Is Quantum Mechanics a complete theory of physical reality?
FrediFizzx
Christian's "disproof of Bell's Theorem ... and the Illusion of
Entanglement".
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4259
However, the discussion and after reading the above left me unsatisfied.
First let us see if we have elements of the EPR argument correct. Using
the basic pi zero decay to entangled electron-positron example; if Alice
measures the electron to be spin up, then Bob will find that the
positron has spin down along say the z axis of propagation for both
particles. However, Bob could also measure spin about the x axis. So
contrary to quantum mechanics, we could know the spin of the positron
about two different axes. This seems to me to be the crux of the EPR
argument that quantum mechanics can't be a complete theory.
Now, after reading the article above, I am satisfied that Joy Christian
is correct in his presentation. And he says in the conclusion; "Thus
the conclusion of EPR stands as firmly today as it did in 1935". So I
guess what I am unsatisfied about is what do we need to make quantum
mechanics a complete theory if this is correct? That never seemed to be
addressed in the discussion or by Joy Christian. Anyone have some
thoughts on this?
Best,
Fred Diether
mpc755
Can you experimentally differentiate between 'entangled' and 'mirror-
image'?
In order for there to be conservation of momentum in EPR, the electron-
positron must be exact opposites in every way measurable.
FrediFizzx
news:0b2789c7-2d72-4dce...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> image'?
Yes.
> In order for there to be conservation of momentum in EPR, the
> electron-
> positron must be exact opposites in every way measurable.
No. The rest masses are the same; not opposite. However the momentum is
opposite.
Best,
Fred Diether
Mike
> guess what I am unsatisfied about is what do we need to make quantum
A "complete theory" can only exist if it is based in an axiomatic
system that is itself complete. You need to be able to derive QM from
logic if it is to be complete. Otherwise if there are holes in the
explanation of QM, then we can never know if it's complete. The
following website explains how QM can be derived from logic.
mpc755
Not without placing arbitrary constraints like Bell's Theorem on all
Hidden Variable Theories. If you realize 'Hidden' means unknown, which
means no constraints, then there is no experimental evidence to
differentiate between 'entangled' and 'mirror-image'?
> > In order for there to be conservation of momentum in EPR, the
> > electron-
> > positron must be exact opposites in every way measurable.
>
> No. The rest masses are the same; not opposite. �However the momentum is
> opposite.
>
I didn't mean to imply one of them had to have a negative mass. I
meant any measurement having to do with their spin (i.e. momentum).
> Best,
>
> Fred Diether
Ilja
> Now, after reading the article above, I am satisfied that Joy Christian
> is correct in his presentation.
I'm certainly not.
>�And he says in the conclusion; "Thus
> the conclusion of EPR stands as firmly today as it did in 1935".
Bell is not questioning the EPR argument but using it.
Above assume locality to make the argument. Above conclude from this
that there should be hidden variables for all measurements.
Bell takes a next step and shows that this conclusion is in
conflict with quantum predictions. So the conclusion is nonlocality.
>�So I
> guess what I am unsatisfied about is what do we need to make quantum
> mechanics a complete theory if this is correct?
There is such a well-known completion: de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave
theory.
>�That never seemed to be
> addressed in the discussion or by Joy Christian. �Anyone have some
> thoughts on this?
His local model is simply wrong - it explains some other experiment
and
cannot explain the violation of the BI.
Ilja
> Can you experimentally differentiate between 'entangled' and 'mirror-
> image'?
That's easy: With entangled particles one can violate Bell's
inequality,
with mirror-imaged particles not.
mpc755
That is why I specifically said not using Bell's Theorem. Bell's
Theorem is incorrect. It is placing constraints on all Hidden Value
Theories incorrectly. If something is 'hidden' that is an unknown. You
can't categories all of the possible outcomes for something you do not
have all of the necessary information for.
Without using Bell's Theorem how do you experimentally differentiate
between 'entangled' and 'mirror-image"?
