3 Relativistic Interpretations. Why we must choose Lorentz bec of Bell
Omina
There are 3 relativistic interpretations:
1. The Einsteinian Interpretation
2. The Minkowski Interpretation
3. The Lorentz Interpretation
The reason why we must choose Lorentz Intepretation even if it looks
ad hoc on the surface is because of the non-local correlations in
Bell's Theorem that was only experimentally verified in the 1970s and
it always takes a while to overturn a century of mindset in the
Minkowski Interpretation which physicists still hold. Here are details
of the 3 relativistic interpretations before we argue why Lorentz is
the right one.
"The Einsteinian interpretation
SR, as Einstein originally formulated it, postulates a 3+1-dimensional
ontology, not a 4-dimensional ontology (Einstein 1981).1 That is to
say, it is a theory of familiar physical objects enduring through
time. Space and time are
relativised to reference frames, which serve to define distant
simultaneity and along with it notions like rest, motion, speed, and
velocity. Light is postulated to have the constant velocity c in every
reference frame. Because physics
is relativised to reference frames, clocks run at different rates and
measuring rods have different lengths relative to different frames.
Such an interpretation of SR implies an anti-realist or
instrumentalist understanding of Minkowski
space-time.2 There is no tenselessly subsisting manifold of events;
space-time is a theoretical construct only, a geometrical
representation of a theory which is really about physical objects
enduring through time. A Minkowski diagram
will prove to be a helpful tool, but it neither depicts reality nor
implies an ontology. A good representative of this original
Einsteinian perspective is the French physicist Henri Arzelie`s. In
his Relativistic Kinematics, Arzelie`s
asserts, ‘‘The Minkowski continuum is an abstract space of four
dimensions, the sole role of which is to interpret in geometrical
language statements made in algebraic or tensor form. . . . The four-
dimensional continuum should
therefore be regarded as a useful tool, and not as a physical
‘reality’’’(Arzelie`s 1966: 258). While it is true that relativity
theory banishes the notions of absolute spatial and temporal intervals
from physics, nonetheless ‘‘It is perfectly clear that in relativity,
the ordinary three-dimensional space (which is Euclidian in special
relativity) and the time of pre-relativistic
physics is employed’’ (Ibid).
The Minkowskian interpretation
There is no gainsaying Arzelie`s insofar as Einstein’s original
formulation of SR is concerned. But it is also indisputable that once
having encountered Minkowski’s geometrical formulation of the theory,
Einstein became an outspoken realist concerning space-time (Einstein
and Infeld 1938: 219;Einstein 1961: 150; Einstein and Besso 1979: 276–
77).3 Minkowski took his space-time ontologically: it was not merely a
geometrical representation of the world of space and time as described
by Einstein’s SR; rather it was the world. When he said, ‘‘A point of
space at a point of time, that is, a system of
values x, y, z, t, I will call a world-point. The Multiplicity of all
thinkable x, y, z, t systems of values we will christen the
world,’’ (Minkowski 1952: 76) he was making self-consciously a
metaphysical statement, proposing a new ontology. Heralding ‘‘a
metamorphosis of our concept of nature,’’ Minkowski declared,
‘‘Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade
away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will
preserve an independent reality’’ (Ibid., 75, 76). On this second
interpretation of SR, the notions of reference frames, invariant
velocity of light, distant
simultaneity, relative motion or rest, and so forth, so central to the
Einsteinian interpretation, play no role.4 Rather the central feature
of this interpretation is the light cone structure at any space-time
point, which determines the geometrical properties of space-time. In
1911 A. A. Robb was able to recover all the geometric structure of
Minkowski space-time on the basis of the single relation after among
its points, conjoined with several conditions of that relation (Robb
1913). Taking Robb’s relation to be extensionally equivalent to some
sort of causal relation, recent theorists have defined causally the
Lorentz group of transformation equations (Zeeman 1964: 490–93),
orthogonality to a time-line in Minkowski space-time
(Malament 1977: 293–300), and the metrical congruence of intervals in
that space-time (Winnie 1977: 134–205). Space-time realists debate
intramurally whether causality is truly constitutive of, rather than
merely (at best) coextensive
with, Robb’s fundamental relation,5 but the point remains that the
familiar physical entities of the Einsteinian interpretation make no
appearance in the space-time interpretation. These two interpretations
of relativity theory thus present strikingly different metaphysical
visions of reality; they are as radically divergent in their
ontologies as is relativity theory itself in
comparison with the Newtonian physics of absolute time and space.
Minkowski’s space-time approach to relativity theory, especially with
the development of the General Theory of Relativity (GR), has come to
be the dominant mode of presentation and discussion of relativity.
The Lorentzian interpretation
It is an interesting historical fact that neither of the giants of
late nineteenth century physics to whom Einstein looked for
inspiration in his work on SR, H. A. Lorentz and Henri Poincare´, was
ever convinced, despite being fully apprised of the empirical facts,
of the truth of the Einsteinian or Minkowskian interpretations of the
Lorentz transformations. Well after Einstein had formulated his SR and
as he struggled to craft a GR, Lorentz in particular continued to
study and lecture on problems of relativity, often in connection with
Einstein. By 1908 Lorentz had already realized the incompatibility of
his electron theory with Planck’s quantum hypothesis, and by the 1911
Solvay Congress there was a general sense that the electron theory
would have to be radically reformed in light of the advent of quantum
physics (McCormach 1970: 486–88). Nonetheless, since Lorentz’s
attempted explanation of the phenomenon of length contraction in terms
of the deformable
electron was not essential to his basic physical interpretation of SR,
Lorentz continued to adhere to an approach to relativity theory which
preserved the classical notions of space and time. A theory may be
classified as Lorentzian
just in case it affirms that (i) physical objects are n-dimensional
spatial entities which endure through time; (ii) the round trip vacuum
propagation of light is isotropic in a preferred (absolute) reference
frame Ro (with speed c ¼ 1) and independent of the velocity of the
source; and (iii) lengths contract and time rates dilate in the
customary special relativistic way only for systems in motion with
respect to Ro (Maciel and Tiomno 1989: 507–8).
Lorentz always spoke appreciatively of Einstein’s alternate approach
and lectured sympathetically on both SR and GR, while remaining
finally unconvinced that Einstein had abolished the classical
conceptions of time and space. Writing in 1910, he contrasted his view
with Einstein’s:
Assume there were an aether; then there would be among all systems x,
y, z, t one singled out in that the coordinate axes as well as the
clock is at rest in the aether. If one conjoins with this the
idea . . . that space and time are something wholly different and
that there is a ‘true time’ simultaneity would then exist
independently of location, in accord with the circumstance that it is
possible for us to conceive of infinitely great velocities), then one
easily sees that this true time would have to be indicated just by
clocks which are at rest in the aether. If, then, the principle of
relativity were generally valid in nature, then one would not be in a
position to determine whether the coordinate system employed
is that distinguished one. One thus comes to the same results as when
one in agreement with Einstein and Minkowski denies the existence of
the aether and the true time and treats all coordinate systems as
equivalent. Which of the two modes of thought one may agree with is
best left to the individual.
(Lorentz 1934: 211)6
Lorentz, realizing that his aether compensatory interpretation is
empirically equivalent to the Einstein-Minkowski interpretations,
leaves it up to the individual to choose which he shall adopt. But
Lorentz preferred the classical
conceptions of time and space on metaphysically intuitive grounds, as
he made clear in his 1922 lectures at Cal Tech:
All our theories help us form pictures, or images, of the world around
us, and we try to do this in such a way that the phenomena may be
coordinated as well as possible, and that we may see clearly the way
in which they are connected. Now in forming these images we can use
the notions of space and time that have always been familiar to us,
and
which I, for my part, consider as perfectly clear and, moreover, as
distinct from one another. My notion of time is so definite that I
clearly distinguish in my picture what is simultaneous and what is
not. (Lorentz 1927: 221)
Here Lorentz refuses to jettison what he took to be the intuitively
obvious reality of absolute simultaneity among events in the world
just because one cannot determine which spatially separated events are
simultaneous or because Einstein’s operationally re-defined notion of
simultaneity is relative to reference frames. Moreover, he sees no
good reason to scrap the intuitive distinctness of space and time in
favor of Minkowski’s unified reality, space– time.
