposal
> merely by manipulating the parameters of the experiment.
You cannot manipulate whatever you want. You are part of reality,
therefore restricted in your abilities to manipulate by physical law.
> Any theory which would predict radioactive decay is something other
> than random chance, should predict the extent to which the decays
> should not be random so that the theory may be tested. Bohmian
> mechanics falls into that category.
Bohmian mechanics predicts that in quantum equilibrium we obtain the
probabilities predicted by quantum theory (trivial). It predicts that
we are in quantum equilibrium (a less trivial decoherence
argumentation). In this sense, it does not fall.
> If the guiding equation describes real trajectories, then bohmian
> mechanics should predict how those trajectories differ from a purely
> probabilistic description. Otherwise, the trajectories are
> equivalent to a coin toss and have no significance.
Your requirements differ from those of the standard scientific method
(empirical content, as described by Popper).
If you think a particular aspect of BT has no significance, fine. Who
cares? That's not an argument against the theory as a whole.
Ilja Schmelzer
> Stephen Speicher
>> There are Bohm advocates who claim Bohm's name while
>> simultaneously contradicting Bohm's ideas.
That's me ;-).
>> Do not go by the current crop of Bohm "advocates" -- read Bohm
>> himself.
I would suggest you to care about the theories themself, not the
particular ideas (and possibly errors) of their founders. Leave
following the "Founders" to preachers (religious fundamentalists,
marxists, objectivists).
>> "... there is no possibility of generalizing this
>> theory to include relativistic phenomena if the
>> equation of motion is retained in its present form,
>> which incorporates an explicit causal mechanism whereby
>> any effect in one part of space is instantaneously
>> transmitted to another part. The theory is therefore
>> limited to nonrelativistic phenomena."
>> --D. Bohm and J. Bub, "A proposed Solution of the
>> Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics by a Hidden
>> Variable," _Reviews of Modern Physics_, Vol. 38, No. 3,
>> pp. 453-469, 1966.
Fortunately, despite this claim, the theory may be generalized to
cover relativistic _phenomena_, but this _requires_ a preferred frame.
> As I now am only too well aware of. Unfortunately I must say this is
> a bit of a nail in its coffin,
Please, think a little bit. The theory is a _hidden_variable_theory_.
Now, remember what is the main argument against the preferred frame?
Correct, we cannot detect it by measurement. That means it is a
_hidden_variable_.
Thus, we see that a hidden variable theory of QM requires a well-known
hidden variable. A really strong "nail in its coffin".
> At this stage I must say IMHO things are looking a bit dim for Bohm.
Why?
> I still like the simple statistical interpretation the best. It has
> problems in defining exactly at what point a measurement has occurred but to
> my mind that is kiddy stuff when compared to a theory that can't be
> generalized to SR.
Bohmian theory can be - all you need is a preferred frame.
Ilja Schmelzer
> Bohm's actual theory was bad enough, as was that of Lorentz, but
> when people such as Ilja Schmelzer appropriate their names --
> when they capitalize on the value attached to these famous
> people, while simultaneously not understanding and contradicting
> the originator's views -- _that_ is really pathetic.
Just to clarify this: I propose a an ether theory of gravity which, in
the non-gravity limit, gives more or less the ether as described by
Lorentz and Poincare. This theory is compatible with realistic hidden
variable theories, as have been defined by Bohm and Nelson, which
require a preferred frame.
I do not need or want to appropriate their names. I stand for myself,
my theory as well. I simply give honor to Lorentz, Poincare, Bohm and
Nelson, they have proposed interesting theories which, partially,
agree with my concepts and theories.
Maybe I err and attribute some of my own ideas to them. That's a
quite possible and typical human error. That's why I try to avoid
claims of type "Bohm believes X" but talk about properties of Bohmian
theory, which is not "what Bohm thinks today" but a particular
well-defined scientific theory, named in honour of Bohm.
PS. Bill, I recommend you to ignore personal accusations of type
"appropriate their names", "capitalize", "pathetic", "abuse his good
name" and so on. That's not serious, it is simply because he is
objectivist, and that's the usual style of conversation in this sect.
Stephen Speicher nonetheless remains to be an interesting source of
knowledge about history.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> Bilge correctly asserted:
>>> Measurements are not covariant processes.
> The reality is that the POR says the laws of physics are the same in all
> inertial reference frames. This is equivalent to saying experiments done
> under exactly the same conditions will yields the same results. Note the
> keywords exactly the same conditions. This means for example a particle at
> rest in one inertial frame may move at a constant velocity in another. The
> conditions are not exactly the same - the particle is at rest in one frame,
> moving in another so it is not possible to deduce anything from that. What
> the law says is free particles move at constant velocity. This covers all
> inertial reference frames.
Sorry, I don't understand what you want to tell here.
>>> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>>>> Especially, the Bohmian interpretation (where the wave function is
>>>> considered to be really existing) requires a preferred frame.
> While knowing the basics, I am no expert on the Bohmian interpretation but
> my understanding is his pilot waves are fully compatible with conventional
> SR. They may be non-local but can't be used to send information so SR
> remains intact.
That's correct. The hidden preferred frame is a hidden variable.
> While I of course did not know Bohm personally, nor is he one of my
> heroes, I believe he would turn over in his grave at such a
> misinterpretation of his theory.
To clarify this: I don't care a jota about Bohm's personal beliefs.
"Bohmian mechanics" does not describe any form of ownership, it is
simply the name of a theory.
> For the record I do not hold to Bohm's interpretation because of the
> difficulty in extending it to QFT.
Which difficulty? (Rhetorical question - there is none. The only
difficulty is the same one - dislike of a preferred frame.)
>>> http://www.gap-optique.unige.ch/Publications/Pdf/Suarez.pdf
> I have not studied the paper in detail but my fist impression is it does not
> falsify Bohms model.
Me too.
> But my understanding of his model is it in no way implies an aether
> frame or am I missing something?
Yep. Bohmian mechanics requires a preferred frame.
This has the power of a theorem. Bohmian mechanics is a _realistic_
theory, where _realistic_ means realistic in the sense of EPR and
Bell. Bell's theorem states:
"Realistic + not(A->B or B->A) => Bell's inequalities."
Observation (Aspect) shows and Quantum theory predicts "Not Bell's
inequalities". Combining them we obtain:
"Realistic + Observation => (A->B or B->A)"
for time-like separated events A, B. Now, if we have, for all pairs
of events A,B, the property (A->B or B->A), and we want causality
(that means no closed causal loops) then we need a preferred
folitation.
> If any poster has details on how Bohms pilot wave interpretation
> stacks up against SR I would be glad to here it.
There is simply no problem between QFT and Bohmian theory, if you
don't want to avoid a preferred frame.
Of course, you have to recognize the different configuration space in
QFT and use the appropriate configuration space - some functional
space of type (psi^k(x,t_0), A_i(x,t_0), g_ij(x,t_0)) instead of
(q_1,...,q_N) in R^3N of N particle Bohmian mechanics.
Therefore, you should not mingle the correct generalization of the
wave function to QFT - as a functional on this configuration space -
with relativistic wave equations like the Dirac equation.
Lawrence Foard
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, Bill Hobba wrote:
>>
>> I had a quick look at my bible on Bohemian
>> mechanics, Quantum Implications, but still cant see the problem with it and
>> SR.
>
>There are Bohm advocates who claim Bohm's name while
>simultaneously contradicting Bohm's ideas. Do not go by the
>current crop of Bohm "advocates" -- read Bohm himself.
>
> "... there is no possibility of generalizing this
> theory to include relativistic phenomena if the
> equation of motion is retained in its present form,
> which incorporates an explicit causal mechanism whereby
> any effect in one part of space is instantaneously
> transmitted to another part. The theory is therefore
> limited to nonrelativistic phenomena."
>
> --D. Bohm and J. Bub, "A proposed Solution of the
> Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics by a Hidden
> Variable," _Reviews of Modern Physics_, Vol. 38, No. 3,
> pp. 453-469, 1966.
I'm only passingly familiar with Bohm, however David Hestene's
in STA provides interpretations of the Dirac equation which
seem on the surface (and through his statements) to be similar
to Bohm's ideas. I think in the end it all comes down to how you
choose to look at it, until someone can perform and experiment
which distinguishs the two models.
Hestene's predicts an extremely high frequency dipole oscillation
in the electron. So perhaps there is a measurement which can distinguish
the two theories? Some factor in close electron interactions which differs
from conventional QM due to this?
--
Be a counter terrorist perpetrate random senseless acts of kindness
Rave: Immanentization of the Eschaton in a Temporary Autonomous Zone.
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security"
-Benjamin Franklin
Stephen Speicher
Hestenes briefly notes some differences between the Copenhagen
interpretation and the Bohmian approach, but his treatment is
essentially mathematical and he skirts the more fundamental ideas
which were advanced by Bohm. There was good reason why Bohm wrote
what he did about his theory up above. I admire Hestenes attempt
to make his formulation compatible with what he sees as the two
competing theories, but the bottom line compatibility lies in his
mathematical treatment, not in the most fundamental notions in
the two theories.
> I think in the end it all comes down to how you
> choose to look at it, until someone can perform and experiment
> which distinguishs the two models.
>
This has recently been done. A prediction for Bohmian theory has
been differentiated from standard QM, and the Bohmian approach
has been falsified by experiment. See "Experimental realization
of a first test of de Broglie-Bohm theory," G. Brida et al.,
_Journal of Physics B-Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics_, 35
(22): pp. 4751-4756, Nov 28 2002.
Also available at:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206196
> Hestene's predicts an extremely high frequency dipole oscillation
> in the electron. So perhaps there is a measurement which can distinguish
> the two theories? Some factor in close electron interactions which differs
> from conventional QM due to this?
>
Wake me up when it has been done. :)
Bilge
Did you read the article? The model mentioned is just bohmian mechanics
in the absence of special relativity or when the entire system is at
relative rest.
>> The fixed reference frame defines an absolute time,
>> which appears to be necessary for bohmian mechanics to otherwise
>> internally consistent. If measuring A affects B and Measuring B affects A,
>
>There is no "and", but an "or" between these possible explanations of
>violations of Bell's inequality.
I didn't intend for that to be a logical "and". I only meant to
list the two possibilities. However, since you seem to be clear on
the "or", then you'll note that the "or" is what the paper falsifies.
The last paragraph of the article states:
``These results stress the oddness of quantum correlations. Not only
are they independent of the distance, but also it seems impossible to
cast them into any real time ordering. Hence one cannot maintain any
causal explanation in which an earlier even influences a later one by
arbitrarily fast communication. In this sense, quantum correlations are
basic a (i.e., primary[1]) concept, not a secondary concept reducible
to that of causality between events. Quantum correlations are directly
caused by the quantum state in such a way that one event cannot be
considered the `cause' and the other the `effect'.''