FrediFizzx
news:9b64c8c3-f0a4-4f0e...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 Okt., 04:55, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Now, after reading the article above, I am satisfied that Joy
>> Christian
>> is correct in his presentation.
>
> I'm certainly not.
Yes, I know. I wish Christian would have addressed your comments on SPR.
>> And he says in the conclusion; "Thus
>> the conclusion of EPR stands as firmly today as it did in 1935".
>
> Bell is not questioning the EPR argument but using it.
OK.
> Above assume locality to make the argument. Above conclude from this
> that there should be hidden variables for all measurements.
>
> Bell takes a next step and shows that this conclusion is in
> conflict with quantum predictions. So the conclusion is nonlocality.
I have never been comfortable with that.
>> So I
>> guess what I am unsatisfied about is what do we need to make quantum
>> mechanics a complete theory if this is correct?
>
> There is such a well-known completion: de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave
> theory.
Yes, you did mention that in the SPR discussions. Never been comfortable
with that either. I was looking for something new as the reason for
this thread. Being an etherist, I am a bit confused as to why you seem
to like de Broglie-Bohm theory? I don't see how that works with an
ether.
>> That never seemed to be
>> addressed in the discussion or by Joy Christian. Anyone have some
>> thoughts on this?
>
> His local model is simply wrong - it explains some other experiment
> and
> cannot explain the violation of the BI.
I am not an expert at this at all but I suspect that you are wrong.
Again... I wished Christian would have addressed your comments. My
perspective is that quantum-classical is a duality; one does not exist
without the other. And being an etherist, there can't be any
non-locality.
Best,
Fred Diether
Lester Welch
> Christian's "disproof of Bell's Theorem ... �and the Illusion of
> Entanglement".
>
As the original poster on the SPR thread, I've enjoyed the high level
respectful (mostly) discussion (in which, for some reason, we
physicists seem to have a hard time indulging - why is that?), but
feel that my original question hasn't been addressed. (Perhaps I
didn't ask it explicitly enough.)
Let I, J, K be the non-commuting imaginaries of quaternions.
Let q= cos(a)I +sin(a) cos(b) J + sin(a) sin(b)K
a,b are real and arbitrary.
Then q^2 = -1 and q is isomorphic to i, the complex imaginary. Thus
in quantum mechanics, where ever we have i we can replace it with q
with *identical results* and yet it has two hidden variables, a and
b.
Why isn't this a clear cut example of how "hidden variables" can be
incooperated?
.
Ilja
> Let I, J, K be the non-commuting imaginaries of quaternions.
>
> Let q= cos(a)I +sin(a) cos(b) J + sin(a) sin(b)K
>
> �a,b are real and arbitrary.
>
> Then q^2 = -1 and q is isomorphic to i, the complex imaginary. �Thus
> in quantum mechanics, where ever we have i we can replace it with q
> with *identical results* and yet it has two hidden variables, a and
> b.
>
> Why isn't this a clear cut example of how "hidden variables" can be
> incooperated?
These "hidden variables" would not have any explanatory power, they
would
not explain anything about the quantum strangeness, not reduce it to
some classical-like theory, with trajectories of some configurations
in
some configuration space, and with probability distributions appearing
only because we don't know the initial values.
Instead, the hidden variables used by Bell have to explain the
observable
probability distributions rho(x|a) depending on the choices of
experimenters
a by some state of reality l in L, some probability measure rho(l) on
L which
does not depend on a (observer-independent reality), and some
function x(l,a) which determines the measurement result for given l
and
a.
Ilja
> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> Yes, I know. I wish Christian would have addressed your comments on SPR.
Let's see, maybe he will. He has read them.
> > Above assume locality to make the argument. Above conclude from this
> > that there should be hidden variables for all measurements.
>
> > Bell takes a next step and shows that this conclusion is in
> > conflict with quantum predictions. So the conclusion is nonlocality.
>
> I have never been comfortable with that.
Instead, I have been very comfortable with it, because I already had
before,
for completely different reasons (quantum gravity) assumed that one
needs
a preferred frame.
> > There is such a well-known completion: de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave
> > theory.