A major reason that Lorentz remained unconvinced was that he was not a
positivist. In 1913 he wrote,
According to Einstein it has no meaning to speak of motion relative to
the aether. He likewise denies the existence of absolute simultaneity.
It is certainly remarkable that these relativity concepts, also those
concerning time, have found such a rapid acceptance. The acceptance of
these concepts belongs mainly to epistemology . . . It is certain,
however, that it depends to a large extent on the way one is
accustomed to think whether one is attracted to one or another
interpretation.
As far as this lecturer is concerned, he finds a certain satisfaction
in the older interpretations, according to which the aether
possesses at least some substantiality, space and time can be sharply
separated, and simultaneity without further specification can be
spoken of. In regard to this last point, one may perhaps appeal to our
ability of imagining arbitrarily large velocities. In that way, one
comes very close to the concept of absolute simultaneity. Finally, it
should be noted that the daring assertion that one can never observe
velocities larger than the velocity of light contains a hypothetical
restriction of what is accessible to us, [a restriction] which cannot
be accepted without some reservation. (Lorentz 1920a: 23)
Here Lorentz clearly discerns the foundational role played by
Einstein’s verificationist theory of meaning in his formulation of SR
and rejects it. In defense of absolute simultaneity, Lorentz appeals
to the use of arbitrarily fast signals, even though they are not
presently observable. He disregards the assumption that it is
meaningless to speak of such unobservables
Elsewhere Lorentz affirms that it makes sense, if there is an aether,
to speak of motion relative to it even if observers could not detect
such motion (Lorentz 1914: 26).7 He writes,
But it needs to be clearly recognized that A could never assure
himself of the immobility in the ether which we have attributed to
him by supposition and that physicist B could with the same right, or
rather with the same absence of right, claim that it is he who finds
himself in these privileged circumstances. This incertitude, this
impossibility of even
disclosing a movement in relation to the aether, led Einstein and
numerous other modern physicists to abandon completely the notion of
an aether.
There, it seems to me, is a question toward which each physicist must
take a position which best accords with the manner of thinking to
which he is accustomed. (Lorentz 1934: 7: 165)
Lorentz’s conception of the aether was virtually equivalent to space
itself. His aether was so dematerialized that Einstein, lecturing at
the University of Leiden in 1920, could tease the Dutch physicist by
declaring, ‘‘As regards the mechanical nature of Lorentz’s aether one
might say of it, with a touch of humor, that immobility was the only
mechanical property which H. A. Lorentz left it’’ (Einstein 1920: 7).
For Lorentz the aether is just the privileged spatial frame.
Lorentz thus accepts a 3+1 ontology of spatial objects enduring
through a privileged time, a metaphysic which he felt no obligation to
abandon out of deference to a verificationist epistemology.
Inertial
news:9674dbc0-9e18-43bb...@d1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>There are 3 relativistic interpretations:
>
>1. The Einsteinian Interpretation
>2. The Minkowski Interpretation
>3. The Lorentz Interpretation
They are equivalent .. it doesn't matter which you choose.
Omina
It MATTERS. Lorentz Interpretation is compatible with Bell's
Inequalities non-local implication while the Minkowski orthodox SR is
not. Bell himself stated:
" I think it’s a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be
trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at
things. But I
would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to
relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and
Poincare ´ thought that there was an aether – a preferred frame of
reference – but that our measuring instruments were distorted by
motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the
aether. . . . that is certainly the cheapest solution. Behind the
apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level
which is not Lorentz invariant. . . . what is not sufficiently
emphasized in textbooks, in my
opinion, is that the pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincare´,
Larmor and Fitzgerald was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent
with relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether, and these
Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a
result the
instruments do not detect motion through the aether – that is a
perfectly coherent point of view. . . . The reason I want to go back
to the
idea of an aether here is because in these EPR experiments there is
the suggestion that behind the scenes something is going faster than
light. Now if all Lorentz frames are equivalent, that also means that
things can go backward in time. . . . [this] introduces great
problems, paradoxes of causality, and so on. And so it is precisely to
avoid these that I want to say there is a real causal sequence which
is defined in the aether. (‘‘John Bell,’’ (1986) interview in Davies
and Brown; cf. Bell 1987: 279; see also Bell 1984: 66–76)
Hana
Scientific theory or Charlatan quackeries.
Which is the interpretation? The Einsteinian Interpretation, The
Minkowski Interpretation, or The Lorentz Interpretation.
Depends on what? M - M experiment, Maxwell equation or Emission
theory.
Is it theory , riddle or conundrum.
The real thing ----------
It is a quackery theory?.. It is a quackery theory?.. It is a quackery
theory?... It is a quackery theory?… It is a quackery theory?… It is a
quackery theory?… It is a quackery theory?..
Omina
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Minkowski Interpretation is believed by 99% of physicists.
Minkowski Interpretation is a zombie mode. Tom Roberts state
physicists don't care what is behind measurement. All physicists
(majority) focus are measurements and equipments and nothing more.
They are all in zombie mode even after confirmation of Bell's Theorem
of non-locality in the 1970s and most physicists just ignored it
thinking it would just go away and return to their narrow thinking
mode. Lorentz Interpretation will change all that as we have to
integrate it to Bohmian Mechanics to produce a hybrid Bohm Lorentz
unification.
Anti-relativists in this forum. Wake up. By ignoring all things
relativistic.. you are 2 step behind. Only fight the Minkowski
interpretation and be open to the Lorentz Interpretation which is
close to absolute space and time compatible with Bell's Theorem.
Inertial
>
>On Jan 10, 1:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> ?>"Omina" wrote in message
>>
>> news:9674dbc0-9e18-43bb...@d1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >There are 3 relativistic interpretations:
>>
>> >1. The Einsteinian Interpretation
>> >2. The Minkowski Interpretation
>> >3. The Lorentz Interpretation
>>
>> They are equivalent .. it doesn't matter which you choose.
>
>It MATTERS.
Nope
> Lorentz Interpretation is compatible with Bell's
>Inequalities non-local implication while the Minkowski orthodox SR is
>not. Bell himself stated:
There is no difference between them as far as what we measure of the
universe (ie physics).
[snip quote for brevity]
One doesn't need an aether, or an aether frame, to explain these things.
There is no problem with "things" going "backwards in time", nor with
causality, in quantum physics. Although experiments like delayed choice
appear to show cause after effect (ie backward 'travel' in time in the lab
frame) .. there is no problem with causality as no information (no 'things')
travelling backwards in time. For that reason, one can't use such a
scenario to affect causality.
Omina
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's because QM is random and statistical so we are immersed in it
and the measurement is random and causality is not violated. But what
if we can transmit signal faster than light? It is not possible in
Minkowski SR because of this travel in time paradox. But in Lorentz
Interpretation which is based on absolute space and time. It is
possible to transmit signal faster than light. So there's the big
difference.
Androcles
"Omina" <omni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14a34b48-5104-4ce6...@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
============================================
Fuck off, you ignorant drooling moron.
--
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 19/08/10. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Androcles
"Omina" <omni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14a34b48-5104-4ce6...@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
Androcles
"Omina" <omni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14a34b48-5104-4ce6...@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
Androcles
"Omina" <omni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14a34b48-5104-4ce6...@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
Omina
wrote:
> "Omina" <omni_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
We have 3 kinds of people.
1. Relativity idiot like Androcles
2. Relativity zombie like Tom Roberts
3. Relativity truth seekers like Lorentz Relativists (who include some
Aether based folks)
Helmut Wabnig
Ominous Omina said:
> It is possible to transmit signal faster than light.
Don't babble, just do it.
Alternatively, of you were born with two left hands,
just show how to do it.
w.
Sam Wormley
> But in Lorentz
> Interpretation which is based on absolute space and time. It is
> possible to transmit signal faster than light. So there's the big
> difference.
Whatever gave you such an idea--The fabric of spacetime puts a
speed limit on communications.
Quantum entanglement cannot be used for *arbitrary communications*
over arbitrary distances which remains constrained by the speed
of light.
Neither phase velocity nor group velocity can be used for *arbitrary
communications* over arbitrary distances which remains constrained by
the speed of light.
A Mathematical Theory of Communication by Claude E. Shannon
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf
Claude E. Shannon
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Shannon.html
Inertial
>That's because QM is random and statistical so we are immersed in it
>and the measurement is random and causality is not violated. But what
>if we can transmit signal faster than light?