[1] ``Classical correlations are correlations between events; either
the events havve a common cause or one event has a direct
influence on the other(s). That is, classical correlations
is a secondary concept built upon the primary concept of an
event; the cause of ordinary correlations can be reduced to
the cause of the events.''
>> then it should matter which is measured first with respect to the
>> absolute reference frame. That is what the experiment sought to
>> determine.
>
>Unfortunately, there is a theorem that experiment is unable to
>determine this question.
Which is? To the best I can tell, it's a definition, not a theorem.
>>>>> What is Lorentz invariant in QFT are only the predictions about
>>>>> observables.
>>>
>>>> I don't see the point here.
>>>
>>> I don't wonder. Relativists often mingle real and observable.
>>> Elementary philosophical confusion.
>>
>> I take "real" to be that which I can quantify with measurements
>> and specific predictions.
>
>This does not change the fact that, doing this, you confuse ontology
>and epistemology.
Not so. In fact, quite the opposite. The conceptual basis of any
particular model should dictate what can possibly known about its basic
constructs. In particular, the commutation relations provide a limit on
the amount of information which may be obtained through measurements. An
acceptable ontology should offer an explanation for this limitation based
upon the concepts of the ontology. Otherwise there is no way to falsify a
model based upon those concepts, as the ontology can be adapted to agree
with anything. The quantum mechanical ontology is simple. Nature is
probabilistic [I would interpret this further, but I'm trying to avoid
anything but a minimal interpretation]. The commutation relations define
specifically what there exists to know, not what knowledge may be
obtained. Bohmian mechanics states something entirely different. It states
that there exists a lot more than what is knowable. However, what bohmian
mechanics does not explain through any concept in its ontology is why
some information is knowable and some is not.
In order for a particle to be "guided" along two trajectories which
are different (i.e., are distinct trajectories in the bohmian sense,
but not necessarily "measureable"), by how much information must those
two trajectories differ? Information may be taken to mean anything
you wish which distinguishes one trajectory from another as far as
the particle being guided is concerned. I'd say one bit, which is the
smallest difference that can differentiate between this/that trajectory
without being a probability (and I would really like the answer to
this question, since it represents what I see as an incompatability in
the underlying ontology of bohmian mechanics with any quantum mechanical
model).
[...]
>
>> That's because you attribute reality to metaphysical objects.
>
>I attribute, as an assumption, reality to the reality of some
>hypothetical word.
But that "word" is not defined in such a way as to make its meaning
clear.
>
>>>> There is no reality to something that cannot be quantified
>>>> and measured.
>
>>> This seems to be something close to a religious dogma. (Certainly it
>>> is a metaphysical claim, because you cannot falsify this claim by
>>> observation.)
>
>> I can't see how to falsify a tautology.
>
>It is certainly not a tautology. If, according to your "definition of
>reality", it becomes a tautology, then your "definition of reality"
>should be rejected as causing confusion and introducing unnecessary
>terms into the discussion. Indeed, for what can be quantified and
>measured we have already another term: "observable". Two terms for
>the same thing is simply causing confusion.
That would be fine with me, but you typically use the terms "realistic"
and "realism" a lot, as if "realism" and "realistic" must involve the
actual existence of more than the observables.
>> If any construct can possibly effect the outcome of some experiment,
>> then one has the means to quantify the construct at one's disposal
>> merely by manipulating the parameters of the experiment.
>
>You cannot manipulate whatever you want. You are part of reality,
>therefore restricted in your abilities to manipulate by physical law.
I'm not speaking anthropocentrically. I'm saying that any concept
which more scientific than god, must be more quantifiable than god.
>> Any theory which would predict radioactive decay is something other
>> than random chance, should predict the extent to which the decays
>> should not be random so that the theory may be tested. Bohmian
>> mechanics falls into that category.
>
>Bohmian mechanics predicts that in quantum equilibrium we obtain the
>probabilities predicted by quantum theory (trivial). It predicts that
>we are in quantum equilibrium (a less trivial decoherence
>argumentation). In this sense, it does not fall.
What then is quantum equilibrium other than that which bohmian
mechanics defines to reproduce bohmian mechanics?
>> If the guiding equation describes real trajectories, then bohmian
>> mechanics should predict how those trajectories differ from a purely
>> probabilistic description. Otherwise, the trajectories are
>> equivalent to a coin toss and have no significance.
>
>Your requirements differ from those of the standard scientific method
>(empirical content, as described by Popper).
No, they don't. I'm requiring bohmian mechanics to provide something
which can falsify the premises upon which the theory is based. Quantum
mechanics does this. If what quantum mechanics describes as probabilistic
can be shown to be not probabilistic, quantun mechanics is falsified.
A causal theory is at odds with probabilistic one at the most fundamental
level, conceptually. Bohmiam mechanics should provide the same sort
of criteria for determing that it's causal.
>If you think a particular aspect of BT has no significance, fine. Who
>cares? That's not an argument against the theory as a whole.
If that aspect is the guiding equation, it matters.
Ilja Schmelzer
> Ilja Schmelzer:
>> dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) writes:
>>>>> There is yet another experiment which shows that such theories,
>>>>> are incompatible with quantum mechanics. "Quantum Correlations
>>>>> with Spacelike Separated Beamsplitters in Motion: Experimental
>>>>> Test of Multisimultaneity", A. Stefanov, H. Zbindin, N. Gisin,
>>>>> A. Suarez, PRL 88 12 (2002). A reprint of the article may be found
>>>>> at:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.gap-optique.unige.ch/Publications/Pdf/Suarez.pdf
>>>>
>>>> This falsifies some "theories of multisimultaneity", which have
>>>> nothing to do with Bohmian mechanics (which makes predictions
>>>> identical to QM).
>>>
>>> Then how does bohmian mechanics differ?
>>
>> Its predictions are identical to QM predictions (despite some other
>> claims).
>
>>> In paricular, why would a fixed reference frame (such as the CMBR)
>>> not imply a multisimultaneity model of bohmian mechanics?
>>
>> I don't know why, because I don't know any multisimultaneity models.
>> I see no necessity in such models. A single absolute time is
>> sufficient.
> Did you read the article? The model mentioned is just bohmian
> mechanics in the absence of special relativity or when the entire
> system is at relative rest.
In these particular cases, the predictions of multisimultaneity models
coincide with BM as well as standard QM.
The experimental difference appears in other situations.
>
>>> The fixed reference frame defines an absolute time,
>>> which appears to be necessary for bohmian mechanics to otherwise
>>> internally consistent. If measuring A affects B and Measuring B affects A,
>>
>> There is no "and", but an "or" between these possible explanations of
>> violations of Bell's inequality.
>
> I didn't intend for that to be a logical "and". I only meant to
> list the two possibilities. However, since you seem to be clear on
> the "or", then you'll note that the "or" is what the paper falsifies.
> The last paragraph of the article states:
>
> ``These results stress the oddness of quantum correlations. Not only
> are they independent of the distance, but also it seems impossible to
> cast them into any real time ordering. Hence one cannot maintain any
> causal explanation in which an earlier even influences a later one by
> arbitrarily fast communication. In this sense, quantum correlations are
> basic a (i.e., primary[1]) concept, not a secondary concept reducible
> to that of causality between events. Quantum correlations are directly
> caused by the quantum state in such a way that one event cannot be
> considered the `cause' and the other the `effect'.''
This last paragraph is nonsense. Using a unique preferred frame
instead of detector-depending frames we obtain the standard QM
predictions:
"In all situations where the different components of the measuring
aparatuses are at relative rest, multisimultaneity has the same
prediction as quantum mechanics." Indeed. And Bohmian mechanics.
Because in this case, the frames proposed by multisimultaneity theory
coinside with the predictions of BM which takes this common rest frame
as the preferred frame.
If the author would have replaced "into any real time ordering" by
"into any time ordering defined by observables or measurement
devices", it would be ok. Thus, an example of the usual positivistic
confusion between "real" and "observable".
>> Unfortunately, there is a theorem that experiment is unable to
>> determine this question.
>
> Which is?
The theorem about the observables in quantum equilibrium of Bohmian
mechanics.
> To the best I can tell, it's a definition, not a theorem.
The theorem that quantum equilibrium remains a quantum equilibrium
during evolution is certainly not a definition. The identification of
observables as positive operator measures starts from the assumption
that measurement results are part of the state of the universe Q at
some moment t, and, as well, the assumption of quantum equilibrium. I
cannot see how positive operator measures follow "by definition".
The theorem that the effective wave function of some part of the
universe which weakly and irreversible interacts with its environment
leads to quantum equilibrium is decoherence, also not a definition.
>>>>>> What is Lorentz invariant in QFT are only the predictions about
>>>>>> observables.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see the point here.
>>>>
>>>> I don't wonder. Relativists often mingle real and observable.
>>>> Elementary philosophical confusion.
>>>
>>> I take "real" to be that which I can quantify with measurements
>>> and specific predictions.
>>
>> This does not change the fact that, doing this, you confuse ontology
>> and epistemology.
> Not so. In fact, quite the opposite. The conceptual basis of any
> particular model should dictate what can possibly known about its
> basic constructs. In particular, the commutation relations provide a
> limit on the amount of information which may be obtained through
> measurements. An acceptable ontology should offer an explanation for
> this limitation based upon the concepts of the ontology.
This is exactly what BT offers. We have an ontology (Psi(.,t), Q(t)).
The amount of information which may be obtained through measurements
is limited (by definition) to subsets of the state of the universe,
Q = (Q_results, Q_rest of the world).
From this assumption about the ontology of the measurement results the
standard measurement theory of QM (which includes the uncertainty
relations) follows.
> The quantum mechanical ontology is simple.
There is no quantum mechanical ontology. At least the minimal
interpretation does not define the ontology (that means what really
exists).
> Nature is
> probabilistic [I would interpret this further, but I'm trying to avoid
> anything but a minimal interpretation]. The commutation relations define
> specifically what there exists to know, not what knowledge may be
> obtained.
"exists to know" is something I don't understand.
> Bohmian mechanics states something entirely different. It states
> that there exists a lot more than what is knowable. However, what
> bohmian mechanics does not explain through any concept in its
> ontology is why some information is knowable and some is not.
False. It explains all this exactly, in form of mathematical
theorems.
> In order for a particle to be "guided" along two trajectories which
> are different (i.e., are distinct trajectories in the bohmian sense,
> but not necessarily "measureable"), by how much information must those
> two trajectories differ?
I don't understand the meaning of this question. Im BM, a particle is
guided along a single trajectory which depends on the initial position
of all particles and the (initial value of the) wave function.