>
> Yes, you did mention that in the SPR discussions. Never been comfortable
> with that either.
Why this? It is a really beautiful theory. The guiding equation comes
from
classical physics (Hamilton-Jacoby theory, really beautiful stuff).
>嚙瘢 was looking for something new as the reason for
> this thread. 嚙畿eing an etherist, I am a bit confused as to why you seem
> to like de Broglie-Bohm theory? 嚙瘢 don't see how that works with an
> ether.
I don't see any problem. By the way, I don't see dBB as a theory about
particles, but as a more general theory, which works for general
classical
theories with some well-defined standard configuration space Q.
I like it (initially) because it also needs a preferred frame, because
it
proves that classical realism (which requires a preferred frame
because
of the violation of Bell's inequality) is compatible with quantum
theory,
and (later) because of it's beauty, which is something one appreciates
only with time. (New formulas always look a little dirty, one should
become
comfortable with them to recognize their beauty.)
> > His local model is simply wrong - it explains some other experiment
> > and cannot explain the violation of the BI.
>
> I am not an expert at this at all but I suspect that you are wrong.
In this point I'm even mainstream, and my conclusion (and arguments)
coincide with those used also by others. Christian's error is quite
obvious.
> Again... 嚙瘢 wished Christian would have addressed your comments. My
> perspective is that quantum-classical is a duality; one does not exist
> without the other. 嚙璀nd being an etherist, there can't be any
> non-locality.
Why this? The classical ether lives in a world with preferred frame.
So, a violation of Einstein-locality does not pose any problems
with causality.
It is the other way around: For those who deny the ether, defend
the Minkowski spacetime and relativistic symmetry as fundamental,
the violation of Einstein causality is a no-go.
Ilja
> On Oct 14, 2:44�am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 13 Okt., 02:17, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Can you experimentally differentiate between 'entangled' and 'mirror-
> > > image'?
>
> > That's easy: With entangled particles one can violate Bell's
> > inequality, with mirror-imaged particles not.
> That is why I specifically said not using Bell's Theorem. Bell's
> Theorem is incorrect.
It is not. Instead, it is elementary math which can be understood
by schoolboys.
> It is placing constraints on all Hidden Value
> Theories incorrectly. If something is 'hidden' that is an unknown. You
> can't categories all of the possible outcomes for something you do not
> have all of the necessary information for.
No, the constraints placed are quite natural and simple. All one needs
is that there has to be some space of possible states of reality L
with
some probability measure which does not depend on the parameters
the experimenters can choose freely. Then, the actual state of reality
l in L should, together with the choices of the experimenters, define
the measurement results.
This is a requirement on the form of the theory. It is natural to have
such formal requirement - this allows, in particular, to distinguish
meaningless babble from a valid realistic explanation of the observed
probability distribution.
> Without using Bell's Theorem how do you experimentally differentiate
> between 'entangled' and 'mirror-image"?
Mirror-image is not completely specified. There can be many very
different
probability distributions which have the mirror-image property. But,
whatever
they are, I simply look at the correlations, and check if you, using
your
answers based on the measurement results, would have won the game.
If yes, they are entangled.
mpc755
> On Oct 15, 7:12 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 2:44 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On 13 Okt., 02:17, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Can you experimentally differentiate between 'entangled' and 'mirror-
> > > > image'?
>
> > > That's easy: With entangled particles one can violate Bell's
> > > inequality, with mirror-imaged particles not.
> > That is why I specifically said not using Bell's Theorem. Bell's
> > Theorem is incorrect.
>
> It is not. Instead, it is elementary math which can be understood
> by schoolboys.
>
> > It is placing constraints on all Hidden Value
> > Theories incorrectly. If something is 'hidden' that is an unknown. You
> > can't categories all of the possible outcomes for something you do not
> > have all of the necessary information for.
>
> No, the constraints placed are quite natural and simple.
Yes, if nothing is hidden.
Cl.Mass�
news:ce85dc35-5a14-403c...@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Let I, J, K be the non-commuting imaginaries of quaternions.