So your argument is "what if" we can do this. The answer is .. we can't ..
it doesn't happen. So saying that the lorentzian interpretation (if you
ignore certain parts of it, such as the infinite energy required, the
negative space occupied by the 'thing' when it is negatively Fitzgerald
contracted, and the observed backward travel in time) might allow a 'thing'
to travel FTL, that that make Lorentzian interpretation better? If it did,
then that makes it worse, not better.
Omina
> On 1/10/11 8:27 AM, Omina wrote:
>
> > But in Lorentz
> > Interpretation which is based on absolute space and time. It is
> > possible to transmit signal faster than light. So there's the big
> > difference.
>
> Whatever gave you such an idea--The fabric of spacetime puts a
> speed limit on communications.
You mentioned "fabric of spacetime" which is a Minkowski
Interpretation. But in Lorentz Interpretation. Nothing forbids to
transmit signal faster than light. Aspect experiments courtesy of
Bell's Theorem has non-local correlerations which gives a privileged
frame. The reason why it appears signal is not transmitted is because
of the random nature of quantum. But in Bohmian Mechanics, the wave
function is simultaneously aware of all configuration in the entire
universe at once. It is universe wide instantaneously correlations. So
combine Lorentz Interpretation plus Bohmian Mechanics and you may have
the correct structure of reality which may allow faster than light
signalling. Minkowski spacetime is just a limited case which is
possible due to the symmetry inherent in nature but it doesn't mean
nature is ruled by the minkowski metric but by hybrid Lorentz-Bohmian
structure.
Omina
In Bohmian Mechanics, the wave function is simultaneously aware of all
configuration of the universe at once. It is aware of a single
particle movement a billion of light years away where the wave
function here on earth can know it instantaneously. Bohmian Mechanics
use the structure of Lorenz Interpretation and all this is based on
absolute space and time. So it is possible for faster than light as
far as the wave function is concerned.
Inertial
>
No 'thing' can travel at faster than light, nor any information. You
assumption that information about things on the 'other side of the universe'
happen 'instantaneously' is wrong. You would simply like it to be the case
because you happen to find the Lorentz aether more ponderable and so easier
for you to understand, and are now grasping at straws for a reason why the
explanation you prefer must be the best one, so you don't feel inadequate
for not understanding the more modern, and essentially simpler,
explanations.
Omina
You are saying that in the 3 interpretations, non-local signalling is
impossible? Hmm.. maybe we ought to junk those 3 interpretations as
nature may not use any of them at all. What do you think of the
following article where nature doesn't have to use the Lorentz metric
at all and it is not a priori:
"Kinematics and dynamics
This might seem problematic, it still being common among physicists to
describe superluminal effects as ‘‘acausal’’. But superluminal
signaling violates causality – that is, gives rise to backwards-in-
time signals in some frames – if one assumes a locally Minkowski
structure for space-time. Historically, the Minkowski structure was
developed for a local physics. If Nature turns out to be non-local,
then one should consider revising that structure.
This may seem an obvious point. Yet, many physicists tend to think of
Minkowski space-time as a prior (‘‘God-given’’) ackground or stage on
which physics takes place (at least locally, ignoring gravitation for
the moment). A common view is that laws such as Maxwell’s equations
possess Lorentz symmetry ‘‘because’’ space-time has a Minkowski
structure. It is as if we were first given the stage of space-time,
and afterwards we wrote laws on it. But one could equally take the
view that space-time has a Minkowski
structure ‘‘because’’ the known laws all have a Lorentz symmetry.2
This would certainly be closer to the historical facts: first one
discovers certain symmetries in the behavior of matter, then one
postulates a space-time structure that incorporates those symmetries.
From this last perspective, one should be open to the possibility
that, in the future, new phenomena might break old symmetries, or,
that new symmetries might emerge; and in either case, the structure of
space-time might have to be revised. In a word, one should bear in
mind that new laws of physics might demand a new structure for space-
time. Kinematics and dynamics are two sides of the same coin (Brown
2005).
As we discover new dynamical effects, we should be prepared to modify
our kinematics (or space-time geometry) if necessary or convenient. In
the section entitled ‘‘Instantaneous signaling in quantum non-
equilibrium,’’ we shall describe an effect whose observation in the
future is, in the author’s opinion, to be expected from a hidden-
variables perspective, and which would, we argue, lead us to modify
our current relativistic kinematics. The rise of relativity theory
should have taught us the lesson that the
structure of space-time is not a priori, but depends on physics – just
as more recently, with the rise of quantum computing, we have come to
learn that the theory of computation is not a priori but depends on
physics. Unfortunately, after 1905, the dogma of Newtonian space-time
was quickly replaced by the dogma of (local) Minkowski space-time.
The replacement of one rigid view by another was perhaps due in part
to Einstein’s unfortunate ‘‘operational’’ presentation in his first
relativity paper of 1905 (Einstein 1905), which treated macroscopic
rods and clocks as if they were fundamental entities. This led to a
widespread misunderstanding, according to which the resulting
kinematics was somehow logically inevitable, when in fact it was
highly contingent on properties of the physical dynamics known at the
time.
Einstein and Poincare´ in 1905
Einstein himself acknowledged the conceptual mistake in his
autobiographical notes of 1949:
The theory [special relativity]. . . introduces two kinds of physical
things,i.e., (1) measuring rods and clocks, (2) all other things,
e.g., the electromagnetic field, the material point, etc. This, in a
certain sense, is inconsistent; strictly speaking measuring rods and
clocks would have to be represented as solutions of the basic
equations (objects consisting of moving atomic configurations), not,
as it were, as theoretically selfsufficient entities (Einstein 1949b).
In 1905 Einstein had treated rods and clocks as primitive entities,
independent of theory (‘‘theoretically self-sufficient’’). But in
fact, as Einstein later recognized, rods and clocks are
phenomenological entities arising out of some underlying theory
(perhaps involving particles and/or fields). In reality, we need some
body of theory to tell us how to construct reliable rods and clocks
and to analyze their behavior. For example, using theory we can
calculate the effect of acceleration on a real clock, and so use
theory to design more robust clocks. Rods and clocks are not simply
‘‘given’’ to us. The modern view of special relativity, used in high-
energy physics for example, makes no mention of rods and clocks. It
concerns particles and fields on Minkowski space-time. The essence of
Lorentz invariance is simply that the Lagrangian density appearing in
quantum field theory should be a
Lorentz scalar (resulting in a Lorentz-covariant S-matrix). Nor do
classical light waves play any special role: what matters are the
symmetries of the fundamental equations, not the speed of propagation
of some particular particle or field. After all, the photon might turn
out to have a small mass. That we first discovered Lorentz invariance
via the classical electromagnetic field is merely a historical
accident, and Einstein’s 1905 approach – based on macroscopic rods,
clocks and classical light waves – is merely a historical (and
fundamentally inconsistent) heuristic.
The popularity of Einstein’s ‘‘operational’’ approach to special
relativity had the effect of introducing a deep and widespread
confusion between phenomenological and fundamental entities. This
confusion seems to have encouraged an overly-rigid philosophy of space
and time, in which Einstein’s kinematics came to appear as an
inevitable – a priori, and theoretically
self-sufficient – background to the laws of dynamics.3 Today, despite
the discovery of quantum non-locality, there is still a reluctance in
some quarters even to consider changing our view of space-time
structure.
It is often claimed that Einstein’s 1905 approach should be regarded
as not merely a historical curiosity, but as the proper way to
understand special relativity. After all, it was this approach that in
fact first led us to special relativity. And how else could special
relativity have been discovered? But as a matter of historical fact,
building on earlier work by Lorentz and others, the formal structure
of special relativity – the relativity principle, the universality of
the Lorentz group, the relativistic addition of velocities, and
even 4-vectors with the associated 4-dimensional invariant interval
(later taken up by Minkowski in 1908) – was independently arrived at
by Poincare´ in his paper ‘‘On the Dynamics of the Electron’’ (1906).