> Information may be taken to mean anything you wish which
> distinguishes one trajectory from another as far as the particle
> being guided is concerned. I'd say one bit, which is the smallest
> difference that can differentiate between this/that trajectory
> without being a probability (and I would really like the answer to
> this question, since it represents what I see as an incompatability
> in the underlying ontology of bohmian mechanics with any quantum
> mechanical model).
I would like to understand the meaning of this at first.
>>> That's because you attribute reality to metaphysical objects.
>>
>> I attribute, as an assumption, reality to the reality of some
>> hypothetical word. [sorry, should be "world"]
> But that "word" is not defined in such a way as to make its meaning
> clear.
In a particular bohmian theory the world is well defined by a state Q
of the configuration space of the given theory.
>>>>> There is no reality to something that cannot be quantified
>>>>> and measured.
>>
>>>> This seems to be something close to a religious dogma. (Certainly it
>>>> is a metaphysical claim, because you cannot falsify this claim by
>>>> observation.)
>>
>>> I can't see how to falsify a tautology.
>>
>> It is certainly not a tautology. If, according to your "definition of
>> reality", it becomes a tautology, then your "definition of reality"
>> should be rejected as causing confusion and introducing unnecessary
>> terms into the discussion. Indeed, for what can be quantified and
>> measured we have already another term: "observable". Two terms for
>> the same thing is simply causing confusion.
> That would be fine with me, but you typically use the terms
> "realistic" and "realism" a lot, as if "realism" and "realistic"
> must involve the actual existence of more than the observables.
Hm. There is no necessity. May be there are some realistic theories
where internal observers may distinguish by observation all states
which are really different - I don't know. But I don't have an idea
how to construct a theory with such almighty internal observers.
Thus, "must" is close. But better would be that realism typically
involves the actual existence of more than the observables.
Whatever - we have to define a realistic theory by definining what is
real, and how reality changes in time. Once this is fixed, we can
compute what is observable for internal observers - all what we need
for this we have already defined. There is no reason to assume that
we obtain the whole reality.
>>> If any construct can possibly effect the outcome of some experiment,
>>> then one has the means to quantify the construct at one's disposal
>>> merely by manipulating the parameters of the experiment.
>> You cannot manipulate whatever you want. You are part of reality,
>> therefore restricted in your abilities to manipulate by physical law.
> I'm not speaking anthropocentrically. I'm saying that any concept
> which more scientific than god, must be more quantifiable than god.
A theory is more scientific than religion (god) if it makes
falsifiable predictions. There is no doubt that BT makes falsifiable
predictions - the same as QT. Therefore, it is clarified, once and
forever, that BT is as scientific as QT, as far as we reduce science
to falsifiable predictions.
>>> Any theory which would predict radioactive decay is something other
>>> than random chance, should predict the extent to which the decays
>>> should not be random so that the theory may be tested. Bohmian
>>> mechanics falls into that category.
>>
>> Bohmian mechanics predicts that in quantum equilibrium we obtain the
>> probabilities predicted by quantum theory (trivial). It predicts that
>> we are in quantum equilibrium (a less trivial decoherence
>> argumentation). In this sense, it does not fall.
>
> What then is quantum equilibrium other than that which bohmian
> mechanics defines to reproduce bohmian mechanics?
It is a quite natural state in Bohmian mechanics, especially we can
obtain this state for effective theories for parts of the whole
universe which interact weakly with the environment (decoherence).
>>> If the guiding equation describes real trajectories, then bohmian
>>> mechanics should predict how those trajectories differ from a purely
>>> probabilistic description. Otherwise, the trajectories are
>>> equivalent to a coin toss and have no significance.
>>
>> Your requirements differ from those of the standard scientific method
>> (empirical content, as described by Popper).
>
> No, they don't. I'm requiring bohmian mechanics to provide something
> which can falsify the premises upon which the theory is based.
Yep, and this differs from standard scientific method. Standard
scientific method requires from a theory to provide something which
can falsify this particular theory, as a whole. (More accurate, not
even this particular theory alone, but this theory in combination with
lots of other theories, including for example all the theories about
the behaviour of the measurement devices.)
Such fundamental metaphysical concepts like
probabilistic/deterministic nature cannot be falsified.
> Quantum mechanics does this. If what quantum mechanics describes as
> probabilistic can be shown to be not probabilistic, quantum
> mechanics is falsified.
No. You cannot show by observation that the world is probabilistic or
deterministic.
> A causal theory is at odds with probabilistic one at the most fundamental
> level, conceptually. Bohmiam mechanics should provide the same sort
> of criteria for determing that it's causal.
That's a nonsensical requirement.
>> If you think a particular aspect of BT has no significance, fine. Who
>> cares? That's not an argument against the theory as a whole.
> If that aspect is the guiding equation, it matters.
No.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> I think in the end it all comes down to how you
>> choose to look at it, until someone can perform and experiment
>> which distinguishs the two models.
> This has recently been done. A prediction for Bohmian theory has
> been differentiated from standard QM, and the Bohmian approach
> has been falsified by experiment.
As usual for Bohm bashers, they hide the fact that these papers have
been criticized as based on wrong predictions for Bohmian theory. The
correct predictions for Bohmian theory, of course, agree with the QM
predictions.
> See "Experimental realization
> of a first test of de Broglie-Bohm theory," G. Brida et al.,
> _Journal of Physics B-Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics_, 35
> (22): pp. 4751-4756, Nov 28 2002.
>
> Also available at:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206196
Google for Ghose, Marchildon to find the recent discussion of all
this.
Bill Hobba
> > > There are Bohm advocates who claim Bohm's name while
> > > simultaneously contradicting Bohm's ideas. Do not go by the
> > > current crop of Bohm "advocates" -- read Bohm himself.
> > >
> > > "... there is no possibility of generalizing this
> > > theory to include relativistic phenomena if the
> > > equation of motion is retained in its present form,
> > > which incorporates an explicit causal mechanism whereby
> > > any effect in one part of space is instantaneously
> > > transmitted to another part. The theory is therefore
> > > limited to nonrelativistic phenomena."
> > >
> > > --D. Bohm and J. Bub, "A proposed Solution of the
> > > Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics by a Hidden
> > > Variable," _Reviews of Modern Physics_, Vol. 38, No. 3,
> > > pp. 453-469, 1966.
> > >
> >
Bill Hobba replied:
I have moved on from that ages ago. I just didn't realize the problem Bilge
pointed out before. As I have written heaps of times before I like the
simple interpretation given by Dirac in his book Principles of Quantum
Mechanics; it does me well enough these days.
BTW I think your spot on when you say Bohm may have problems but at least he
is a reputable scientist that actually thought hard about such issues. Like
you some of the rubbish I read about QM by some people --- enough said.
Stephen Speicher wrote:
> p.s. Bill, I know you do not do it intentionally, but you have
> spelled my name perhaps a dozen different ways. Please try to
> stick with Stephen Speicher. Thanks.
Accept my humble apologies. I can appreciate your concern as I too have a
name everyone spells differently - I would like $1.00 for each time it is
spelt Hobber, Hobbar etc. I will try to take more care.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
I. Schmelzer wrote:
> PS. Bill, I recommend you to ignore personal accusations of type
> "appropriate their names", "capitalize", "pathetic", "abuse his good
> name" and so on. That's not serious, it is simply because he is
> objectivist, and that's the usual style of conversation in this sect.
> Stephen Speicher nonetheless remains to be an interesting source of
> knowledge about history.
I am not an objectivist but am well aware of Ayn Rand's writings. I do not
believe the language he uses is part of her philosophy - I think it reflects
in many instances similar feelings I have. BTW Stephen is genuinely
knowledgeable about physics not just history.
To be fair I have not gone into the detail of your theory simply because I
have my time full enough dealing with conventional wisdom. My reason for
starting this thread was to put on paper my view of what an inertial
reference frame was and to justify my position that its real basis is a
symmetry principle; a principle the existence of an aether would violate by
breaking the symmetry. Of course this does not rule out aether theories;
but it is an issue that I do not see atheists addressing.
As a side benefit I did learn something new and surprising about Bohms pilot
wave theory so one never knows where ones musings will lead.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
Stephen Speicher wrote with regard to Bohms interpretation of QM:
> This has recently been done. A prediction for Bohmian theory has
> been differentiated from standard QM, and the Bohmian approach
> has been falsified by experiment. See "Experimental realization
> of a first test of de Broglie-Bohm theory," G. Brida et al.,
> _Journal of Physics B-Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics_, 35
> (22): pp. 4751-4756, Nov 28 2002.
>
You and Bilge are gold mine of info. I was totally unaware of any of this.
I have not had a look at the paper yet but I think it will be quite
interesting.
Thanks for the reference
Bill
Bill Hobba
> > I have not studied the paper in detail but my fist impression is it does
not
> > falsify Bohms model.
I have now read the paper and while I believe it does not completely falsify
Bohms model it gives it a hell of a tweak. The ambiuarity about wave
collapse is a problem.
However Stephen has given a reference that purports to do just that (ie
falsify Bohm). While I have not read it IMHO it will probably stand up to
scrutiny so goodbye Bohm. Of course this does not falsify other possible
theories or his ideas on the implicate order.
BTW my bet is on conventional QM because as I have said many time it seems
the most easily extensible to QFT. Also I dislike the problems with the
conventional treatment as much as anyone, but I want to understand reality
not force my prejudices on it.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> Fortunately, despite this claim, the theory may be generalized to
> cover relativistic _phenomena_, but this _requires_ a preferred frame.
>
Regarding Bohms pilot wave theory Bill Hobba wrote:
> > As I now am only too well aware of. Unfortunately I must say this is
> > a bit of a nail in its coffin,
>
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> Please, think a little bit. The theory is a _hidden_variable_theory_.
>
> Now, remember what is the main argument against the preferred frame?
> Correct, we cannot detect it by measurement. That means it is a
> _hidden_variable_.
>
> Thus, we see that a hidden variable theory of QM requires a well-known
> hidden variable. A really strong "nail in its coffin".
In the context of QM hidden variable does not necessarily mean impossible to
detect. It means a theory that has other things in it than normal QM.
Those other things if they exist may eventually be detectable.
With regard to Bohms pilot wave theory Bill Hobba wrote:
> > At this stage I must say IMHO things are looking a bit dim for Bohm.
Ilja Schmelzer:
> Why?
Because of the problem alluded to in the paper posted by Bilge - the
ambiguarity problem. Of course this does not rule out other possible
theories - just that one.
Bill Hobba wrote:
>
> > I still like the simple statistical interpretation the best. It has
> > problems in defining exactly at what point a measurement has occurred
but to
> > my mind that is kiddy stuff when compared to a theory that can't be
> > generalized to SR.