>
> Let q= cos(a)I +sin(a) cos(b) J + sin(a) sin(b)K
>
> a,b are real and arbitrary.
>
>
> Then q^2 = -1 and q is isomorphic to i, the complex imaginary. Thus
> in quantum mechanics, where ever we have i we can replace it with q
> with *identical results* and yet it has two hidden variables, a and
> b.
>
> Why isn't this a clear cut example of how "hidden variables" can be
> incooperated?
"q is isomorphic to i" is a bit short. The Field {x + y*q} with x,y
elements of R is isomorphic to C (and it's still too short), since only sets
with structures can be isomorphic. ({q} is isomorphic to {i} with the
multiplication, ok, but it is trivial example without interest.)
Now if a and b aren't constants and may vary for example as a function of
space-time, there is no isomorphism. a and b should be incorporated
explicitly in the equation of motion, which would be a different equation.
X-Phi
Lester Welch
>
> These "hidden variables" would not have any explanatory power, they
> would
> not explain anything about the quantum strangeness, not reduce it to
> some classical-like theory, with trajectories of some configurations
> in
> some configuration space, and with probability distributions appearing
> only because we don't know the initial values.
>
Could one not give a probability distribution to a, b such that they
explain quantum strangeness?
The a,b of q used in one wave function would not have to depend on the
a',b' of q' used in a uncorrelated unentangled second wave function.
Cl.Mass�
news:4ad8f764$0$19292$426a...@news.free.fr...
> "q is isomorphic to i" is a bit short. The Field {x + y*q} with x,y
> elements of R is isomorphic to C (and it's still too short), since only
> sets with structures can be isomorphic. ({q} is isomorphic to {i} with the
> multiplication, ok, but it is trivial example without interest.)
Even not, it is {1, -1, q, -q} and {1, -1, i, -i}
--
X-Phy
Ilja
Feel free to try - I see no reason for hope. These a,b are certainly
covered by Bell's theorem (danger: do not mingle them with the a,b
used there).
Moreover, a deterministic explanation which removes almost all of
the quantum strangeness already exists - de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave
theory.
Ilja
> On Oct 16, 4:20�pm, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 7:12 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It is placing constraints on all Hidden Value
> > > Theories incorrectly. If something is 'hidden' that is an unknown. You
> > > can't categories all of the possible outcomes for something you do not
> > > have all of the necessary information for.
>
> > No, the constraints placed are quite natural and simple.
>
> Yes, if nothing is hidden.
A theory can make a hypothesis about what is hidden. In
this sense, from point of view of the theory nothing is hidden.
Only for poor internal observers, lot's of things may appear
hidden.
mpc755
If nothing is hidden then it is not a Hidden Value Theory. And by
hidden we do not mean it can be understood and is simply not present.
By hidden it means not understood. Which is it? Are the constraints
placed quite natural and simple and able to be understood, or is
something hidden? Bell's Theorem is oxymoronic.
Ilja
> On Oct 19, 11:30�am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> If nothing is hidden then it is not a Hidden Value Theory.
A hidden variable theory is a theory about variables hidden from
observation, not from theoretical consideration. The fact that in
the theory we can use them makes it a hidden variable theory.
Else it would be a theory about observables only.
> And by
> hidden we do not mean it can be understood and is simply not present.
> By hidden it means not understood.
No, we mean hidden from observation, not from understanding. The
theory, if correct, provides an understanding of them.
> Which is it? Are the constraints
> placed quite natural and simple and able to be understood, or is
> something hidden?
The constraints on hidden variable theories are constraints about
realistic theories. They are natural, simple, and can be understood
by every educated person.
> Bell's Theorem is oxymoronic.
Bell's theorem certainly not. To name the class of theories
beyond quantum theory we are talking about "hidden variable
theories" may be oxymoronic. It has, in particular, been
mentioned that in pilot wave theory it is the so-called
"hidden variables" which we really observe, and that the
unobservable, hidden thing is the wave function.