This paper was submitted to a mathematical journal in Palermo, in the
same summer (of 1905) as Einstein’s first relativity paper was
submitted to the Annalen der
Physik; it was published in 1906. A summary of the results was
published in 1905, in a short paper of the same title (Poincare´
1905b).4 The importance of Poincare´’s ‘‘Palermo’’ paper has been
underestimated, even by some historians. Certainly, most physicists
are not even aware of its existence. (An incomplete translation
appears in Kilmister (1970); a modernized presentation of most of the
paper is given in Schwartz (1971, 1972). For detailed analyses of the
paper, see Miller (1973) and Zahar (1989).
More recent discussions of Poincare´’s extensive contributions to
special relativity have been given by Darrigol (1995, 1996) and Granek
(2000).)"
Inertial
>
>On Jan 13, 2:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> ?"Omina" wrote in message
>>
>> news:f4fdd774-abc1-4d66...@n2g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> No 'thing' can travel at faster than light, nor any information. You
>> assumption that information about things on the 'other side of the
>> universe'
>> happen 'instantaneously' is wrong. You would simply like it to be the
>> case
>> because you happen to find the Lorentz aether more ponderable and so
>> easier
>> for you to understand, and are now grasping at straws for a reason why
>> the
>> explanation you prefer must be the best one, so you don't feel inadequate
>> for not understanding the more modern, and essentially simpler,
>> explanations.
>
>You are saying that in the 3 interpretations, non-local signalling is
>impossible?
Yes .. if there is any information carried in the signal (ie if it could
have cause/effect)
>Hmm.. maybe we ought to junk those 3 interpretations as
>nature may not use any of them at all.
Why? We don't need to. You seem to think that it MUST be possible to have
FTL travel.
> What do you think of the
>following article where nature doesn't have to use the Lorentz metric
>at all and it is not a priori:
Nature doesn't have a choice as to what it does. It does what it does.
AS to the article .. it seems like the work of a disillusioned crackpot,
with the sort of nonsense one would expect.
There is no causal FTL signalling .. the article is wrong in implying there
is. And the idea that there is some chicken-and-egg for how nature behaves,
and that it somehow depends on human history of physics discoveries is
ludicrous. Though it is certainly right that IF (I say IF) we find the
symmetries do not hold .. then the theories that predict them will need to
be modified or replaced.
The article is
Omina
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bell himself stated the following which seemed to suggest that going
back to Lorentz Ether can solve the problem of the correlations when
something superluminal seem to occur behind the scene (you meant Bell
is wrong too??)
Omina
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you have time, pls. check out the above. While it's true that
pushing material object pass light limit can cause negative mass in
SR, negative contraction in Lorentz, the writersabove don't mean
pushing material object past light speed but only modelling the the
wave function as existing as something special in the vacuum and
superluminal. Also they don't use the conversional Lorentz Ether. In
fact, they retain the lorentz factor but remove the ether thing.
Also in convensional Bohmian Mechanics, they want to unite it with SR.
But in the writers above, they want to unite Bohmian Mechanics with
Absolute Time and Space. Why is it impossible especially since they
don't suggest pushing material object pass light speed but just the
wave function working million times faster than c or practically
instantaneous universe wide. Remember the convensional Bohmian wave
function itself is sensitive to changes of any configurations in all
part of the universe at once instantaneously. You are saying the wave
function is impossible to be superluminal? Pls. elaborate. By so
doing, you also challenge the convensional Bohmian Mechanics which is
gaining more popularity as a result of the Bell's Theorem vilolations
of the Bell's Inequality.
Inertial
>Bell himself stated the following which seemed to suggest that going
>back to Lorentz Ether can solve the problem of the correlations when
>something superluminal seem to occur behind the scene (you meant Bell
>is wrong too??)
There is nothing superluminal going on (not anything causal). There is no
need for an aether to explain quantum physics.
Inertial
> http://uwch-4.humanities.washington.edu/Texts/Philosophy%20Guides,%20Analysis%27%20and%20Resources%20(ver.2)/Routledge/Einstein,%20Relativity%20and%20Absolute%20Simultaneity%20(Routledge%20Studies%20in%20Contemporary%20Philosophy).pdf
It is of note that this is a philosophy site from the humanities faculty ..
not a physics site from the science faculty.
Omina
>
> - Show quoted text -
You stated above that "it is certainly right that IF (I say IF) we
find the symmetries do not hold .. then the theories that predict them
will need to be modified or replaced". We may be happy with the
symmetries that also occur in Gauge Theory.. a fact that made QED, QCD
possible at all and of course the SR being built into such thing as
the Dirac Equation that predicts antimatter. But there is a long road
ahead. We can't even begin to imagine how to unite General Relativity
and Quantum Mechanics. Lee Smolin has wrote about "Physics Wrong Turn"
about how our affair with symmetries could be leading us to a rabbit
hole. So your preference of the symmetries could be some kind of bias
on your part.. don't you think so. We don't have the last words on
physics yet. Uniting General Relativity & QM may even involve taking
them apart and starting all over again.
Craig and Quintin Smith simply theorized what if symmetries don't hold
and then giving an overview of what the replacement physics could be.
Can you find theoretical fault in their speculations in the following
which is the subject of the thread "Replacing Einstein Relativity with
Bell-Bohm-Lorentz quantum gravity theory":
"The major problem with contemporary physics is commonly acknowledged
to be the compatibility of Einstein’s general theory of relativity
(GTR) and quantum mechanics (QM). The prospects of unifying these two
theories into a quantum gravity (QG) theory seem insurmountable.
Witten’s M-theory (and string theory in any form), perturbative QG
(e.g. the Hartle-Hawking and Vilenkin proposals), topological Q , loop
QG and other ideas about QG are not unifications but are speculations
about what might belong to an approximation of a ‘‘complete quantum
gravity theory’’ that is not yet known to be possible or even
conceivable. No resolution of the incompatibility of Einstein’s GTR
and QM has been achieved and there is none in sight. I believe that
if we ponder the implications of Bell’s theorems we should regard GTR
the same way that Popper suggests we regard a Special Theory of
Reference (STR). Writing about Aspect’s confirmation of Bell’s
theorems, he writes:
we have to give up Einstein’s interpretation of special relativity
and return to Lorentz’s interpretation and with it to . . . absolute
space and time. . . . The reason for this assertion is that the mere
existence of an infinite velocity entails [the existence] of an
absolute simultaneity and thereby of an absolute space. Whether or
not an infinite velocity can be attained in the transmission of
signals is irrelevant for this argument: the one inertial system for
which Einsteinian simultaneity coincides with absolute
simultaneity . . . would be the system at absolute rest – whether or
not this system of absolute rest can be experimentally identified.
(Popper 1982: xviii, 20)
If Einstein’s STR is endangered by Aspect’s confirmation of Bell’s
theorems, it certainly seems to follow, indeed, ‘‘follow’’ in the
sense of logical implication, that Einstein’s GTR is equally
endangered. Does anybody really think that instantaneous, non-local,
space-like, universe-wide relations of absolute simultaneity (and EPR
causal correlations) are logically, mathematically and ontologically
consistent with Einstein’s GTR? Of course not. Why is GTR not
subjected to the same criticism as is STR? Could it be that people are
thinking that we must ‘‘make do’’ with GTR ‘‘as approximately
predicatively accurate in many cases’’ until a complete QG theory is
developed, where this means a unification of GTR with QM? But what
would be the point of unifying it with QM if we know it is
disconfirmed even on the large scales where it is supposed to be most
successful? The relation of instantaneous, non-local, absolute
simultaneity is universe-wide; this is a large scale feature of the
universe. It seems that to be consistent, we must treat GTR in the
same way that we treat newton’s theory, namely, that it is false, i.e.
we know on the basis of observational evidence that it does not
describe the nature of physical reality. Physical reality is not a
Newtonian reality. Nor is it a general relativistic reality. Both
Newton’s theory and GTR are useful for making predications within the
approximate limited circumstances, but they do not give us a physical
ontology. They must be interpreted instrumentally, as instrumentally
useful in certain circumstances, but they cannot be given a realist
interpretation. What is a scientific realistic to believe about the
nature of physical reality? A major task is to develop what may be
called a Lorentzian GTR. Popper suggests we should adopt a Lorentzian
theory of inertial motion or reference frames, what might be called a
Lorentzian STR, where ‘‘STR’’ now means a Special Theory of Reference
frames. It is a special theory since (like Einstein’s) it is only
about inertial frames. A Lorentzian GTR is a General Theory of
Reference frames; it is general since it is about both inertial and
non-inertial reference frames. And just as
Einstein’s GTR included a theory of gravity and a cosmology, so must
our Lorentzian GTR.