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> Bohmian theory can be - all you need is a preferred frame.
As mentioned before I am much too busy trying to understand conventional
wisdom. But for any interpretation to hold water it must naturally go over
to QFT. The reason is, as pointed out by Weinberg, and espoused in his
books on QFT (books I have now gone through and agree with) SR +
conventional QM leads to QFT. Thus you are faced with a similar problem to
LET and GR eg how does the aether generalize to GR becomes how your
interpretation of QM generalizes to QFT. I just hope your theory stands up
to that scrutiny because I have not seen any other than conventional QM that
does.
Thanks
Bill
Stephen Speicher
>
> I. Schmelzer wrote:
> > PS. Bill, I recommend you to ignore personal accusations of type
> > "appropriate their names", "capitalize", "pathetic", "abuse his good
> > name" and so on. That's not serious, it is simply because he is
> > objectivist, and that's the usual style of conversation in this sect.
> > Stephen Speicher nonetheless remains to be an interesting source of
> > knowledge about history.
>
> I am not an objectivist but am well aware of Ayn Rand's writings. I do not
> believe the language he uses is part of her philosophy - I think it reflects
> in many instances similar feelings I have. BTW Stephen is genuinely
> knowledgeable about physics not just history.
>
> To be fair I have not gone into the detail of your theory simply because I
> have my time full enough dealing with conventional wisdom. My reason for
> starting this thread was to put on paper my view of what an inertial
> reference frame was and to justify my position that its real basis is a
> symmetry principle; a principle the existence of an aether would violate by
> breaking the symmetry. Of course this does not rule out aether theories;
> but it is an issue that I do not see atheists addressing.
What a marvelous typo. To capitalize on it, the reason they are
not aetheists is because they are Priests of the Aether! :)
Stephen Speicher
>
> BTW I think your spot on when you say Bohm may have problems but at least he
> is a reputable scientist that actually thought hard about such issues. Like
> you some of the rubbish I read about QM by some people --- enough said.
>
And, might I add, the same is true of Lorentz. Though both
Lorentz and Bohm were grossly mistaken, they _were_ physicists**,
unlike the religious following which seek to capitalize on their
good name while simultaneously contradicting the fundamental
concepts upon which their theories were based.
**Except that Bohm, in his mid to later years, brought to the
forefront and made explicit the mysticism which was implicit in
some of his early thinking.
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
> > p.s. Bill, I know you do not do it intentionally, but you have
> > spelled my name perhaps a dozen different ways. Please try to
> > stick with Stephen Speicher. Thanks.
>
> Accept my humble apologies. I can appreciate your concern as I too have a
> name everyone spells differently - I would like $1.00 for each time it is
> spelt Hobber, Hobbar etc. I will try to take more care.
>
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Stephen Speicher
And the theoretical paper upon which the experiment is based, is
available in the archive at:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103126
> Thanks for the reference
>
You're welcome.
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
> >> I think in the end it all comes down to how you
> >> choose to look at it, until someone can perform and experiment
> >> which distinguishs the two models.
>
> > This has recently been done. A prediction for Bohmian theory has
> > been differentiated from standard QM, and the Bohmian approach
> > has been falsified by experiment.
>
> As usual for Bohm bashers, they hide the fact that these papers have
> been criticized as based on wrong predictions for Bohmian theory.
As usual for the Priest, when experiment falsifies his pet theory
he shoots the messenger, not the message.
So much for "reality."
Ilja Schmelzer
> Regarding a paper posted by Bilge Bill Hobbs wrote:
>>> I have not studied the paper in detail but my fist impression is it does not
>>> falsify Bohms model.
> I have now read the paper and while I believe it does not completely
> falsify Bohms model it gives it a hell of a tweak. The ambiuarity
> about wave collapse is a problem.
The rejection of multisimultaneity supports the standard way to
generalize Bohmian theory into the relativistic domain - the
introduction of a preferred frame.
> However Stephen has given a reference that purports to do just that (ie
> falsify Bohm).
And, as usual for Bohm bashers (at least he is the second one who
shows this pattern) has "forgotten" to mention that this paper has
been criticized.
> While I have not read it IMHO it will probably stand up to scrutiny
> so goodbye Bohm.
It will certainly not, because it contradicts a known and simple
theorem - the theorem that the predictions of QM and BM coincide.
The trajectories of Bohmian mechanics are unobservable. The
"prediction" mingles an average over the unobservable trajectoy with
an average over the result of several position measurements (where
each of them modifies the state).
> BTW my bet is on conventional QM because as I have said many time it
> seems the most easily extensible to QFT.
There is no problem to extend BM to some BFT.
Ilja Schmelzer
> On 15 Apr 2003, Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
>>>> I think in the end it all comes down to how you
>>>> choose to look at it, until someone can perform and experiment
>>>> which distinguishs the two models.
>>> This has recently been done. A prediction for Bohmian theory has
>>> been differentiated from standard QM, and the Bohmian approach
>>> has been falsified by experiment.
>> As usual for Bohm bashers, they hide the fact that these papers have
>> been criticized as based on wrong predictions for Bohmian theory.
> As usual for the Priest, when experiment falsifies his pet theory
> he shoots the messenger, not the message.
I have criticized the "message". Experiment does not falsify my "pet
theory" because my "pet theory" does not make the predictions claimed
by the article. As has been discussed by various people, in
particular Marchildon.
You have refused to discuss the content of the Ghose vs. Marchildon
papers. Your choice.
It remains fact that you promote an article which has been criticized
as invalid, know about this critique, and have hidden this
information.
Ilja Schmelzer
> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> > Please, think a little bit. The theory is a _hidden_variable_theory_.
> >
> > Now, remember what is the main argument against the preferred frame?
> > Correct, we cannot detect it by measurement. That means it is a
> > _hidden_variable_.
> >
> > Thus, we see that a hidden variable theory of QM requires a well-known
> > hidden variable. A really strong "nail in its coffin".
> In the context of QM hidden variable does not necessarily mean
> impossible to detect. It means a theory that has other things in it
> than normal QM. Those other things if they exist may eventually be
> detectable.
But it is certainly not an argument against a hidden variable theory
that one of its variables is hidden.
> With regard to Bohms pilot wave theory Bill Hobba wrote:
> > > At this stage I must say IMHO things are looking a bit dim for Bohm.
> > Why?
>
> Because of the problem alluded to in the paper posted by Bilge - the
> ambiguarity problem. Of course this does not rule out other possible
> theories - just that one.
For Bohmian mechanics, which is generalized into the relativistic
domain as usual, that means with a preferred frame, there is no
ambiguity problem.
> > > I still like the simple statistical interpretation the best. It has
> > > problems in defining exactly at what point a measurement has occurred but to
> > > my mind that is kiddy stuff when compared to a theory that can't be
> > > generalized to SR.
> > Bohmian theory can be - all you need is a preferred frame.
>
> As mentioned before I am much too busy trying to understand conventional
> wisdom. But for any interpretation to hold water it must naturally go over
> to QFT. The reason is, as pointed out by Weinberg, and espoused in his
> books on QFT (books I have now gone through and agree with) SR +
> conventional QM leads to QFT.
No problem. LET + BM leads to BFT in a similar way.
> Thus you are faced with a similar problem to LET and GR eg how does
> the aether generalize to GR
This is what I have done in gr-qc/0205035
> becomes how your interpretation of QM generalizes to QFT.
BFT is also standard part of the Bohmian approach.
Ilja Schmelzer
> I. Schmelzer wrote:
>> PS. Bill, I recommend you to ignore personal accusations of type
>> "appropriate their names", "capitalize", "pathetic", "abuse his good
>> name" and so on. That's not serious, it is simply because he is
>> objectivist, and that's the usual style of conversation in this sect.
>> Stephen Speicher nonetheless remains to be an interesting source of
>> knowledge about history.
> I am not an objectivist but am well aware of Ayn Rand's writings. I
> do not believe the language he uses is part of her philosophy - I
> think it reflects in many instances similar feelings I have.
I do not claim that it is part of her philosophy, I claim it is part
of the usual style of conversation among the objectivists. (For an
example, see http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/speicher.html, see
Humanities.Philosophy.Objectivism for more.)
> BTW Stephen is genuinely knowledgeable about physics not just
> history.
This was my initial impression too. It has changed after his refusal
to discuss the Ghose-Marchildon controversy and seeing his homepage
(see Message-ID: <i3g7ka1...@wias-berlin.de>).
> To be fair I have not gone into the detail of your theory simply because I
> have my time full enough dealing with conventional wisdom.
No problem.
> My reason for
> starting this thread was to put on paper my view of what an inertial
> reference frame was and to justify my position that its real basis is a
> symmetry principle; a principle the existence of an aether would violate by
> breaking the symmetry. Of course this does not rule out aether theories;
> but it is an issue that I do not see atheists addressing.
Atheists? A nice typo ;-).
Of course, this is not really "your view" but the standard mainstream
view. I'm ready to address it: Symmetries of physical theories often
change, and they change almost every time if you swithch to a more
fundamental level. So, if I want to switch to a more fundamental
level (quantum gravity or subquantum hidden variables) I do not expect
that the symmetry group will be left unchanged.
Ilja Schmelzer
> And, might I add, the same is true of Lorentz. Though both
> Lorentz and Bohm were grossly mistaken, they _were_ physicists**,
> unlike the religious following which seek to capitalize on their
> good name while simultaneously contradicting the fundamental
> concepts upon which their theories were based.
Once Speicher has made accusations against me that I seek "to
capitalize on their good name", it seems reasonable to assume that
this is directed against me.
As usual, he avoids a direct discussion of the content, the
mathematics, of my ether theory as well as Bohmian mechanics.
Bilge
with all beamsplitters at relative rest. It doesn't simply give predictions
which coincide, in the limit of relative rest, the model _is_ the same
pilot wave model.
[...]
>> ``These results stress the oddness of quantum correlations. Not only
>> are they independent of the distance, but also it seems impossible to
>> cast them into any real time ordering. Hence one cannot maintain any
>> causal explanation in which an earlier even influences a later one by
>> arbitrarily fast communication. In this sense, quantum correlations are
>> basic a (i.e., primary[1]) concept, not a secondary concept reducible
>> to that of causality between events. Quantum correlations are directly
>> caused by the quantum state in such a way that one event cannot be
>> considered the `cause' and the other the `effect'.''
>
>This last paragraph is nonsense. Using a unique preferred frame
>instead of detector-depending frames we obtain the standard QM
>predictions:
>
>"In all situations where the different components of the measuring
>aparatuses are at relative rest, multisimultaneity has the same
>prediction as quantum mechanics." Indeed. And Bohmian mechanics.