"Realistic theories" is a much better denotation.
mpc755
Bell's Theorem vs. Hidden Variable Theories:
Known vs. Unknown
All aspects understood vs. Aspects not understood
Realistic vs. Hidden.
The point of a Hidden Variable Theory is you cannot denote it as
anything because you don't know what the Hidden Variable Theory is.
Let's take a different approach.
Without anything having to do with Bell's Theorem, make one assertion
as to how an 'entangled' pair behaves differently than a 'mirror-
image' pair does.
Ilja
I know how a realistic theory has to be formulated. In particular,
it has to make some hypothesis about reality.
Any theory which follows these restrictions and which is
Einstein causal leads to Bell's inequalities. Thus, or you have
to give up realism, or Einstein causality. For a realist, there
is not much to think - he simply accepts that there are
some causal influences which violate Einstein causality.
And every realistic theory has to describe them.
This is an important fundamental insight, and I see no reason
to give it up given your - sorry - inconsistent babble directed
at most at the word "hidden" which I don't have to use at all.
> Let's take a different approach.
>
> Without anything having to do with Bell's Theorem, make one assertion
> as to how an 'entangled' pair behaves differently than a 'mirror-
> image' pair does.
There is no reason at all to do this.
But, of course, your theory cannot recover the quantum
prediction about the probability distribution rho(A,B|a,b)
of the outcomes A, B in dependence of the directions
a,b of the measurement devices.
So its easy: Measure rho(A,B|a,b) and compare with
the QM predictions. Your theory is not yet a theory
if it does not give us such a prediction. And, in particular,
"mirror image" does not give a prediction for
rho(A,B|a,b) except for the simple cases a = +- b.
mpc755
You have no use for the word 'hidden' in Hidden Variable Theories. Go
figure...
You are so bent on putting Hidden Variable Theories into a nice little
box so you can dismiss them you ignore that fact that the theories
have a hidden variable.
Mike
>
> You are so bent on putting Hidden Variable Theories into a nice little
> box so you can dismiss them you ignore that fact that the theories
> have a hidden variable.
>
I'm not really sure what Bell's theorem says. But it seems to me that
if it can be proven that QM relies on a gaussian distribution, then
wouldn't that prove that there is no way of predicting any other
structure parameterized by some variable?
Ilja
> You have no use for the word 'hidden' in Hidden Variable Theories. Go
> figure...
>
> You are so bent on putting Hidden Variable Theories into a nice little
> box so you can dismiss them you ignore that fact that the theories
> have a hidden variable.
Sorry, I don't want to dismiss them, instead, I like some of them
(pilot wave theory, Nelson's stochastics) very much.
Then, I don't want to put them into a little box, I simply explain
you why the box used by Bell is a reasonable and nice one.
A theory which does not fit into this scheme would be simply
ugly and mysterious, unable to explain anything.
mpc755
I think you are taking the term 'variable' to literally. My
interpretation of 'hidden variable' is there is something going on
which is not understood. Think of it this way, the math in QM is
correct, it is simply a misinterpretation of what is occurring in
nature. The misinterpretation is the 'hidden variable'. The 'hidden
variable' could be anything because it is unknown.
mpc755
> On 22 Okt., 07:04, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You have no use for the word 'hidden' in Hidden Variable Theories. Go
> > figure...
>
> > You are so bent on putting Hidden Variable Theories into a nice little
> > box so you can dismiss them you ignore that fact that the theories
> > have a hidden variable.
>
> Sorry, I don't want to dismiss them, instead, I like some of them
> (pilot wave theory, Nelson's stochastics) very much.
>
I very much like pilot wave theory also, which was put forth by Louis
de Broglie. I really like de Broglie's statement:
"any moving particle or object had an associated wave"
I am modifying the statement to be 'any moving particle or object had
an associated aether wave".
> Then, I don't want to put them into a little box, I simply explain
> you why the box used by Bell is a reasonable and nice one.
> A theory which does not fit into this scheme would be simply
> ugly and mysterious, unable to explain anything.