The key move is to (a) reject Einstein’s classical GTR and substitute
for it a classical neo-Lorentz GTR; and to (b) select only Bohm’s 1952
interpretation of QM, which interprets QM as a supplement to or form
of Newtonian mechanics. As physicists use these terms, a semi-
classical theory quantizes the matter field in the space and time. QED
and QCD are semi-classical theories. Einstein’s GTR, Lorentz’s theory
and Newton’s theory are classical, in that they do not quantize space
and time or matter fields. QG theory quantitates space and time as
well as the matter fields. I believe quantitizing space, time and
gravity can be achieved if we choose a neo-Lorentzian theory of space,
time and gravity and unify it with Bohm’s 1952 interpretation of QM,
which is classical in its approach and is ‘‘a form of classical
mechanics.’’ Specifically, Bohm accepted Halpern’s (1952: 389)
characterization of Bohm’s ‘‘quantum mechanics as a form of classical
mechanics involving special quantum forces.’’ By classical mechanics
Bohm here means Newtonian mechanics, including Euclidean space,
absolute Newtonian time, and two of Newton’s three laws of motion and
either
including or being consistent with gravitational non-inertial motion.
If we give these ideas a neo-Lorentzian formulation, we have a QG
theory, and the main difficulty no longer is the QM-GTR unification,
but developing a Lorentz GTR that can reproduce the accurate
predications
of Einstein’s GTR.
The reasons QG has seemed so difficult to Bohmians is the same sort of
reason other physicists have. The problem with Bohmians is that they
have been trying to unify de Broglie-Bohm theory with Einstein’s GTR,
which is impossible, since the de Broglie-Bohm theory has a non-local,
space- like, instantaneous, universe-wide, EPR causal correlation
among
events and this is logically incompatible with Friedman GTR’s basic
laws that causal correlations are time-like, local, propagated at a
finite velocity (not exceeding that of light) and are non-
instantaneous. However, once we recognize that Aspect’s confirmation
of Bell’s theorems disconfirms Einstein’s GTR no less than they do his
STR, then we should look to the theory that has traditionally been
regarded as observationally equivalent to Einstein’s STR, namely,
Lorentz’s STR, and see if we can generalize this theory. Once we do,
we will find that Bohm’s 1952 interpretation includes part of a
Lorentzian GTR.
A Bohm-Lorentz QG consists of ideas and equations scattered throughout
the physics literature and which have not been conjoined and organized
and presented as a theory. An introductory outline of how these ideas
can be unified is the project of this paper.A central claim is that a
neo- Lorentzian GTR can incorporate the results of the neo-Newtonian
cosmology and gravity theory presented by McCrea and Milne (1934) and
developed by Bondi (1960), North (1965), Sciama (1971) Peebles (1993,
esp. p. 48), Harrison (2000: esp. pp. 323–338) and others. They show
that a neo-Newtonian cosmology is observationally equivalent to
Friedman’s
cosmology on a cosmological scale. Harrison further develops this neo-
Newtonian theory into a more comprehensive theory of gravity and shows
it is observationally equivalent to Einstein’s GTR at smaller scales
(Harrison, 2000: 334). But these physicists discuss the neo-Newtonian
theory merely as a heuristic device for understanding Einstein’s GTR
and do not discuss
the new relevance it has given that this Neo-Newtonian theory, but not
Einstein’s gravity
theory, is consistent with the non-local EPR correlations.
Furthermore, some of the problems with a more comprehensive neo-
newtonian gravity theory, such as Harrison’s theory, can be resolved
if the neo-Newtonian equations are modified to become neo-Lorentzian
equations. Bohm’s 1952 interpretation of QM contains laws of motion
that are part of the neo-
Lorentzian equations (the part that needs to be transformed by the
Lorentz transformations). The mentioned parts of Bohm’s equations
become complete Lorentzian equations through undergoing a Lorentzian
transformation. Bohm’s 1952 ‘‘formally classical’’ was of
interpreting of QM (where the quantum force Q is an additional force
to the classical forces) either implies or is already unified or
consistent with Newton’s first two laws of motion and his universal
law of gravitation.
The phrase ‘‘quantum gravity’’ has been used to refer to a unification
of Einstein’s GTR with QM. But that is not the meaning of this phrase,
or at least it should not have such a limited meaning. I take it to
mean a unification of a classical (non-quantum) theory of space,
time,
gravity and the universe with QM. QM has (supposedly) been unified
with a classical theory of space and time (Minkowski space-time) in
quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. The classical
(non- quantum) theory is Minkowski’s theory of space and time.
Minkowski
space-time is a flat spacetime. Recall that Lorentz’s theory has
traditionally been regarded as observationally equivalent to
Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) or its
space-time formulation in Minkowski (1908). If we substitute a flat
Euclidean space and an absolute time (required by Aspect’s
confirmation of Bell’s theorem) for Minkowski space-time, we have a
theory that is observationally equivalent to Minkowski QED and QCD and
also consistent with the absolute, instantaneous simultaneity that was
observationally confirmed by Aspect’s confirmation of Bell’s
theorems. This substitution makes all coordinate systems but one
effective (merely apparent).
The further unification of the ‘‘relativist effects’’ (described by
Lorentz transformation equations) with Newtonian mechanics and gravity
shows us that a unification of the relativistic, Newtonian and
‘‘quantum effects’’ are already built into Bohm’s equations of motion.
The classical potential V and quantum potential Q belong to the same
equation of motion for particles, mdx/dt= - invrtriangle (V) -
invrtriangle (Q), which provides a
‘‘built in’’ criterion for determining the strength of the quantum
potential Q. The Newtonian laws in Bohm’s equations of motion are
given a neo-Lorentzian formulation and these can provide classical
predictions of observational data. The measurement of the degree of
inaccuracy of the classical equations and the observational data is a
measurement of the strength of the quantum potential’s Q contribution
to the total causal force. However, some classical laws of motion are
not implicit in Bohm’s theory, such as the law for gravitational
acceleration, and these need to be built from the simpler laws that
are implisit in Bohm’s equations of motion. An example is a non-
gravitational equation for acceleration which I first formulate as a
kinematic equation and then as a dynamical equation, which includes
the mass and force. Bohm’s equations of motion, in their limit,
include the kinematics of Newton’s second law of motion, i.e. d(v)/dt.
A neo-Lorentzian formulation that modifies this Newtonian law of
acceleration A is:
Neo-Lorentz kinematic equation of acceleration
A = dv/dt
sqroot (1- v2=c2)
v is velocity, v = dx/dt, the rate of change of position x with time.
With Newton, we have d(v)/dt, but now we introduce into the kinematic
equation the acceleration dv/dt divided by a Lorentzian factor. A is
either the acceleration force or the acceleration field. But accurate
predictions require that this be formulated in an equation with Bohm’s
quantum potential Q which causally affects acceleration, as in the
double slit experiment. A more comprehensive, dynamic acceleration
equation will be given in Part Two. To differentiate between the
classical and quantum potentials, a sufficiently broad neo-Lorentzian
theory of motion, gravity and cosmology needs to be developed. -
Quintin Smith
Omina
> Omina wrote:
> > Craig and Quintin Smith simply theorized what if symmetries don't hold
> > and then giving an overview of what the replacement physics could be.
> > Can you find theoretical fault in their speculations
>
> "not unifications but are speculations", while simultaneously not
> providing anything but handwaving about superluminal velocities. My
> assessment of Quentin Smith is the same as for Craig: he isn't pursuing
> science, he is simply using philosophical sophistry to argue for his
> personal religious worldview. Two peas in a pod, the only difference
> being that Smith is an atheist and Craig is a Christian.
Actually if you will see the article of Quentin Smith "A Radical
Thinking of Quantum Gravity", there are many equations there and
purely sciece.. although I agree mere speculations.. but then M-Theory
is also speculations right now. Anyway. Let's not attack the
personality but attack the model and the model doesn't even have to do
with these guys. Bohmian Mechanics is worked on by normal physicists.
Now here's the dilemma. Bohmian Mechanics wave function is sensitive
to all configurations of all particles in the entire universe at once.