>Because in this case, the frames proposed by multisimultaneity theory
>coinside with the predictions of BM which takes this common rest frame
>as the preferred frame.
>
>If the author would have replaced "into any real time ordering" by
>"into any time ordering defined by observables or measurement
>devices", it would be ok. Thus, an example of the usual positivistic
>confusion between "real" and "observable".
That's nonsense. Regardless of whether or not you can measure any
so-called "real frame", by your definition there exists such a frame
and that frame is inertial because it's at absolute rest. Any measurement
made in any inertial frame can be transformed to that rest frame by
a lorentz transform. If the events aren't causal in the frame in the
experiment, one cannot make the events causal merely via a lorentz
transform. I don't need to know what the frame is to which I perform
the transform, since there exists no such frame which is reachable
by _any_ lorentz transform.
>The theorem about the observables in quantum equilibrium of Bohmian
>mechanics.
>
>> To the best I can tell, it's a definition, not a theorem.
>
>The theorem that quantum equilibrium remains a quantum equilibrium
>during evolution is certainly not a definition. The identification of
>observables as positive operator measures starts from the assumption
>that measurement results are part of the state of the universe Q at
>some moment t, and, as well, the assumption of quantum equilibrium. I
>cannot see how positive operator measures follow "by definition".
Because you define that state of the universe to whatever happens
to fit a particular scenario. So far it has made no difference what
objection is raised - the state of the system is adjusted such that
it fits the results.
[...]
>> Not so. In fact, quite the opposite. The conceptual basis of any
>> particular model should dictate what can possibly known about its
>> basic constructs. In particular, the commutation relations provide a
>> limit on the amount of information which may be obtained through
>> measurements. An acceptable ontology should offer an explanation for
>> this limitation based upon the concepts of the ontology.
>
>This is exactly what BT offers. We have an ontology (Psi(.,t), Q(t)).
>The amount of information which may be obtained through measurements
>is limited (by definition) to subsets of the state of the universe,
>Q = (Q_results, Q_rest of the world).
>
>From this assumption about the ontology of the measurement results the
>standard measurement theory of QM (which includes the uncertainty
>relations) follows.
If there was anything substantive to that ontology, it wouldn't
be necessary to insist that the predictions match that of standard
quantum theory. You could make them independently without having
to fear "misinterpreting" the ontology and accept predictions
which differed from standard quantum theory as a test to differentiate
between them. Intead, you've just said that there is nothing other
than probability involved, but you aren't going to call it that.
>> Nature is
>> probabilistic [I would interpret this further, but I'm trying to avoid
>> anything but a minimal interpretation]. The commutation relations define
>> specifically what there exists to know, not what knowledge may be
>> obtained.
>
>"exists to know" is something I don't understand.
It means there is nothing else. That's all that exists. Classical
notions of position and momentum are not applicable. That is in
direct opposition to bohmian mechanics. If bohmian mechanics is correct,
then the uncertainty relations should not be unassailable.
>> Bohmian mechanics states something entirely different. It states
>> that there exists a lot more than what is knowable. However, what
>> bohmian mechanics does not explain through any concept in its
>> ontology is why some information is knowable and some is not.
>
>False. It explains all this exactly, in form of mathematical
>theorems.
Either bohmian mechanics states that bohmian trajectories exist or
it does not. Take you pick. If those trajectories exist, then there
exists more information than is knowable, by your own insistence
on not being able to know what those trajectories are.
[...]
>> In order for a particle to be "guided" along two trajectories which
>> are different (i.e., are distinct trajectories in the bohmian sense,
>> but not necessarily "measureable"), by how much information must those
>> two trajectories differ?
>
>I don't understand the meaning of this question. Im BM, a particle is
>guided along a single trajectory which depends on the initial position
>of all particles and the (initial value of the) wave function.
Which single path it takes is irrelevant.
>> Information may be taken to mean anything you wish which
>> distinguishes one trajectory from another as far as the particle
>> being guided is concerned. I'd say one bit, which is the smallest
>> difference that can differentiate between this/that trajectory
>> without being a probability (and I would really like the answer to
>> this question, since it represents what I see as an incompatability
>> in the underlying ontology of bohmian mechanics with any quantum
>> mechanical model).
>
>I would like to understand the meaning of this at first.
Never mind. You have dismissed every attempt to attach physical meaning
to bohmian trajectories. The last time I gave a definition of ergodic, you
simply invented a new kind of "ergodic" to adjust bohmian mechanics to be
ergodic for measurement purposes but not really ergodic. The same applies
here. It's a simple matter of how close two trajectories can be and still
differ by enough to call them different.
Ilja Schmelzer
A dubious claim. But it doesn't matter, because it is clear that in
general it is not.
I don't understand this paragraph at all, especially the last
sentence.
The preferred frame defines a causal ordering. Lorentz
transformations do not preserve this causal ordering, that means, if
A->B in the original configuration, there may be B->A for the
Lorentz-transformed configuration. The preferred frame is preferred
because only in this frame the property A->B => t(A)<=t(B) holds.
Thus, I see no meaning in "causal in the frame" or "make events
causal via transform".
Such a causal ordering, defined by a preferred frame, gives the
standard QM predictions. It is also the standard way to define
Bohmian theory in a relativistic situation.
The claim
>>> are they independent of the distance, but also it seems impossible
>>> to cast them into any real time ordering.
is, therefore, simply false, as the counter-example Bohmian mechanics
(with preferred frame) shows, which gives the standard QM predictions.
If you find my proposal to modify this false claim into a more
reasonable, true claim nonsensical, I would not care much.
>> The theorem about the observables in quantum equilibrium of Bohmian
>> mechanics.
>>
>>> To the best I can tell, it's a definition, not a theorem.
>>
>> The theorem that quantum equilibrium remains a quantum equilibrium
>> during evolution is certainly not a definition. The identification of
>> observables as positive operator measures starts from the assumption
>> that measurement results are part of the state of the universe Q at
>> some moment t, and, as well, the assumption of quantum equilibrium. I
>> cannot see how positive operator measures follow "by definition".
> Because you define that state of the universe to whatever happens
> to fit a particular scenario. So far it has made no difference what
> objection is raised - the state of the system is adjusted such that
> it fits the results.
Of course, if you have objections against a particular BT with some
particular configuration space {Q}, this objection may be met by
modification of the configuration space. The same holds for the
related quantum theories.
This does not change the general theorems as well as their
non-tautological character.
>>> Not so. In fact, quite the opposite. The conceptual basis of any
>>> particular model should dictate what can possibly known about its
>>> basic constructs. In particular, the commutation relations provide a
>>> limit on the amount of information which may be obtained through
>>> measurements. An acceptable ontology should offer an explanation for
>>> this limitation based upon the concepts of the ontology.
>> This is exactly what BT offers. We have an ontology (Psi(.,t), Q(t)).
>> The amount of information which may be obtained through measurements
>> is limited (by definition) to subsets of the state of the universe,
>> Q = (Q_results, Q_rest of the world).
>> From this assumption about the ontology of the measurement results the
>> standard measurement theory of QM (which includes the uncertainty
>> relations) follows.
> If there was anything substantive to that ontology, it wouldn't
> be necessary to insist that the predictions match that of standard
> quantum theory.
Sorry, we don't simply insist, this is _derived_, in a nontrivial
theorem.
> You could make them independently without having to fear
> "misinterpreting" the ontology and accept predictions which differed
> from standard quantum theory as a test to differentiate between
> them.
Of course, we could make them independently, but once there is a
general theorem that the predictions have to be the same, this would
be stupid repetition of some computation in another way.
Such an exercise of doing computations in different ways may be useful
for students - if they obtain different answers, they know they have
erred somewhere or not understood something in one of the variants.
> Instead, you've just said that there is nothing other than
> probability involved, but you aren't going to call it that.
I don't remember to have said this. Because I don't understand the
meaning of "nothing other than probability involved" I'm indeed not
going to call it that.
>>> Nature is probabilistic [I would interpret this further, but I'm
>>> trying to avoid anything but a minimal interpretation]. The
>>> commutation relations define specifically what there exists to
>>> know, not what knowledge may be obtained.
>> "exists to know" is something I don't understand.
> It means there is nothing else. That's all that exists.
In this case, false. The minimal interpretation does _not_ tell us
what exists. It remains silent about this question.
> Classical notions of position and momentum are not applicable. That
> is in direct opposition to bohmian mechanics. If bohmian mechanics
> is correct, then the uncertainty relations should not be
> unassailable.
The uncertainty relations are relations between possible observations.
Once the QM measurement theory follows, as a theorem, from BM, the
uncertainty relations are unassailable in BM.
>>> Bohmian mechanics states something entirely different. It states
>>> that there exists a lot more than what is knowable. However, what
>>> bohmian mechanics does not explain through any concept in its
>>> ontology is why some information is knowable and some is not.
>> False. It explains all this exactly, in form of mathematical
>> theorems.
> Either bohmian mechanics states that bohmian trajectories exist or
> it does not. Take you pick.
Taken years ago. Bohmian trajectories exist.
> If those trajectories exist, then there exists more information than
> is knowable,
Yep.
> by your own insistence on not being able to know what those
> trajectories are.
Yes. I have objected to your second claim, "BM does not explain". It
does.
>>> In order for a particle to be "guided" along two trajectories which
>>> are different (i.e., are distinct trajectories in the bohmian sense,
>>> but not necessarily "measureable"), by how much information must those
>>> two trajectories differ?
>>
>> I don't understand the meaning of this question. Im BM, a particle is
>> guided along a single trajectory which depends on the initial position
>> of all particles and the (initial value of the) wave function.
>
> Which single path it takes is irrelevant.
>
>>> Information may be taken to mean anything you wish which
>>> distinguishes one trajectory from another as far as the particle
>>> being guided is concerned. I'd say one bit, which is the smallest
>>> difference that can differentiate between this/that trajectory
>>> without being a probability (and I would really like the answer to
>>> this question, since it represents what I see as an incompatability
>>> in the underlying ontology of bohmian mechanics with any quantum
>>> mechanical model).
>>
>> I would like to understand the meaning of this at first.
>
> Never mind. You have dismissed every attempt to attach physical meaning
> to bohmian trajectories.
They are real, but not observable. If you identify "physical meaning"
with "being observable", your (positivistic) choice.
> The last time I gave a definition of ergodic, you simply invented a
> new kind of "ergodic" to adjust bohmian mechanics to be ergodic for
> measurement purposes but not really ergodic.
"Simply invented", LOL. We have discussed a well-defined experiment.
This well-defined experiment has to be described in BT in a
well-defined way. It is, therefore, a well-defined observable of BT.