Yes, that is what the 'Hidden Variable Theory' is, ugly, mysterious
and unable to explain anything. That doesn't make it incorrect or have
to be cleaned up so it can be defined and dismissed. It simply means
we do not understand what is occurring in the experiments in nature.
I take it to the next step and say we do know what is occurring in the
experiments in nature, the particles are mirror-images of each other.
Just because we do no understand why we get the probable outcomes we
do does not mean the particles are 'entangled' and not simply 'mirror-
images'.
Ilja
This has nothing to do with Bell's theorem.
See ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/game.php for my introduction
into the problem.
Ilja
> On Oct 22, 11:55�am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Okt., 07:04, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You have no use for the word 'hidden' in Hidden Variable Theories. Go
> > > figure...
>
> > > You are so bent on putting Hidden Variable Theories into a nice little
> > > box so you can dismiss them you ignore that fact that the theories
> > > have a hidden variable.
>
> > Sorry, I don't want to dismiss them, instead, I like some of them
> > (pilot wave theory, Nelson's stochastics) very much.
>
> I very much like pilot wave theory also, which was put forth by Louis
> de Broglie. I really like de Broglie's statement:
>
> "any moving particle or object had an associated wave"
>
> I am modifying the statement to be 'any moving particle or object had
> an associated aether wave".
And this modification is the false one. De Broglie himself has
generalized his theory to many particles and in this generalization
there is also a wave on the 3N-dimensional configuration space,
instead of N functions for each of the N particles in usual space.
You can be sure that this choice of de Broglie was not dictated
by finding this more beautiful. It was simply necessary, for
reasons visible already to de Broglie without any reference
to Bell's inequality. Separate functions for all particles simply
doesn't work. Fact.
Of course, you can try to make it work somehow. Invent a theory
which does not need a wave function on the configuration space.
Feel free to do it. But you certainly will be unable to reach this if
you ignore many-particle problem and handle only problems
which can be described, in some approximation, as single
particle problems.
By the way, the wave function of the moving C-60 can
be (this would be sufficient for explaining the interference
pattern at the split) a function of the position of the center
of mass of C-60, thus, a function on usual space.
But the center of mass is not a particle. You have 60
wave functions of the 60 C. (Even worse, each C consists of
lot's of particles.)
The wave function QM uses to describe them is a function on
180-dimensional space which is highly entangled. So you
cannot even use C-60 as evidence for your theory, because
you have to construct your own wave function of the center
of mass, cannot use the QM results for this.
> > Then, I don't want to put them into a little box, I simply explain
> > you why the box used by Bell is a reasonable and nice one.
> > A theory which does not fit into this scheme would be simply
> > ugly and mysterious, unable to explain anything.
>
> Yes, that is what the 'Hidden Variable Theory' is, ugly, mysterious
> and unable to explain anything. That doesn't make it incorrect or have
> to be cleaned up so it can be defined and dismissed. It simply means
> we do not understand what is occurring in the experiments in nature.
There is no _the_ Hidden Variable Theory, there are theories
unfortunately
named hidden variable theories like pilot wave theory and Nelsonian
stochastics which are far away from being ugly or mysterious, and
which
explain much (but not all) of the quantum mystery.
A mystery which remains is why we need a function on configuration
space to describe reality, instead of things defined completely in
usual
space.
> I take it to the next step and say we do know what is occurring in the
> experiments in nature, the particles are mirror-images of each other.
> Just because we do no understand why we get the probable outcomes we
> do does not mean the particles are 'entangled' and not simply 'mirror-
> images'.
It is not excluded that they are mirror-images. What is excluded is
that,
if we measure one of them, no information about what is measured
influences the other particle.
As I have tried to explain you, you have to specify your theory
more completely.
mpc755
But the center of mass is the center of the particle. The particle is
creating a displacement wave in the aether. That is why the wave
function of the moving C-60 can be a function of the position of the
center of mass of the C-60, thus a function on space. The center of
mass does not have to be a particle because the center of mass is the
FrediFizzx
> On Oct 15, 1:57 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> Yes, I know. I wish Christian would have addressed your comments on
>> SPR.