This is ultimate form of instantaneous contact. Bohmians have
difficulty merging it with Special Relativity. Now we know that
material universe is not composed of particles that obey Newton’s laws
of motion but either SR or Lorentz version. So since Minkowski SR has
no physical ontology and can't be reformulatted because of lack of any
physical mechanism, one can return to Lorentz version and perhaps
combine it into Bohm turning it into a joint Bohm-Neo-Lorentz theory
of nature. Why is this impossible? What basis that make it
categorically impossible with no iota of possibility of being real??
I know Standard Model is based on SR and the Gauge Principle which is
based on symmetries. Can't we remove the SR component, put on the
Lorentz component and do some adjustments and tickering such that some
symmetries could be replaced by hidden variables just like what the
Bohmians did that make their prediction identical to the Copenhagen
version of Quantum Mechanics?? Remember in Copenhagen, no definite
properties exist before measurements so entangle pair are not supposed
to be connect non-local because there is nothing local there. So
instead the Bohmians suggest non-local hidden variables which create
the physical connections instantaneously. Similarly, in Lorentz
Aether, we can remove the Aether part to make any possibility of
instantaneous non-local link, then combine it with Bohmians and make
the SR symmetry just a local symmetry. Of course I'm not saying
materials can go pass light speed due to it turning into negative
contraction but just an immaterial reality like the wave function that
works instantaneously.
If you will still state it's impossible. Then are you saying that
Bohmian Mechanics with its wave function that is sensitive to all
configurations of all particles in the universe at once is impossible
too since Absolute Space and Time with local contraction, dilation as
per SR formula is impossible?? This is the primary posulate of Bohmian
Mechanics. So if it's wrong, then Bohmian Mechanics is wrong and
falsified?? Pls. elaborate your thoughts. Thanks.
>
> As quoted, presumably from Quentin Smith:
>
> > Does anybody really think that instantaneous, non-local, space-like,
> > universe-wide relations of absolute simultaneity (and EPR causal
> > correlations) are logically, mathematically and ontologically consistent
> > with Einstein’s GTR? Of course not.
>
> I posted a link yesterday in a different thread to a preprint by Gerard
> t' Hooft, who not only thinks they can be consistent, but backs up his
> thoughts with physical reasoning, unlike the smug writer. Smith and Craig
> will continue with their dog and pony show arguing about the existence of
> god; physics, meanwhile, will march along without the slightest influence
> from their metaphysical sophistry.
>
> ---Tim Shuba---
shuba
> Actually if you will see the article of Quentin Smith "A Radical
> Thinking of Quantum Gravity", there are many equations there and purely
> sciece.. although I agree mere speculations.. but then M-Theory is also
> speculations right now. Anyway. Let's not attack the personality but
> attack the model and the model doesn't even have to do with these guys.
Heh, aren't you the one calling certain physicists "zombies"? But sure,
no need to dwell on them. I just don't have a high opinion of
philosophers who attempt to dictate how physicists should think.
> Bohmian Mechanics is worked on by normal physicists.
Certainly. To my knowledge, it's a consistent metaphysical interpretation
of quantum mechanics. I don't advocate for any particular interpretation.
To the extent that interpretations assist physicists in forming physical
models, they are useful. The physics which is addressed by these
interpretations is expressed by states of systems encoded by vectors in a
Hilbert space, complex wavefunctions with rules corresponding to
probabilities for observational results, and so on.
Now, I accept that, independent of interpretation, there can be nonlocal
correlations between entangled particles. Whether or not this corresponds
to a nonlocal instantaneous "effect" is a murky question. Quantum
gravity, which is hoped to be a theory underlying all this, is expected
to apply at or near the Planck scale, where conventional notions of
locality break down.
> So since Minkowski SR has no physical ontology and can't be
> reformulatted because of lack of any physical mechanism, one can return
> to Lorentz version
I think you have this precisely backwards. Symmetry principles have
proven to be a powerful ontology in physics. A fundamental symmetry in a
theory which can be expressed in least action formulation implies a
conserved quantity (Noether's theorem). It's rather obvious to me why
phsicists are relunctant to jettison this idea for the dubious single
purpose of reconciliation of a concept (locality) that is not
particularly well-defined at Planck scales.
> Similarly, in Lorentz Aether, we can remove the Aether part to make any
> possibility of instantaneous non-local link, then combine it with
> Bohmians and make the SR symmetry just a local symmetry.
The idea of aether theory without aether is essentially what many
proponents of so-call neo-Lorentzian interpretations advocate. I think
it's bizarre and useless. If the goal is to simply postulate
unobservables which have no connection with measureable physical
entities, there are plenty of equally useless schemes that can be dreamt
up to do that.
Again, I recommend you look at the ideas of Gerard t' Hooft, one of the
leading theoretical physicists active today. This is the reference I gave
before, but it's worth searching his name in arXiv for similar papers.
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212095
t' Hooft proposes a fundamental, deterministic hidden variables theory
which he claims is fully compatible with the observed violations of
Bell's theorem. That claim seems valid to me. What is hidden in his idea
is the "true" collection of basis states at the Planck scale. At scales
where current quantum theory is valid, the wavefunction may or may not be
a realization of this hidden "true" state, and we have no way of knowing
this prior to measurement.
Of course t' Hooft's ideas are speculation. Pretty much everything about
quantum gravity is speculation at this point in it's development. But it
does show the possibility of reconciling Bohmian mechanics with
relativity to produce a physical model with falsifiable predictions. One
very attractive feature of his idea is how nicely it seems to fit in with
the surprising results of black hole thermodynamics following
Beckenstein, Hawking, and others. That is, a black hole is a region of
maximal entropy, and the amount of information contained in it is
proportional to the surface area. This suggests that our definitions of
locality as a spacetime region involve some sort of "overcounting" of
fundamental degres of freedom (in the information theoretic sense), since
we use a spatial volume instead of the fundamental unit of area.
The search for an acceptable theory of quantum gravity will continue.
Much progess has been made, and much is left to figure out. There are
several reasons we don't have such a theory yet. Most obviously, it is a
very difficult and complex problem. But also, it's likely we don't yet
have all of the necessary theoretical and experimental details. This is a
major reason why early attempts at unification by Kaluza, Einstein, and
others failed. One thing we seem agreed upon is that results of ingenious
experiments at places like the Large Hadron Collider will help point the
way forward.
---Tim Shuba---
Omina
This is quite interesting. I've been trying to understand it for more
than an hour after reading it over and over again. In his proposal. Is
he saying that the planck realm of a particle is connected to another
planck realm of a particle such that all planck realm are directly
connected as one? Or is each planck realm separate? If separate. How
can you explain the correlations in Bell's Theorem if each planck
realm of each particle is separate from one another?
harald
> (format corrected)
> There are 3 relativistic interpretations:
>
> 1. The Einsteinian Interpretation
> 2. The Minkowski Interpretation
> 3. The Lorentz Interpretation
>
> ad hoc on the surface is because of the non-local correlations in
> Bell's Theorem that was only experimentally verified in the 1970s and
> it always takes a while to overturn a century of mindset in the
> Minkowski Interpretation which physicists still hold. Here are details
> of the 3 relativistic interpretations before we argue why Lorentz is
> the right one.
>
> "The Einsteinian interpretation
>
> SR, as Einstein originally formulated it, postulates a 3+1-dimensional
> ontology, not a 4-dimensional ontology (Einstein 1981).1 That is to
> say, it is a theory of familiar physical objects enduring through
> time. Space and time are
> relativised to reference frames, which serve to define distant
> simultaneity and along with it notions like rest, motion, speed, and
> velocity. Light is postulated to have the constant velocity c in every
> reference frame. Because physics
> is relativised to reference frames, clocks run at different rates and
> measuring rods have different lengths relative to different frames.
> Such an interpretation of SR implies an anti-realist or
> instrumentalist understanding of Minkowski
> space-time.
> 2 There is no tenselessly subsisting manifold of events;
> space-time is a theoretical construct only, a geometrical
> representation of a theory which is really about physical objects
> enduring through time. A Minkowski diagram
> will prove to be a helpful tool, but it neither depicts reality nor
> implies an ontology. A good representative of this original
> Einsteinian perspective is the French physicist Henri Arzelie`s. In
> his Relativistic Kinematics, Arzelie`s
> asserts, ‘‘The Minkowski continuum is an abstract space of four
> dimensions, the sole role of which is to interpret in geometrical
> language statements made in algebraic or tensor form. . . . The four-
> dimensional continuum should
> therefore be regarded as a useful tool, and not as a physical
> ‘reality’’’(Arzelie`s 1966: 258). While it is true that relativity
> theory banishes the notions of absolute spatial and temporal intervals
> from physics, nonetheless ‘‘It is perfectly clear that in relativity,
> the ordinary three-dimensional space (which is Euclidian in special
> relativity) and the time of pre-relativistic
> physics is employed’’ (Ibid).
Yes, Einstein's interpretation is instrumentalist ("shut up and
measure"). That is hardly an interpretation, and he chose for Lorentz
in the 1920's when he had developed GRT and had become more a
realist.
In sci.physics I have put to attention new research by De Raedt et al
that gives support for the realist view, contrary to the suggestion by
Bell's inequality.
> The Minkowskian interpretation
> There is no gainsaying Arzelie`s insofar as Einstein’s original
> formulation of SR is concerned. But it is also indisputable that once
> having encountered Minkowski’s geometrical formulation of the theory,
> Einstein became an outspoken realist concerning space-time (Einstein
> and Infeld 1938: 219;Einstein 1961: 150; Einstein and Besso 1979: 276–
> 77).3
Lorentz was also an outspoken realist concerning space-time... do you
have any links by any chance?
> Minkowski took his space-time ontologically: it was not merely a
> geometrical representation of the world of space and time as described
> by Einstein’s SR; rather it was the world.
Einstein interpreted that differently in 1916:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
"the world of physical phenomena which was briefly called “world” by
Minkowski is naturally four-dimensional in the space-time sense. For
it is composed of individual events, each of which is described by
four numbers, namely, three space co-ordinates x, y, z and a time co-
ordinate, the time-value t."
> When he said, ‘‘A point of
> space at a point of time, that is, a system of
> values x, y, z, t, I will call a world-point. The Multiplicity of all
> thinkable x, y, z, t systems of values we will christen the
> world,’’ (Minkowski 1952: 76) he was making self-consciously a
> metaphysical statement, proposing a new ontology. Heralding ‘‘a
> metamorphosis of our concept of nature,’’ Minkowski declared,
> ‘‘Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade
> away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will
> preserve an independent reality’’ (Ibid., 75, 76). On this second
> interpretation of SR, the notions of reference frames, invariant
> velocity of light, distant
> simultaneity, relative motion or rest, and so forth, so central to the
> Einsteinian interpretation, play no role.
[..]
> the point remains that the
> familiar physical entities of the Einsteinian interpretation make no
> appearance in the space-time interpretation. These two interpretations
> of relativity theory thus present strikingly different metaphysical
> visions of reality; they are as radically divergent in their
> ontologies as is relativity theory itself in
> comparison with the Newtonian physics of absolute time and space.
> Minkowski’s space-time approach to relativity theory, especially with
> the development of the General Theory of Relativity (GR), has come to
> be the dominant mode of presentation and discussion of relativity.
>
> The Lorentzian interpretation
>
> It is an interesting historical fact that neither of the giants of
> late nineteenth century physics to whom Einstein looked for
> inspiration in his work on SR, H. A. Lorentz and Henri Poincare´, was
> ever convinced, despite being fully apprised of the empirical facts,
> of the truth of the Einsteinian or Minkowskian interpretations of the
> Lorentz transformations. Well after Einstein had formulated his SR and
> as he struggled to craft a GR, Lorentz in particular continued to
> study and lecture on problems of relativity, often in connection with
> Einstein. By 1908 Lorentz had already realized the incompatibility of
> his electron theory with Planck’s quantum hypothesis, and by the 1911
> Solvay Congress there was a general sense that the electron theory
> would have to be radically reformed in light of the advent of quantum
> physics (McCormach 1970: 486–88).
[..]
> Lorentz always spoke appreciatively of Einstein’s alternate approach
> and lectured sympathetically on both SR and GR, while remaining
> finally unconvinced that Einstein had abolished the classical
> conceptions of time and space. Writing in 1910, he contrasted his view
> with Einstein’s:
>
> Assume there were an aether; then there would be among all systems x,
> y, z, t one singled out in that the coordinate axes as well as the
> clock is at rest in the aether. If one conjoins with this the
> idea . . . that space and time are something wholly different and
> that there is a ‘true time’ simultaneity would then exist
> independently of location, in accord with the circumstance that it is
> possible for us to conceive of infinitely great velocities), then one
> easily sees that this true time would have to be indicated just by
> clocks which are at rest in the aether. If, then, the principle of
> relativity were generally valid in nature, then one would not be in a
> position to determine whether the coordinate system employed
> is that distinguished one. One thus comes to the same results as when
> one in agreement with Einstein and Minkowski denies the existence of
> the aether and the true time and treats all coordinate systems as
> equivalent. Which of the two modes of thought one may agree with is
> best left to the individual.
> (Lorentz 1934: 211)6
>
> Lorentz, realizing that his aether compensatory interpretation is
> empirically equivalent to the Einstein-Minkowski interpretations,
> leaves it up to the individual to choose which he shall adopt. But
> Lorentz preferred the classical
> conceptions of time and space on metaphysically intuitive grounds, as
> he made clear in his 1922 lectures at Cal Tech:
>
> All our theories help us form pictures, or images, of the world around
> us, and we try to do this in such a way that the phenomena may be
> coordinated as well as possible, and that we may see clearly the way
> in which they are connected. Now in forming these images we can use
> the notions of space and time that have always been familiar to us,
> and
> which I, for my part, consider as perfectly clear and, moreover, as
> distinct from one another. My notion of time is so definite that I
> clearly distinguish in my picture what is simultaneous and what is
> not. (Lorentz 1927: 221)
>
> Here Lorentz refuses to jettison what he took to be the intuitively
> obvious reality of absolute simultaneity among events in the world
> just because one cannot determine which spatially separated events are
> simultaneous or because Einstein’s operationally re-defined notion of
> simultaneity is relative to reference frames. Moreover, he sees no
> good reason to scrap the intuitive distinctness of space and time in
> favor of Minkowski’s unified reality, space– time.
>
> A major reason that Lorentz remained unconvinced was that he was not a
> positivist.
[rearrranging]:
> Lorentz’s conception of the aether was virtually equivalent to space
> itself. His aether was so dematerialized that Einstein, lecturing at
> the University of Leiden in 1920, could tease the Dutch physicist by
> declaring, ‘‘As regards the mechanical nature of Lorentz’s aether one
> might say of it, with a touch of humor, that immobility was the only
> mechanical property which H. A. Lorentz left it’’ (Einstein 1920: 7).
> For Lorentz the aether is just the privileged spatial frame.
>
> Lorentz thus accepts a 3+1 ontology of spatial objects enduring
> through a privileged time, a metaphysic which he felt no obligation to
> abandon out of deference to a verificationist epistemology.
Indeed - however, for Lorentz the ether is not a privileged spatial
frame: from 1904 he assumed the relativity principle to hold, making
the ether like Newton's absolute space. Einstein built on that concept
in his 1920 and 1924 presentations.
Regards,
Harald
> In 1913 he wrote,
>
> According to Einstein it has no meaning to speak of motion relative to
> the aether. He likewise denies the existence of absolute simultaneity.
> It is certainly remarkable that these relativity concepts, also those
> concerning time, have found such a rapid acceptance. The acceptance of
> these concepts belongs mainly to epistemology . . . It is certain,
> however, that it depends to a large extent on the way one is
> accustomed to think whether one is attracted to one or another
> interpretation.
> As far as this lecturer is concerned, he finds a certain satisfaction
> in the older interpretations, according to which the aether
> possesses at least some substantiality, space and time can be sharply
> separated, and simultaneity without further specification can be
> spoken of. In regard to this last point, one may perhaps appeal to our
> ability of imagining arbitrarily large velocities. In that way, one
> comes very close to the concept of absolute simultaneity. Finally, it
> should be noted that the daring assertion that one can never observe
> velocities larger than the velocity of light contains a hypothetical
> restriction of what is accessible to us, [a restriction] which cannot
> be accepted without some reservation. (Lorentz 1920a: 23)
>
> Here Lorentz clearly discerns the foundational role played by
> Einstein’s verificationist theory of meaning in his formulation of SR
> and rejects it. In defense of absolute simultaneity, Lorentz appeals
> to the use of arbitrarily fast signals, even though they are not
> presently observable. He disregards the assumption that it is
> meaningless to speak of such unobservables
>
> Elsewhere Lorentz affirms that it makes sense, if there is an aether,
> to speak of motion relative to it even if observers could not detect
> such motion (Lorentz 1914: 26).7 He writes,
>
> But it needs to be clearly recognized that A could never assure
> himself of the immobility in the ether which we have attributed to
> him by supposition and that physicist B could with the same right, or
> rather with the same absence of right, claim that it is he who finds
> himself in these privileged circumstances. This incertitude, this
> impossibility of even
> disclosing a movement in relation to the aether, led Einstein and
> numerous other modern physicists to abandon completely the notion of
> an aether.
>
> There, it seems to me, is a question toward which each physicist must
> take a position which best accords with the manner of thinking to
> which he is accustomed. (Lorentz 1934: 7: 165)
Omina
Harard, Pls. read the above cover to cover, then let me know what you
think.
harald
> On Jan 16, 7:25 pm, harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 1:40 am, Omina <omni_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Harard, Pls. read the above cover to cover, then let me know what you
> think.
I will have a look at it - meanwhile, please check out De Raedt! For
example:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/87/6/60007
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.2546
Cheers,
Harald
harald
http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/87/6/60007
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.2546
Cheers,
Harald
PS the book you cited from comments:
"3 I am characterizing the orthodox approach to SR and GR in terms of
sub-
stantivalism about space-time. I realize, however, that it’s a matter
of controversy
whether relativity requires commitment to substantivalism, and if so,
what sort
of substantivalism it requires. Since, so far as I can tell,
everything I say in the
sequel can be re-cast in terms of some version or other of
relationalism, I shall
ignore this controversy and press on as if orthodox relativity was a
theory about
a substantival space-time."
Omina
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually I already studied the above links a couple of weeks ago when
I was scrutizning Bell's Theorem and its validity. In fact I ordered a
book called The Shaky Game referenced in the paper just so as to
understand the background of their thoughts. I also forwarded the
links to other physicists in other forum for scrutiny. Will update you
after I read the book and I found more information. But initital
assessment appears they may be wrong.. although not certain as it is
still in analysis mode.
harald
OK I won't have time to read it all, certainly not before this thread
has been forgotten, but I can give a preliminary opinion.
Some of the claims are debatable to say the least. Einstein's letter
to Besso's family may have been a desperate attempt to consolation; I
also checked out p.219 of Infeld, which basically states the same as
what I cited from Einstein 1916 (on the next page even the following
mis-statement by Einstein and Infeld: "No absolute motion exists in
classical physics").
However, it's a nice overview of the state of affairs 5 years ago, and
it discusses positivist language (of the Einstein-Infeld kind) in a
clear way. The theological position of the book isn't to its advantage
I'm afraid. But I agree with the conclusion of Craig in Chapter 1. And
a quick glance at the next chapters looks interesting.
Of course, a main argument is the idea of non-locality which I
consider to be based on a statistical misunderstanding. But it may
have served to put the question of space and time on the table again!
Best regards,
Harald
harald
>
> > Cheers,
> > Harald- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Actually I already studied the above links a couple of weeks ago when
> I was scrutizning Bell's Theorem and its validity. In fact I ordered a
> book called The Shaky Game referenced in the paper just so as to
> understand the background of their thoughts. I also forwarded the
> links to other physicists in other forum for scrutiny. Will update you
> after I read the book and I found more information. But initital
> assessment appears they may be wrong.. although not certain as it is
> still in analysis mode.
How can their simulations be wrong in the sense of Bell's inequality?
Wouldn't that require spooky action between their input and output
results? ;-)
Anyway, please keep us updated of discussions elsewhere that you know
of.
Regards,
Harald
Omina
Check out this thread from physicsforum web site
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=369286&highlight=raedt
on the topic "Why the De Raedt Local Realistic Computer Simulations
are wrong". They discuss about the De Raedt thing. In fact the last
message there was a reply by DrChinese about looking into exactly the
paper you mentioned and it was a week ago January 11. Pls. write add a
new message in that thread later and inquire from DrChinese to give
updates of what he has understood about the paper so he knows many are
interested and would give feedback. DrChinese is the author of the
website: http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm
Warning to Y.Porat, Kenseto, and other obvious crackpots. The web site
physicsforum is the best physics forum site on earth and is heavily
moderated and will delete any posts that has crackpot tone to it so
don't dare post any nonsense there. You can get banned and since they
track IPs. Your IP will be banned forever.
harald
Oops I meant of course spooky action between their OUTPUT results! :-)
> > Anyway, please keep us updated of discussions elsewhere that you know
> > of.
>
> > Regards,
> > Harald- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Check out this thread from physicsforum web sitehttp://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=369286&highlight=raedt
> on the topic "Why the De Raedt Local Realistic Computer Simulations
> are wrong". They discuss about the De Raedt thing. In fact the last
> message there was a reply by DrChinese about looking into exactly the
> paper you mentioned and it was a week ago January 11. Pls. write add a
> new message in that thread later and inquire from DrChinese to give
> updates of what he has understood about the paper so he knows many are
> interested and would give feedback. DrChinese is the author of the
> website:http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm
[..]
As I don't master that topic, I find it more useful to follow that
debate directly in the literature - but thanks for the link!
Harald
shuba
[re: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212095]
> This is quite interesting. I've been trying to understand it for more
> than an hour after reading it over and over again. In his proposal. Is
> he saying that the planck realm of a particle is connected to another
> planck realm of a particle such that all planck realm are directly
> connected as one? Or is each planck realm separate? If separate. How can
> you explain the correlations in Bell's Theorem if each planck realm of
> each particle is separate from one another?
It's not easy stuff, and I'm trying to understand it as well. Here are
general comments about it, hopefully for the most part correct. I'll
defer commenting specifically on Bell's theorem for now.
According to the idea as presented that paper, the planck realm consists
solely of bits of information. It's all of the information in the
universe, so there is a single planck realm. Particular information
corresponds to each quantum state for all particles and other objects per
the usual quantum setup, except that complete knowledge of the
information is unavailable. The underlying deterministic structure of the
evolution of the universe is hidden above planck scales, requiring the
use of statistical methods (quantum theory). This is analogous to regular
classical systems being completely deterministic at atomic or molecular
scales, yet in practice requiring statistical mechanics to describe them
because of the chaotic behavior inherent in almost all non-trivial
systems.
---Tim Shuba---
mpc755
>
> Actually I already studied the above links a couple of weeks ago when
> I was scrutizning Bell's Theorem and its validity. In fact I ordered a
> book called The Shaky Game referenced in the paper just so as to
> understand the background of their thoughts. I also forwarded the
> links to other physicists in other forum for scrutiny. Will update you
> after I read the book and I found more information. But initital
> assessment appears they may be wrong.. although not certain as it is
> still in analysis mode.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0212095v1
"In a combined theory, we no longer see “states” that evolve with
“time”, we do not know how to identify the vacuum state, and so on."
The vacuum state is aether. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is
determined by the force of the aether in which it exists.
"What we need instead is a unique theory that not only accounts for
Quantum Mechanics together with General Relativity, but also explains
for us how matter behaves."
Aether Displacement is a unique theory that not only accounts for
Quantum Mechanics together with General Relativity, it also explains
for how matter behaves.
Matter and aether are different states of the same material.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is condensations of aether.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
as aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.
Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.
Aether Displacement not only explains how matter behaves it also
explains the relationship between mass and energy.
Matter and aether have mass.
As far as we know, there is no space nor any part of three dimensional
space, devoid of mass.
A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
Aether Displacement also explains gravity.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether is not at rest when displaced.
Displaced aether exerts force towards the matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
Feynman stated the double slit experiment is "a phenomenon which is
impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way,
and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it
contains the only mystery".
In Aether Displacement, a moving particle has an associated aether
displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and
enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether
displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The aether
displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits. It is
this interference which alters the direction the particle travels.
Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle
and its associated aether displacement wave and there is no
interference.
Aether Displacement resolves the only mystery in Quantum Mechanics.