I have described this well-defined observable, following the rules of
BT. If you would know BT appropriately, you should have been able to
do this yourself. At least, I would propose this as an exercise or an
examination question in a basic course of BT.
Then there is the classical notion of ergodicity - some well-defined
property of trajectories. Together with the trajectories, this
property is unobservable in BT. This would be another elementary
examination question in a basic course of BT.
> The same applies here. It's a simple matter of how close two
> trajectories can be and still differ by enough to call them
> different.
Sorry, but I don't understand the meaning of this matter.
Jeff Relf
" BTW Stephen [ Speicher ] is genuinely knowledgeable
Ilja Schmelzer wisely realizes :
" This was my initial impression too.
It has changed after his refusal to discuss
the Ghose-Marchildon controversy
and seeing his homepage.
( see Message-ID: <i3g7ka1...@wias-berlin.de> ) "
I'm with Ilja, I don't think Speicher worth reading.
He's just plain obnoxious.
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
> > On 15 Apr 2003, Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> >> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
> >>>> I think in the end it all comes down to how you
> >>>> choose to look at it, until someone can perform and experiment
> >>>> which distinguishs the two models.
>
> >>> This has recently been done. A prediction for Bohmian theory has
> >>> been differentiated from standard QM, and the Bohmian approach
> >>> has been falsified by experiment.
> >>
> >> As usual for Bohm bashers, they hide the fact that these papers have
> >> been criticized as based on wrong predictions for Bohmian theory.
Let's get this straight. I give a reference to a peer-reviewed
published paper on an experiment, and I do not mention that there
is non-peer-reviewed discussion on the paper, and THAT means to
Ilja that I "hide the fact?" Ilja, the more you act and talk the
more bizarre you become. You _really_ are starting to reason and
sound like a nutcase.
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
> > And, might I add, the same is true of Lorentz. Though both
> > Lorentz and Bohm were grossly mistaken, they _were_ physicists**,
> > unlike the religious following which seek to capitalize on their
> > good name while simultaneously contradicting the fundamental
> > concepts upon which their theories were based.
>
> As usual, he avoids a direct discussion of the content, the
> mathematics, of my ether theory as well as Bohmian mechanics.
>
The ether and Bohm are your religion. I do not discuss ideas
with religious fanatics.
Stephen Speicher
> Ilja Schmelzer:
> >
> >I would like to understand the meaning of this at first.
>
> Never mind. You have dismissed every attempt to attach
> physical meaning to bohmian trajectories. The last time I
> gave a definition of ergodic, you simply invented a new kind
> of "ergodic" to adjust bohmian mechanics to be ergodic for
> measurement purposes but not really ergodic. The same applies
> here.
It's hopeless. It is held like a religion, not a science.
Bill Hobba
Regarding a paper posted by Bilge Bill Hobba wrote:
> > > I have not studied the paper in detail but my fist impression is it
does not
> > > falsify Bohms model.
>
Bill Hobba added:
> I have now read the paper and while I believe it does not completely
falsify
> Bohms model it gives it a hell of a tweak. The ambiuarity about wave
> collapse is a problem.
>
> However Stephen has given a reference that purports to do just that (ie
> falsify Bohm). While I have not read it IMHO it will probably stand up to
> scrutiny so goodbye Bohm. Of course this does not falsify other possible
> theories or his ideas on the implicate order.
>
> BTW my bet is on conventional QM because as I have said many time it seems
> the most easily extensible to QFT. Also I dislike the problems with the
> conventional treatment as much as anyone, but I want to understand reality
> not force my prejudices on it.
>
I have now read Stephens paper and all I can say is bye bye Bohms pilot wave
theory - a victory for standard QM.
Thanks
Bill
Bilge
From my point of view, standard quantum theory and bohmian mechanics
cannot both be correct. Standard quantum theory asserts that quantum
processes are probabilistic and bohmian mechanics asserts the exact
opposite. Since it's experimentally impractical to isolate every possible
causal mechanism then one must look to other means to determine the
difference. The most obvious is the entropy and ergodicity. If a system is
ergodic then then it's not decomposable and there are no more operators
that commute with the hamiltonian. If the system is not ergodic, then
there is at least one more operator that commutes than with an ergodic
system. In bohmian mechanics, the obvious operator(s) are related to the
decomposable trajectories. If no such operator exists, then the system is
not decomposable into independent trajectories. To me, it seems relatively
straight forward, in principle to specify such operators and place
criteria on an experiment which can distinguish between them, even if the
criteria are not currently feasible to meet, technologically. Insisting
that _no_ experiment can possibly distinguish between a deterministic
theory and a probabilistic one, seems to throwing in the towel on the
deterministic aspect.
David Evens
<s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Bilge wrote:
>> Ilja Schmelzer:
>> >
>> >I would like to understand the meaning of this at first.
>>
>> Never mind. You have dismissed every attempt to attach
>> physical meaning to bohmian trajectories. The last time I
>> gave a definition of ergodic, you simply invented a new kind
>> of "ergodic" to adjust bohmian mechanics to be ergodic for
>> measurement purposes but not really ergodic. The same applies
>> here.
>
>It's hopeless. It is held like a religion, not a science.
Hawking pointed out that religion is not an invalid source of
inspiration for ideas to base a physical model upon, but, ultimately,
the model will live or die by how well it predicts observations.
ueb
> On 16 Apr 2003, Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
>> > And, might I add, the same is true of Lorentz. Though both
>> > Lorentz and Bohm were grossly mistaken, they _were_ physicists**,
>> > unlike the religious following which seek to capitalize on their
>> > good name while simultaneously contradicting the fundamental
>> > concepts upon which their theories were based.
>>
>> As usual, he avoids a direct discussion of the content, the
>> mathematics, of my ether theory as well as Bohmian mechanics.
>>
> The ether and Bohm are your religion. I do not discuss ideas
> with religious fanatics.
Who are religious fanatics ?
I do not need an ether respectively a preferred frame.
It is a methodical aid like the matter sources as distributed
masses and charges.
It is very odd if persons, who abuse or ridicule other for the
proposal to go without matter sources, call the ether a religion.
Ulrich Bruchholz
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) writes:
>> The article states explicitly that it reduces to the pilot wave model
>> with all beamsplitters at relative rest. It doesn't simply give
>> predictions which coincide, in the limit of relative rest, the model
>> _is_ the same pilot wave model.
>
>A dubious claim. But it doesn't matter, because it is clear that in
>general it is not.
If that is clear, then perhaps you can explain precisely where the
differences rest.
[...]
>The preferred frame defines a causal ordering.
Sure. That's precisely my point.
>Lorentz transformations do not preserve this causal ordering, that
>means, if A->B in the original configuration, there may be B->A for
>the Lorentz-transformed configuration.
Yes, it does. If the time ordering of two events is undefined in any
inertial frame, then the events are spacelike. A lorentz transform
cannot make spacelike separations timelike. ds^2 would not only have
to not be invariant, it would have to change sign. A lorentz transform
cannot do that.
>The preferred frame is preferred
>because only in this frame the property A->B => t(A)<=t(B) holds.
>Thus, I see no meaning in "causal in the frame" or "make events
>causal via transform".
If two events are causal, then the events have a timelike separation.
If the separation is timelike, there is no lorentz frame in which the
events can be made simultaneous. If the events are causal in the preferred
frame, the interval is timelike and it must be timelike in every lorentz
frame or else ds^2 is not invariant and ds^2 is what lorentz transforms
preserve.
>Such a causal ordering, defined by a preferred frame, gives the
>standard QM predictions. It is also the standard way to define
>Bohmian theory in a relativistic situation.
Are you claiming that simultaneous events can be time ordered or that
time ordered events can be made simultaneous by a lorentz transform?
>The claim
>
>>>> are they independent of the distance, but also it seems impossible
>>>> to cast them into any real time ordering.
>
>is, therefore, simply false, as the counter-example Bohmian mechanics
>(with preferred frame) shows, which gives the standard QM predictions.
That would suggest that you are using a theory to invalidate an
experiment. What was determined was that the events could not be
time ordered. That did not depend upon any model of quantum mechanics.
That only depended upon lorentz invariance. If the events cannot be
time ordered in one lorentz frame, no lorentz transform can make those
events causal.
>If you find my proposal to modify this false claim into a more
>reasonable, true claim nonsensical, I would not care much.
OK.
>>> The theorem about the observables in quantum equilibrium of Bohmian
>>> mechanics.
>>>
>>>> To the best I can tell, it's a definition, not a theorem.
>>>
>>> The theorem that quantum equilibrium remains a quantum equilibrium
>>> during evolution is certainly not a definition. The identification of
>>> observables as positive operator measures starts from the assumption
>>> that measurement results are part of the state of the universe Q at
>>> some moment t, and, as well, the assumption of quantum equilibrium. I
>>> cannot see how positive operator measures follow "by definition".
>
>> Because you define that state of the universe to whatever happens
>> to fit a particular scenario. So far it has made no difference what
>> objection is raised - the state of the system is adjusted such that
>> it fits the results.
>
>Of course, if you have objections against a particular BT with some
>particular configuration space {Q}, this objection may be met by
>modification of the configuration space. The same holds for the
>related quantum theories.
>
>This does not change the general theorems as well as their
>non-tautological character.
The quantum equilibrium hypothesis is not a theorem. It's a hypothesis.
Hypotheses are not postulates, either. The conserved vector current
hypotheses (CVC) is also a hypothesis. It can be proven from the minimal
standard model. The most commonly performed experiments in low energy
experimental weak interaction physics are performed to test this
hypothesis (which in the context of the standard model is a theorem).
If CVC were determined experimentally to be incorrect, no one would
claim that it must be because it can be proven from the standard model.
What everyone would say is that the standard model was falsified and
in fact, physicists perform those experiments hoping to do just that.
What I see are bohmians justifying the claim that bohmian mechanics
and standard quantum theory are compatible, by invoking the quantum
equilibrium hypothesis to invalidate any experiment which attempts to
test the validity of the quantum equilibrium hypothesis, which is
in effect, what these experients represent, since bohmian mechanics
relies on it to insure experiments match that of standard quantum
theory.
[...]
>> If there was anything substantive to that ontology, it wouldn't
>> be necessary to insist that the predictions match that of standard
>> quantum theory.
>
>Sorry, we don't simply insist, this is _derived_, in a nontrivial
>theorem.
If this refers to the quantum equilibrium hypothesis, see above.
>> You could make them independently without having to fear
>> "misinterpreting" the ontology and accept predictions which differed
>> from standard quantum theory as a test to differentiate between
>> them.
>
>Of course, we could make them independently, but once there is a
>general theorem that the predictions have to be the same, this would
>be stupid repetition of some computation in another way.