>
> Let's see, maybe he will. He has read them.
Well, he never did.
>> > Above assume locality to make the argument. Above conclude from
>> > this
>> > that there should be hidden variables for all measurements.
>>
>> > Bell takes a next step and shows that this conclusion is in
>> > conflict with quantum predictions. So the conclusion is
>> > nonlocality.
>>
>> I have never been comfortable with that.
>
> Instead, I have been very comfortable with it, because I already had
> before,
> for completely different reasons (quantum gravity) assumed that one
> needs
> a preferred frame.
Could you explain that a bit more.
>> > There is such a well-known completion: de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave
>> > theory.
>>
>> Yes, you did mention that in the SPR discussions. Never been
>> comfortable
>> with that either.
>
> Why this?
Doesn't it still have the "spooky" action at a distance?
> It is a really beautiful theory. The guiding equation comes
> from
> classical physics (Hamilton-Jacoby theory, really beautiful stuff).
How do you reconcile the action at a distance problem with classical
physics?
>> I was looking for something new as the reason for
>> this thread. Being an etherist, I am a bit confused as to why you
>> seem
>> to like de Broglie-Bohm theory? I don't see how that works with an
>> ether.
>
> I don't see any problem. By the way, I don't see dBB as a theory about
> particles, but as a more general theory, which works for general
> classical
> theories with some well-defined standard configuration space Q.
>
> I like it (initially) because it also needs a preferred frame, because
> it
> proves that classical realism (which requires a preferred frame
> because
> of the violation of Bell's inequality) is compatible with quantum
> theory,
> and (later) because of it's beauty, which is something one appreciates
> only with time. (New formulas always look a little dirty, one should
> become
> comfortable with them to recognize their beauty.)
The problem is that you still have action at a distance.
>> > His local model is simply wrong - it explains some other experiment
>> > and cannot explain the violation of the BI.
>>
>> I am not an expert at this at all but I suspect that you are wrong.
>
> In this point I'm even mainstream, and my conclusion (and arguments)
> coincide with those used also by others. Christian's error is quite
> obvious.
Can you restate his error here?
>> Again... I wished Christian would have addressed your comments. My
>> perspective is that quantum-classical is a duality; one does not
>> exist
>> without the other. And being an etherist, there can't be any
>> non-locality.
>
> Why this? The classical ether lives in a world with preferred frame.
> So, a violation of Einstein-locality does not pose any problems
> with causality.
OK, but what is the mechanism for action at a distance?
> It is the other way around: For those who deny the ether, defend
> the Minkowski spacetime and relativistic symmetry as fundamental,
> the violation of Einstein causality is a no-go.
I think I am OK with that. It just seems to me that in an ether theory
there should be no action at a distance. Everything acts thru the
medium. However, maybe there are FTL quantum objects that can act thru
the spaces between the ether cells? IOW, we have gauge bosons (photons,
W, Z, gluons) that are just waves in/of the medium but what about
point-like massless objects that wouldn't be "controlled" by the medium?
Best,
Fred Diether
maxwell
> >> seem
> >> to like de Broglie-Bohm theory? �ｿｽI don't see how that works with an
> >> ether.
>
> > I don't see any problem. By the way, I don't see dBB as a theory about
> > particles, but as a more general theory, which works for general
> > classical
> > theories with some well-defined standard configuration space Q.
>
> > I like it (initially) because it also needs a preferred frame, because
> > it
> > proves that classical realism (which requires a preferred frame
> > because
> > of the violation of Bell's inequality) is compatible with quantum
> > theory,
> > and (later) because of it's beauty, which is something one appreciates
> > only with time. (New formulas always look a little dirty, one should
> > become
> > comfortable with them to recognize their beauty.)
>
> The problem is that you still have action at a distance.
>
> >> > His local model is simply wrong - it explains some other experiment
> >> > and cannot explain the violation of the BI.
>
> >> I am not an expert at this at all but I suspect that you are wrong.