Not any more so than calling the calculation of of the individual
diagrams and their explicit contributions to beta decay experiments
"stupid repetition" because CVC is part of the standard model which
predicts other phenomena correctly. It's certainly simpler to not perform
tedious calculations and experiments to test CVC and just assume that it's
true because thhe standard model says it is. Physicists continue to
perform that stupid repitition just in case it isn't true and go to a
great deal of effort to try and find tests which are sensitive to the
parameters in the calculations as well as try to find a parameterization
which makes experiments possible.
>Such an exercise of doing computations in different ways may be useful
>for students - if they obtain different answers, they know they have
>erred somewhere or not understood something in one of the variants.
The most obvious way to search for right-handed currents is to look for
right-handed neutrinos. However, that is relatively difficult, so someone
(michel) decided to parameterize muon decay in a rather non-obvious way in
terms of what are called "michel parameters", one of which is called
\rho. Is this a "student excercise" just because the standard model has
only left-handed weak currents and it's simpler just refer to the V-A
structure and claim no right handed weak currents exist?
>> Instead, you've just said that there is nothing other than
>> probability involved, but you aren't going to call it that.
>
>I don't remember to have said this. Because I don't understand the
>meaning of "nothing other than probability involved" I'm indeed not
>going to call it that.
If your theory cannot, even in principle, be determined to be different
from one which is probabilistic, then anything additional it contains is
equivalent to a coin toss and has no content beyond that.
>>>> Nature is probabilistic [I would interpret this further, but I'm
>>>> trying to avoid anything but a minimal interpretation]. The
>>>> commutation relations define specifically what there exists to
>>>> know, not what knowledge may be obtained.
>
>>> "exists to know" is something I don't understand.
>
>> It means there is nothing else. That's all that exists.
>
>In this case, false. The minimal interpretation does _not_ tell us
>what exists. It remains silent about this question.
It most certainly does not remain silent. It states up front that
\psi contains all of the information about a system and that |\psi|^2
is to be interpreted as a probability density.
>> Classical notions of position and momentum are not applicable. That
>> is in direct opposition to bohmian mechanics. If bohmian mechanics
>> is correct, then the uncertainty relations should not be
>> unassailable.
>
>The uncertainty relations are relations between possible observations.
As opposed to impossible observations? How does that differ from
invoking god, who according to many religions, does lots of stuff,
but insists that it's not possible to observe him doing it?
>Once the QM measurement theory follows, as a theorem, from BM, the
>uncertainty relations are unassailable in BM.
The uncertainty relations are certainly unassailable in standard
quantum theory, given that the commutation relations define the
theory.
[...]
>> Either bohmian mechanics states that bohmian trajectories exist or
>> it does not. Take you pick.
>
>Taken years ago. Bohmian trajectories exist.
Then it should be possible to show them as more than a coin toss.
>
>> If those trajectories exist, then there exists more information than
>> is knowable,
>
>Yep.
Then there would be an entropy associated with that information
which is not present in the standard quantum theory, which asserts
there is no more information.
[...]
>> Never mind. You have dismissed every attempt to attach physical meaning
>> to bohmian trajectories.
>
>They are real, but not observable. If you identify "physical meaning"
>with "being observable", your (positivistic) choice.
How does "real, but not observable" here differ from "real, but not
observable" according to religious doctrine about god?
>> The last time I gave a definition of ergodic, you simply invented a
>> new kind of "ergodic" to adjust bohmian mechanics to be ergodic for
>> measurement purposes but not really ergodic.
>
>"Simply invented", LOL.
Did you or did you not come up with suggest some notion of
ergodic which was ergodic for measurement reasons, yet not
really ergodic?
>We have discussed a well-defined experiment. This well-defined experiment
>has to be described in BT in a well-defined way.
But, I've never agreed that the experiment was well-defined by BT,
mainly because I haven't seen it well defined yet.
>It is, therefore, a well-defined observable of BT. I have described this
>well-defined observable, following the rules of BT.
You've done some handwaving, none of which made any sense to me,
but you haven't defined anything beyond that.
>If you would know BT appropriately, you should have been able to
>do this yourself.
At the moment, I'm not certain I'd get the same description of bohmian
mechanics from two different advocates of the theory, apart from the
pilot wave feature. If it's so simple, why are you waiting for me to
figure it out, rather than simply telling me explicitly?
>At least, I would propose this as an exercise or an
>examination question in a basic course of BT.
>
>Then there is the classical notion of ergodicity - some well-defined
>property of trajectories. Together with the trajectories, this
>property is unobservable in BT. This would be another elementary
>examination question in a basic course of BT.
Ergodicity is a property which already has a well defined meaning.
The existence of hidden variables implies non-ergodicity, since
there still exist constants of the motion (operators) which commute
with the hamiltonian.
Bill Hobba
falsifies it Bill Hobba wrote:
> >I have now read Stephens paper and all I can say is bye bye Bohms pilot
wave
> >theory - a victory for standard QM.
> >
Bilge replied:
>
> From my point of view, standard quantum theory and bohmian mechanics
> cannot both be correct. Standard quantum theory asserts that quantum
> processes are probabilistic and bohmian mechanics asserts the exact
> opposite. Since it's experimentally impractical to isolate every possible
> causal mechanism then one must look to other means to determine the
> difference. The most obvious is the entropy and ergodicity. If a system is
> ergodic then then it's not decomposable and there are no more operators
> that commute with the hamiltonian. If the system is not ergodic, then
> there is at least one more operator that commutes than with an ergodic
> system. In bohmian mechanics, the obvious operator(s) are related to the
> decomposable trajectories. If no such operator exists, then the system is
> not decomposable into independent trajectories. To me, it seems relatively
> straight forward, in principle to specify such operators and place
> criteria on an experiment which can distinguish between them, even if the
> criteria are not currently feasible to meet, technologically. Insisting
> that _no_ experiment can possibly distinguish between a deterministic
> theory and a probabilistic one, seems to throwing in the towel on the
> deterministic aspect.
Prior to reading the papers I never thought as hard about it as you
obviously did. I simply did not see the problems with Bohms view. I always
thought that they were experimentally indistinguishable. I was obviously
wrong. My concern with Bohm had to do with how it extended to QFT.
However I must say that I do not see, in principle, that it is impossible to
come up with a deterministic view of QM. What I think needs to be involved
is some kind of complexity that makes it look as though it is random. In
fact I believe given any situation it is possible it principle to come up
with either a deterministic or statistical model. (Considering how my
opinion on Bohms pilot wave theory turned out wrong I may be wrong here to).
Of course, as you correctly point out, it should be possible to tell the
difference. Problem is it may be impractical to do so. The one we choose
is based on simplicity. There is no doubt, IMHO, that the standard
interpretation, wins that battle hands down. Of course that is not to say
it is not without problems. Exactly where in the observational chain where
we can pinpoint when a state collapses is up for grabs. Of course in
practice we can always tell when it has happened, it is just this matter of
principle is a bit of a niggle.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> >It's hopeless. It is held like a religion, not a science.
>
David Evens replied:
> Hawking pointed out that religion is not an invalid source of
> inspiration for ideas to base a physical model upon, but, ultimately,
> the model will live or die by how well it predicts observations.
Not quite true. Consider LET and SR. Experimentally indistinguishable but
which do you choose. I choose SR because it makes less assumptions, does
not have an unobservable aether and is based on what I think the fundamental
principles of physics are - symmetry principles. So other factors do come
into consideration.
Thanks
Bill
pst...@ix.netcom.com
"Bill Hobba" <mho...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>>> Stephen Speicher wrote:
>>>
>>> It's hopeless. It is held like a religion, not a science.
>>
>>
>> David Evens replied:
>>
>> Hawking pointed out that religion is not an invalid source of
>> inspiration for ideas to base a physical model upon, but,
>> ultimately, the model will live or die by how well it predicts
>> observations.
>
> Not quite true. Consider LET and SR. Experimentally
> indistinguishable but which do you choose?
You're asking me? :)
> I choose SR because it makes less assumptions, does not have an
> unobservable aether ...
Only if one narrowly defines observable...
> ... and is based on what I think the fundamental principles of
> physics are - symmetry principles.
But, in nature there exists no such symmetries. There ARE NO
magnetic monopoles, no bulk anti-matter, no symmetry with time.
Ever heard the term 'broken symmetry'. That is the rule and the
exception is so-called symmetry...
> So other factors do come into consideration.
Yes, they do. But yours are not them...
Paul stowe
Jeff Krimmel
news:b7ncle$o77$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
"But, in nature there exists no such symmetries." Are you out of your mind?
Have you read any elementary physics text or even just taken a look at how
the world works? I have no idea on what basis you are trying to make the
claim that "no such symmetries" exist. Have you taken a look into the
symmetry between electric and magnetic fields? Have you not noticed the
symmetry that produces the laws of conservation? Have you failed to realize
the existence of intertial frames that are equally as apt to provide
accurate physical descriptions as any other?
You have it backward, my friend. The condition of symmetry is used to derive
the most accurate mathematical descriptions of the physical world we have
ever known, and your above listed cases of broken symmetry are the
exceptions.
Jeff
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > On 16 Apr 2003, Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>
> >> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
> >> > And, might I add, the same is true of Lorentz. Though both
> >> > Lorentz and Bohm were grossly mistaken, they _were_ physicists**,
> >> > unlike the religious following which seek to capitalize on their
> >> > good name while simultaneously contradicting the fundamental
> >> > concepts upon which their theories were based.
> >>
> >> As usual, he avoids a direct discussion of the content, the
> >> mathematics, of my ether theory as well as Bohmian mechanics.
> >>
>
> > The ether and Bohm are your religion. I do not discuss ideas
> > with religious fanatics.
>
> Who are religious fanatics ?
Look in the mirror.
Stephen Speicher
David's
comments.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Bill Hobba wrote:
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
> > >It's hopeless. It is held like a religion, not a science.
> >
>
> David Evens replied:
> > Hawking pointed out that religion is not an invalid source of
> > inspiration for ideas to base a physical model upon, but, ultimately,
> > the model will live or die by how well it predicts observations.
>
That does not sound quite like Hawking, but perhaps you can
provide a citation for such a statement?
Regardless, I think for myself and it does not matter that much
to me what someone else said. My comment "held like a religion"
was meant to distinguish those ideas which are held as a matter
reason, i.e., science, as opposed to that which is held by faith.
Those who hold views on faith are dependent on those who actually
use reason, which is why one never sees a scientific theory based
of first principles of faith. Science can survive quite well
without faith -- indeed, it will prosper in proportion to its
distance from faith -- but those who hold their ideas like a
religion cannot develop such independently. Science deals with
what is, and requires recognition of the physical world in order
to develop. Faith deals with whatever feelings lie within, which
will get you no further than your nose, and certainly not on a
rocket ship to the Moon.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030417...@localhost.localdomain...
I would naysay this in a small way, as elegantly as it is stated.
Action follows thought. Sooner or later you test the works of science, and
many pairs of fingers are crossed. I'm sure this will be the case, should
the Shuttle ever be sent skyward again.
Faith is not a miser, holding all unto itself. Faith is a companion, that
the road will rise to meet you with each step.
And may it rise to meet you gently... in faith.
(Kenny Loggins always does this to me...)
David A. Smith
Stephen Speicher
Poetic, but not persuasive.
I'll stick with reason, reality, and accomplishment.
Bilge
>However I must say that I do not see, in principle, that it is impossible to
>come up with a deterministic view of QM.
I agree with that, actually. On the other hand I also think that there
is a very good chance that the probabilistic aspect of quantum mechanics
could be a necessary feature to allow for the macroscopically causal
universe we observe. So, I think that it's rather essential that a
deterministic model be able to justify itself by making the deterministic
aspect explicit and testable. While most of the arguments on this newsgroup
seem to be aimed at finding a way around quantum mechanics, I think the
real argument is whether indeterminacy must be part of nature or whether
it must not be a part of nature, hence my comments stating that bohmian
and standard quantum theory both cannot be correct, unless bohmian
mechanics is merely a philosophical idea.
> What I think needs to be involved
>is some kind of complexity that makes it look as though it is random. In
>fact I believe given any situation it is possible it principle to come up
>with either a deterministic or statistical model.
Yes and no. On can certainly come up with a statistical model for a
deterministic theory. Hydrodynamics and weather modeling are examples
of statistical models which are essentially classical. However, in such
cases, the statistical models exist for practical reasons. In principle,
(from a purely classical perspective), each atom or molecule has a well
defined position and momentum and given sufficient computational resources,
one could calculate the behaviour of a system, particle by particle.
>(Considering how my opinion on Bohms pilot wave theory turned out wrong
>I may be wrong here to). Of course, as you correctly point out, it should
>be possible to tell the difference. Problem is it may be impractical to
>do so.
Sure, just as it is impractical to test string theory or supersymmetry
at the moment. However, what _should_ be possible is to state tests which
are possible in principle, so that the features of the theory are well
defined. If bohmian trajectories exist, then it should be possible to
state conditions under which particle can be manipulated to traverse them,
even if it appears impractical to acheive. That would give the
trajectories meaning and pin them down something concrete. It's possible
that once pinned down, someone might be clever enough to think of an
indirect test based upon the some of the implications. What bothers me is
that the effort is spent, not on trying to make the pilot wave model say
something specific about the contribution of pilot the pilot wave, but in
trying to insure that the pilot wave says absolutely nothing more than one
has if it were absent, so that bohmian mechanics is incapable of saying
anything more than standard quantum theory, by construction. By comparison,
I think that both stringtheory and supersymmetry will not gain acceptance
until they make at least one concrete prediction that requires some feature
of those models, which can be validated experimentally.
>The one we choose is based on simplicity. There is no doubt, IMHO, that
>the standard interpretation, wins that battle hands down.
I don't think simplicity is a motivating factor in the case of choosing
quantum mechanics as a probabilitsic theory. Unlike relativity which was
conidered rather elegant and adopted rather readily (apart from the idea
of black holes which einstein disliked and some solutions, like godel's
which einstein probably considered pathological), quantum mechanics has
made numbers of physicists wince over the decades. A lot of effort has
gone into positing experiments of the "this is too ridiculous to possibly
be right" variety. I'm guessing that it's only rather recently that most
people no longer expect the predictions to be too ridiculous to actually
be observed experimentally, since the rest have panned out. I still think
many physicists would not be all that disappointed if quantum mechanics
were found to be just a statistical theory, rather than fundamental.
>Of course that is not to say it is not without problems. Exactly where
>in the observational chain where we can pinpoint when a state collapses
>is up for grabs. Of course in practice we can always tell when it has
>happened, it is just this matter of principle is a bit of a niggle.
Personally, I find the "collapse of the wavefunction" a bit too
dramatic. That terminology makes it sound too much like a process of some
sort and usually ends up being antropomorphised to death. An article on
"parallel universes" that recently appeared in scientific american (which
in my opinion has really taken a turn for the worse over the past few
years), really exemplifies the tendency to get carried away with that
sort of thing.
Bilge
> "Bill Hobba" <mho...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>> Stephen Speicher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's hopeless. It is held like a religion, not a science.
>>>
>>>
>>> David Evens replied:
>>>
>>> Hawking pointed out that religion is not an invalid source of
>>> inspiration for ideas to base a physical model upon, but,
>>> ultimately, the model will live or die by how well it predicts
>>> observations.
>>
>> Not quite true. Consider LET and SR. Experimentally
>> indistinguishable but which do you choose?
>
> You're asking me? :)
>
>> I choose SR because it makes less assumptions, does not have an
>> unobservable aether ...
>
> Only if one narrowly defines observable...
>
>> ... and is based on what I think the fundamental principles of
>> physics are - symmetry principles.
>
> But, in nature there exists no such symmetries. There ARE NO
> magnetic monopoles,
That is very a simplistic notion. There are no monopoles _by definition_.
I can write maxwell's equations such they are completely symmetric in
terms of magnetic and electric charge and they will still describe
precisely what we observe. If I assume, a priori that maxwell's equations
are perfectly symmetric with respect to electric and magnetic charge,
then I can redefine them arbitrarily, via the transformation without
any change in the physics:
q_e' = q_e cos(A) + q_m sin(A)
q_m' = q_m cos(A) - q_e sin(A)
All that does is change what we call electric and magnetic charge.
_IF_ the ratio of electric to magnetic charge is the same in all
matter, then I can define the magnetic charge, q_m' = 0 as follows:
q_m' = 0 = q_m cos(A) - q_e sin(A)
or
q_m = q_e tan(A)
Then,
q_e' = q_e cos(A) + q_e tan(A) sin(A)
= q_e cos(A)[ 1 + tan^2(A) ] = q_e cos(A) [sec^2(A)]
= q_e/cos(A)
q_m = 0
You can perform the exact same transformations for E' and B' and you
end up with maxwell's equations in the form they are normally written.
The absence of magnetic charge is convention, not necessity. What is
apparently absent, is matter which has differing ratios of electric to
magnetic charge.
> no bulk anti-matter, no symmetry with time. Ever heard the term
>'broken symmetry'. That is the rule and the exception is so-called
>symmetry...
Yes, but that's why symmetry is important. If a symmetry is manifest
in some system, then any symmetry operation leaves the system unchanged
and the initial and final states are indistibguishable. If the lorentz
symmetry were globally manifest, there would be no matter in the
universe. What the lorentz transformations preserve are inertial frames.
That the universe isn't manifestly lorentz invariant is evident by the
frame dependence of a measurement. The lorentz transforms allow one to
describe measurements in a form which exibits the lorentz symmetry, but
obviously that form only tells you how to convert quantities from one
(non-covariant) quantity to another. Since _every_ photon has a four-
momentum such that p^u p_u = 0, one cannot say anything at all about
photon enrgy or momentum given that expression. The same goes for any
other object, since p^u p_u = m^2, in general. Finding the underlying
symmetry is what is important, because it automatically explains
conservation laws wwith very simple requirements on nature.
I personally find it simpler to believe that nature didn't spend any
effort to design a universe with a shape that would single out a
direction in space which automatically gives conservation of angular
momentum, that I do believing nature spent a lot of effort designing a
universe with a preferred direction in space, and then covering that
facet up in order to make it impossible to discover that angular
momentum isn't really conserved, but only looks that way.
Your arguments about anti-matter are also very simplistic. Anti-matter
may appear to be required in equal amounts by lorentz invariance, but
that is not necessarily true. Neither is time reversal invariance.
Lorentz invariance requires the combination CPT to be invariant. It's
already experimentally established that parity (P) is violated, CP is
violated (and by inference, T is violated in order to make CPT
invariant), and that T is violated directly. Nothing which has been
accessible to tests so far has described a mechanism for the apparent
excess of matter over anti-matter, but whatever the process, it has
occured in such a way that apparently the universe is still neutral.
That does not mean that a broken symmetry will not tell us how this
happens.
Broken symmetries occur in so many ordinary, everyday phenomena, that
it's very difficult to imagine that symmetry is not a fundamental reason
for everything. After all, something which is symmetric requires no
effort on the part of nature. Neither does breaking one via a phase
transition which results from the cooling of the universe. The universe
merely expends the least effort possible by finding a new ground state
at a lower energy, just like water does when turning into ice. If there
are an infinite number of degenerate ground states from which to choose,
then the choice between them which requires no effort from nature is to
have the choice be random.
ueb
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, ueb wrote:
>> > The ether and Bohm are your [Ilja's] religion. I do not discuss ideas
>> > with religious fanatics.
>>
>> Who are religious fanatics ?
> Look in the mirror.
Willingly. :-)
I'm very disappointed that you don't place the mirror at my disposal.
You may willingly ask persons, who have a clue of that issue, for help.
In order to ease you it, I'll repeat the snipped text :-)
| I do not need an ether respectively a preferred frame.
| It [the ether] is a methodical aid like the matter sources as
| distributed masses and charges.
| It is very odd if persons, who abuse or ridicule other for the
| proposal to go without matter sources, call the ether a religion.
Ulrich Bruchholz
PS: I'm keen on arguments, even from experts.
Eric Dennis
>
> > Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
> > > And, might I add, the same is true of Lorentz. Though both
> > > Lorentz and Bohm were grossly mistaken, they _were_ physicists**,
> > > unlike the religious following which seek to capitalize on their
> > > good name while simultaneously contradicting the fundamental
> > > concepts upon which their theories were based.
> >
> > As usual, he avoids a direct discussion of the content, the
> > mathematics, of my ether theory as well as Bohmian mechanics.
> >
>
> The ether and Bohm are your religion. I do not discuss ideas
> with religious fanatics.
Stephen, you must realize how tinny you sound. You cite a paper that
purports to falsify Bohmian mechanics. Ilja and I both give you
specific technical instances of where the analysis that this paper is
based on is just plain wrong. Instead of responding to these
criticisms, you repeatedly snip them and protest that *Ilja* is a
religious fanatic and therefore you won't deign to address his
arguments.
Your behavior is quite similar to that of those self-righteous
leftists who believe they have won an argument simply by asserting how
morally corrupt their opponents are.
It is a shame that you have given the impression that this mentality
has anything to do with Ayn Rand and Objectivism.