>
> > In this point I'm even mainstream, and my conclusion (and arguments)
> > coincide with those used also by others. Christian's error is quite
> > obvious.
>
> Can you restate his error here?
>
> >> perspective is that quantum-classical is a duality; one does not
> >> exist
> >> non-locality.
>
> > Why this? The classical ether lives in a world with preferred frame.
> > So, a violation of Einstein-locality does not pose any problems
> > with causality.
>
> OK, but what is the mechanism for action at a distance?
>
> > It is the other way around: For those who deny the ether, defend
> > the Minkowski spacetime and relativistic symmetry as fundamental,
> > the violation of Einstein causality is a no-go.
>
> I think I am OK with that. It just seems to me that in an ether theory
> there should be no action at a distance. Everything acts thru the
> the spaces between the ether cells? �ｿｽIOW, we have gauge bosons (photons,
> W, Z, gluons) that are just waves in/of the medium but what about
> point-like massless objects that wouldn't be "controlled" by the medium?
>
> Best,
>
> Fred Diether
Classical physics is all about action-at-a-distance (except for the
collision of purely fictitious, infinitely hard elastic balls).
Classical physics postulated forces that acted across space
instantaneously - like gravity; such forces could be replaced by
simple, spatial potentials. In contrast, classical EM had to
acknowledge the reality of finite delays (in time) for action between
spatially separated charges. In order to maintain the fiction of a
single universal time for all of this temporally separated activity
(to keep the math simple), Maxwell introduced the concept of a local
field - the rest (including phony "photons") is history.
FrediFizzx
news:b8af33ac-81b5-4126...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 24, 8:01 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I think I am OK with that. It just seems to me that in an ether
>> theory
>> there should be no action at a distance. Everything acts thru the
>> medium. However, maybe there are FTL quantum objects that can act
>> thru
>> the spaces between the ether cells? IOW, we have gauge bosons
>> (photons,
>> W, Z, gluons) that are just waves in/of the medium but what about
>> point-like massless objects that wouldn't be "controlled" by the
>> medium?
> Classical physics is all about action-at-a-distance (except for the
> collision of purely fictitious, infinitely hard elastic balls).
> Classical physics postulated forces that acted across space
> instantaneously - like gravity; such forces could be replaced by
> simple, spatial potentials. In contrast, classical EM had to
> acknowledge the reality of finite delays (in time) for action between
> spatially separated charges. In order to maintain the fiction of a
> single universal time for all of this temporally separated activity
> (to keep the math simple), Maxwell introduced the concept of a local
> field - the rest (including phony "photons") is history.
Now-a-days because of the field concept, classical physics has
absolutely nothing to do with action at a distance. You really need to
get yourself up-to-date on your thinking. Fields are real after all.
Action at a distance is only supported by quantum mechanics loosely in
the orthodox interpretation. I'm voting for Hestenes' zitterbewegung
interpretation. In fact, that reminds me that I need to see what he
might have said about the EPR/Bohm argument in relation to his
interpretation.
Best,
Fred Diether
Ken S. Tucker
> "maxwell" <s...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
From what I've read and studied, there is a subtle difference between
the aether and the spacetime field. The aether had a supposed ability
to provide some sort of detectable absolute motion, but the spacetime
field is formulated so that 'absolute motion' is mathematically
impossible.
That's a standard semantic, and it should be mathematically defined,
and a consensus agreed on.
In the absence of higher authority (based on my research), a student
needs to make a decision, in this conundrum, I chose to accept
U^i U_i = 0 to define absolute motion,
that is briefed here,
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
then ultimately chose U_i =0 as the basic spacetime field equation,
negating "absolute motion" with relative motion embodied within U^i.
Naturally we went on to test that hypothetical definition within
International Standards and found it in accord with all modern
physics, so far in MST briefs here,
http://physics.trak4.com/
((My wife has agreed to help me write them up better and publish
those notes, in print)).
That's the summary of my efforts, if anyone has another definition
(mathematical) of 'absolute motion' I would certainly want to see it.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker