Why the Ether is Not Part of Modern Physics
Tom Roberts
Author: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Date: November 21, 1999 -- REPOST: February 5, 2001
This is the third of three articles posted to sci.physics.relativity:
[1] Subject: Theories Equivalent to SR
[2] Subject: Why the Ether is Unobservable
[3] Subject: Why the Ether is Not Part of Modern Physics
These articles should be read in order, as a set; they do not stand
alone from each other.
In the first two articles of this series I have shown that there is an
infinite class of ether theories each of which is equivalent to SR, in
the sense that they are all experimentally indistinguishable from SR.
Why then, are these theories not given equal weight with SR in the
teaching of modern physics? Why are these ether theories, and indeed
this entire equivalence class of theories, not well known and familiar
to most physicists? What justification is there for the mainstream of
physics to completely ignore these theories which are validated by
experiments to _exactly_ the same extent as is SR?
The answer to all these questions can be summed up in a single word:
Symmetry. This article is devoted to discussing why the symmetry aspects
of SR completely overshadow all of these ether theories in modern physics.
Symmetry in SR is a rich and varied topic. The basic symmetry of SR is
Lorentz invariance, and the essence of SR is encapsulated in the
statement that the laws of physics are locally Lorentz invariant (i.e.
unchanged under the operation of any member of the Lorentz group). This
is an instance of the modern approach to symmetries: a symmetry principle
states that something remains unchanged when a specific type of operation
is performed. Note that Einstein's original two postulates for SR are
both symmetry principles.
Einstein was instrumental in bringing the importance of symmetries to
the forefront of modern physics, and SR is an excellent example of the
power of symmetry groups in determining the possible structure of
physical laws: considerations of group theory alone plus the simple
observation that pion beams exist are sufficient to derive the
equations of SR. In addition, an assumption of Lorentz symmetry and
the guess that electrodynamics is the simplest possible gauge theory
is enough to derive the Maxwell's equations. Symmetry principles are a
very powerful (nay indispensable) tool in modern theoretical physics.
And none of the ether theories contain such a symmetry as a fundamental
part of the theory (LET has an "accidental" Lorentz symmetry, but it is
not a principle of the theory). It is highly doubtful that any of the
modern theories of physics would have been discovered without the
symmetry principles of SR leading the way -- modern gauge theories are
direct descendants of the geometrical description of SR; this includes
both GR and the Standard Model. Such a geometrical description is not
possible in any ether theory (geometry is inherently coordinate
independent, but the ether is not).
There are several auxiliary reasons why the ether is not part of modern
physics. These are essentially confirmations of the basic reason due to
the lack of symmetry in ether theories -- in most cases these are direct
consequences of that lack.
1) In every viable ether theory, the ether itself is unobservable [2].
Quantum theory and the experiments related to it have repeatedly
pounded home the lesson that one must not attempt to describe things
which have not been observed or measured. This is a second powerful
argument against the believability of ether theories.
2) This unobservability of the ether frame borders on a reductio ad
absurdum in math, as the ether is assumed to be unique, but its
unobservability makes it merely one member of the equivalence class
of inertial frames -- _any_ inertial frame can be assumed to be the
ether frame without changing the predictions of any viable ether
theory. And since the ether frame is intrinsically unobservable,
assumptions and guesses are all the ether advocate has.
3) The assumption of a unique ether frame is directly analogous to the
assumption that there is a preferred frame in a Euclidean space. It
is absurd to claim that there _is_ a preferred frame in Euclidean
space but it is unobservable. But that's essentially what the viable
ether theories do.
4) In every viable ether theory one's measurement tools must change in
an unobservable manner if one is moving wrt the ether. This seems
both counterintuitive and strange -- it's as if these effects were
diabolically constructed simply to make the viable ether theories
indistinguishable from SR. As ether theories are a clear attempt to
preserve an older, seemingly "common sense" approach to physics, it
seems unreasonable to have tools change, because there is no
precedent for such behavior in our everyday lives, or in older
physical theories -- this is very much not "common sense".
5) In every viable ether theory except LET, the one-way speed of light
differs from c, but is unmeasurable. It seems strange that slow clock
transport does not give any method to measure the one-way speed of
light (such approaches always measure c, not the "true" one-way speed
of light). Indeed, _ALL_ one-way speeds are subject to this, and
rulers and clocks cannot measure the "true" one-way speed of
_anything_ in a natural way; this includes police radar guns and your
automobile on the highway; the redshifts of distant galaxies do not
correspond to their "true" velocities; etc. This is decidedly not
"common sense".
6) Ether theories require a new postulate for every new phenomenon that
is discovered, which basically states that the ether applies to it
in the same ways the ether applies to elecromagnetism. SR's symmetry
principles automatically apply to new phenomena, so SR has more
explanatory power than ether theory in this regard. Note that all
phenomena discovered since 1905 do indeed exhibit the local Lorentz
invariance of SR -- what is happenstance in ether theory was directly
predicted by SR. It seems surprising that the "gravitational ether"
has exactly the same underlying properties as the "lumeniferous
ether" and the "weak interaction ether" and the "strong interaction
ether", when these interactions differ so enormously in strength
(by a factor of more than 10^40), and differ so wildly in their
properties (e.g. gravitation and electrodynamics lack the rich
spectrum of particle and resonances characteristic of the others).
But SR naturally and correctly predicts the local Lorentz invariance
of these vastly different phenomena.
In summary, there are good reasons for the ether to be absent from modern
physics; virtually all modern physicists consider these reasons both
cogent and sufficient (at least those modern physicists who have actively
considered the issue), and no ether theory is part of modern physics.
While the viable ether theories are equivalent to SR in the sense that
they are experimentally indistinguishable, they are most definitely NOT
equivalent to SR in either mathematical elegance, explanatory power, or
suitability as a starting point for further theories. But it is these
latter properties which are most important for the basic theories of
physics.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dennis McCarthy
>part of the theory (LET has an "accidental" Lorentz symmetry, but it is
>not a principle of the theory)
Dennis: Well, that's good because the symmetry inherent to SR has never been
observed. Everytime we have observed clock A lost time with respect to Clock
B-- it is shown that Clock B has gained time with respect to Clock A.
H-K, Vessot, and the various muon decay experiments all show the same
thing--and none of them revealed reciprocal time dilation (or symmetry.)
Roberts: >1) In every viable ether theory, the ether itself is unobservable
[2].
Dennis: That's an insane statement that Roberts likes to repeat often. The
effects of the ether have been observed to essentially the same extent the
effects of the atmosphere was observed in the 16th, 17th, and 18th century.
This is similar to the "If I can't see it, it can't be there" positivist
school of thought.
Dennis McCarthy
GLOBARR
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote: . . .
>
In the first two articles of this series I have shown that
there is an infinite class of ether theories each of which is
equivalent to SR, in the sense that they are all
experimentally indistinguishable from SR. Why then, are
these theories not given equal weight with SR in the teaching
of modern physics? Why are these ether theories, and indeed
this entire equivalence class of theories, not well known and
familiar to most physicists? What justification is there for
the mainstream of physics to completely ignore these theories
which are validated by experiments to _exactly_ the same
extent as is SR?
The answer to all these questions can be summed up in a
single word: Symmetry. This article is devoted to discussing
why the symmetry aspects of SR completely overshadow all of
these ether theories in modern physics.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
As long as there is only one theory that is equivalent to
SR, then you are in scientific trouble in how you present SR
in your SR FAQ! And here you are, not only admitting to one
such theory, but that there are an infinite number of them.
What rot!
And here you are trying to promote your symmetry, and yet
the most common statement made in SR is that your symmetry is
constantly broken! It is broken every time you turn around
(and this is literally correct.) Even in the paradox of the
twins, the simplest possible problem where all that is done
is that one of two objects separates and returns, you break
your symmetry. If symmetry is so important, too bad that you
have to break it for almost everything you do! Again, what
rot!!!!!!!
Tom Roberts wrote:
Symmetry in SR is a rich and varied topic. The basic
symmetry of SR is Lorentz invariance, and the essence of SR
is encapsulated in the statement that the laws of physics are
locally Lorentz invariant (i.e. unchanged under the operation
of any member of the Lorentz group). This is an instance of
the modern approach to symmetries: a symmetry principle
states that something remains unchanged when a specific type
of operation is performed. Note that Einstein's original two
postulates for SR are both symmetry principles.
Einstein was instrumental in bringing the importance of
symmetries to the forefront of modern physics, and SR is an
excellent example of the power of symmetry groups in
determining the possible structure of physical laws:
considerations of group theory alone plus the simple
observation that pion beams exist are sufficient to derive
the equations of SR. In addition, an assumption of Lorentz
symmetry and the guess that electrodynamics is the simplest
possible gauge theory is enough to derive the Maxwell's
equations. Symmetry principles are a very powerful (nay
indispensable) tool in modern theoretical physics.
And none of the ether theories contain such a symmetry as
a fundamental part of the theory (LET has an "accidental"
Lorentz symmetry, but it is not a principle of the theory).
O'Barr comments:
Since LET has the identical math as SR, then in reality,
LET has every real symmetry that SR has! You cannot prove
otherwise. All you can do is just to say in words that there
are all these differences, but your words are meaningless,
until you can properly separate out real symmetry from all
your `broken' symmetry.
What really happens is that in LET, you never have to say
that the symmetry is broken. This is true because in SR, the
symmetry that is present is only what is real, and no more.
The symmetry in LET is perfect, providing exactly what is
measured, and no more. Thus, in SR, where there are false
symmetry as well as correct symmetry, you have to constantly
be saying that your symmetry is broken! Sorry about your
terrible state of symmetry!
Tom Roberts wrote:
It is highly doubtful that any of the modern theories of
physics would have been discovered without the symmetry
principles of SR leading the way -- modern gauge theories are
direct descendants of the geometrical description of SR; this
includes both GR and the Standard Model. Such a geometrical
description is not possible in any ether theory (geometry is
inherently coordinate independent, but the ether is not).
O'Barr comments:
It is nice that you offer to us your opinions. But what
do we really know? Since we did not choose to follow the
ether's direction, we will never really know how much more or
less we would now know. I am sure that the future will say
things much different than the way you say them!
Tom Roberts wrote:
There are several auxiliary reasons why the ether is not part
of modern physics. These are essentially confirmations of the
basic reason due to the lack of symmetry in ether theories --
in most cases these are direct consequences of that lack.
1) In every viable ether theory, the ether itself is
unobservable [2]. Quantum theory and the experiments related
to it have repeatedly pounded home the lesson that one must
not attempt to describe things which have not been observed
or measured. This is a second powerful argument against the
believability of ether theories.
O'Barr comments:
This is so powerful it knocks your socks off, huh??? Can
you really be this unscientific? All you are saying is that
you personally want the ether to do something you want it to
do, and if it doesn't hit you in the head the way you want,
you say it doesn't exist. No one should be that dumb!!!!
The ether interacts with absolutely every object that
exists, and it does so exactly as the theory requires. End
of argument! LET is the most well proved physical theory
that has ever existed! For you to say or infer what you do,
makes you the most silly person on this net! Your prejudices
are clear, and you have lost contact with reality!
Tom Roberts wrote:
2) This unobservability of the ether frame borders on a
reductio ad absurdum in math, as the ether is assumed to be
unique, but its unobservability makes it merely one member of
the equivalence class of inertial frames -- _any_ inertial
frame can be assumed to be the ether frame without changing
the predictions of any viable ether theory. And since the
ether frame is intrinsically unobservable, assumptions and
guesses are all the ether advocate has.
O'Barr comments:
Speaking scientifically, the effects of the ether is seen
everywhere in every thing that occurs. Your above rant is so
sick that it does not even deserve an answer. Whether the
ether hits you like a hammer or not, is not of concern,
unless the theory requires it to do so. So who is being
stupid, and who is not understanding the theory???? If LET
can explain SR, if it can explain our reality perfectly, if
it can do all this with simple 3-d space and simple
independent time, and with simple Newtonian physics, and
simple addition of velocities, then it is superior to SR.
And if LET does all this with no breaks in symmetry, with no
jumps in time, with full and complete causality, it is
superior to SR. And if it only did just one of all these
things, it would be superior to SR. And if it can do all
these things, as it most certainly does, then it is superior
to SR. And anyone who cannot see this, and will not admit to
this, is being unscientific!
Tom Roberts wrote:
3) The assumption of a unique ether frame is directly
analogous to the assumption that there is a preferred frame
in a Euclidean space. It is absurd to claim that there _is_ a
preferred frame in Euclidean space but it is unobservable.
But that's essentially what the viable ether theories do.
O'Barr comments:
The assumption of an ether might be `analogous' to a
million things. Whenever an SR expert uses such words as
`analogous,' this is a clue that the SR expert does not have
a clue as to what is really going on. I am sorry, but Tom
Roberts, just as in his other paragraphs, is just using up
words. Since LET is totally equivalent, there is no
scientific or math ways that Roberts can present that would
show SR being better than LET. The reverse can be done,
because LET has more to offer, but since LET has everything
that SR has, there is no way that SR can be better than LET!
Tom Roberts wrote:
4) In every viable ether theory one's measurement tools must
change in an unobservable manner if one is moving wrt the
ether. This seems both counterintuitive and strange -- it's
as if these effects were diabolically constructed simply to
make the viable ether theories indistinguishable from SR. As
ether theories are a clear attempt to preserve an older,
seemingly "common sense" approach to physics, it seems
unreasonable to have tools change, because there is no
precedent for such behavior in our everyday lives, or in
older physical theories -- this is very much not "common
sense".
O'Barr comments:
How ever diabolical it might seem, how ever
counterintuitive and strange, no matter how it might seem to
be without common sense, we today do now observe our tools to
change. The paradox of the twins, in terms of atomic clocks,
prove that real changes do occur. And thus, the ether
concept is superior to any assumption that there are no
changes. Thus, you lose, and LET wins!!!!
Tom Roberts wrote:
5) In every viable ether theory except LET, the one-way
speed of light differs from c, but is unmeasurable. It seems
strange that slow clock transport does not give any method to
measure the one-way speed of light (such approaches always
measure c, not the "true" one-way speed of light). Indeed,
_ALL_ one-way speeds are subject to this, and rulers and
clocks cannot measure the "true" one-way speed of
_anything_ in a natural way; this includes police radar guns
and your automobile on the highway; the redshifts of distant
galaxies do not correspond to their "true" velocities; etc.
This is decidedly not "common sense".
O'Barr comments:
Be it any way you want, Roberts. But until you show any
reason why it cannot be these exact ways, you have no reasons
to complain! The ether gives complete and logical reasons
for everything that we see and observe, and it does all this
with the utmost simplicity. I am sorry if any of this
offends you, but that is the way it is!
Tom Roberts wrote:
6) Ether theories require a new postulate for every new
phenomenon that is discovered, which basically states that
the ether applies to it in the same ways the ether applies to
elecromagnetism. SR's symmetry principles automatically apply
to new phenomena, so SR has more explanatory power than ether
theory in this regard. Note that all phenomena discovered
since 1905 do indeed exhibit the local Lorentz invariance of
SR -- what is happenstance in ether theory was directly
predicted by SR. It seems surprising that the "gravitational
ether" has exactly the same underlying properties as the
"lumeniferous ether" and the "weak interaction ether" and the
"strong interaction ether", when these interactions differ so
enormously in strength (by a factor of more than 10^40), and
differ so wildly in their properties (e.g. gravitation and
electrodynamics lack the rich spectrum of particle and
resonances characteristic of the others). But SR naturally
and correctly predicts the local Lorentz invariance of these
vastly different phenomena.
O'Barr comments:
Sometimes ignorance is bliss! I must agree that there
are still a few mysteries around. What bothers me, is that
you take your Voodoo, and say there is no mystery in SR, and
then you take a simple, solid theory, a theory with full
causality like LET, and see mystery ever where. I do agree
that there are differences in the mysteries that might exist
in these two theories, but to say that one, which is
physical, is the more mysterious, is just beyond me. You
just do not have your head screwed on correctly!
Tom Roberts wrote:
In summary, there are good reasons for the ether to be absent
from modern physics; virtually all modern physicists consider
these reasons both cogent and sufficient (at least those
modern physicists who have actively considered the issue),
and no ether theory is part of modern physics. While the
viable ether theories are equivalent to SR in the sense that
they are experimentally indistinguishable, they are most
definitely NOT equivalent to SR in either mathematical
elegance, explanatory power, or suitability as a starting
point for further theories. But it is these latter properties
which are most important for the basic theories of physics.
O'Barr comments:
Take all the `elegance' you want, because that is all that
you will get. There is absolutely no `explanatory power' in
SR. It cannot even tell us if rulers really get shorter or
not. It cannot tell us anything, as to what really happens.
It cannot even explain itself. But LET can do all these
things. Too bad that SR has no power to even explain
anything. And in terms of `suitability as a starting point
for further theories,' only time will tell as to what we have
done to ourselves, where we have raised several generations
on what is only a math theory, with no causality.
I feel that time will not bode well, for you, Roberts.
Progress will come, and LET will be the superior. This is
certain, and you are living a dead approach! Voodoo is going
to go out-of-style, and realistic thinking will again be
important!
Thanks!!!!!!
Gerald L. O'Barr glo...@yahoo.com
Please Read: http://www.uc-online.com/absolute
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
(We need to improve the SR FAQ)
Jackie & Barry
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Quantum theory and the experiments related to it have repeatedly
> pounded home the lesson that one must not attempt to describe things
> which have not been observed or measured. This is a second powerful
> argument against the believability of ether theories.
There's a story about training elephants.
When they're young you attach one of their legs to a post, using a
strong chain.
Try as they might, they can't break that strong chain.
It gets "pounded home" to them that they can't escape. They give up
trying.
The chain is eventually replaced with a rope which they could easily
break. They don't break the rope, because they've given up trying.
By now, they don't even try to escape from their comfortable servitude.
They might even feel sorry for their untamed cousins, if they ever
discovered their unobserved existence.
Barry
Jim Carr
} The answer to all these questions can be summed up in a single word:
} Symmetry.
In article <i3g66in...@ilja-schmelzer.net>
Ilja Schmelzer <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> writes:
>
>And the main criticism can be summed up in a single word too: realism.
>
>We know since Bell's theorem an the observed violation of Bell's
>inequality that realism and Einstein causality are incompatible.
You continue to assume that these are the only two assumptions
required to derive Bell's Theorem and the CHSH inequality.
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
"The half of knowledge is knowing where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Motto over the entrance to Dodd Hall, former library at FSCW.
Jim Carr
djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) writes:
>
> ... the properties of light like Doppler, Sagnac, interference
>effects, frequency, wavelength, aberration, etc., seem like they were
>diabolically constructed to make light seem like a media process.
That would be a better view for you to adopt -- that you have
been completely fooled all along -- because the same statement
is true for neutrons and electrons and C60 molecules yet you
avoid talking about how they are also some vaguely defined
"media process" that somehow has the same properties as light
despite major differences between them and photons.
Jim Carr
... collecting two of DJMenCK's replies to the same article ...
Roberts wrote in article <3A7ECE28...@lucent.com> that:
}
} Symmetry in SR is a rich and varied topic. The basic symmetry of SR is
} Lorentz invariance, and the essence of SR is encapsulated in the
} statement that the laws of physics are locally Lorentz invariant (i.e.
} unchanged under the operation of any member of the Lorentz group). ...
}
} And none of the ether theories contain such a symmetry as a fundamental
} part of the theory (LET has an "accidental" Lorentz symmetry, but it is
} not a principle of the theory).
DJMenCK commented (in an earlier article in this thread
recorded at "2001-02-05 09:03:34 PST" by Google) that:
)
) Well, that's good because the symmetry inherent to SR has never been
) observed.
That is a very strong statement, one that cannot be supported
by giving just your own misrepresentation of what is implied
by one particular class of experiments:
) Everytime we have observed clock A lost time with respect to Clock
) B-- it is shown that Clock B has gained time with respect to Clock A.
What you have to do is show that *no* set of experiments has ever
demonstrated Lorentz symmetry by showing that the laws of physics
are locally Lorentz invariant or by showing that two sets of data
are consistent with that symmetry. IMO the demonstration of
Bjorken scaling, the Lorentz invariance of the form factors
obtained by CTEQ from the analysis of experiments using very
differently moving c-o-m coordinate systems, and the success of
QED argue against your claim. For you to say otherwise would
require that you show that Bjorken scaling is not an example
of Lorentz invariance. Please provide your proof or admit
that your claim was logically flawed.
(Further, the experiments you mention show that the laws of physics
are the same in different coordinate systems since those clocks are
observed to run consistent with QED in each inertial coordinate system
and the invariance of those results is consistent with its predictions
and those of relativity theory.)
Roberts continued in article <3A7ECE28...@lucent.com>:
}
} 4) In every viable ether theory one's measurement tools must change in
} an unobservable manner if one is moving wrt the ether. This seems
} both counterintuitive and strange -- it's as if these effects were
} diabolically constructed simply to make the viable ether theories
} indistinguishable from SR. As ether theories are a clear attempt to
} preserve an older, seemingly "common sense" approach to physics, it
} seems unreasonable to have tools change, because there is no
} precedent for such behavior in our everyday lives, or in older
} physical theories -- this is very much not "common sense".
In article <20010206155034...@ng-fi1.aol.com>
djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) writes:
>
>Roberts:(referring to LET type theories): "This seems both counterintuitive
>and strange."
>
>Now, that is rich.
Yes, it is quite "rich" that your version of what he says has
completely misrepresented his point by leaving out the part
about unobservable changes in the measurement tools that preceded
it, adding a period to suggest that is not there to imply that you
had quoted a complete sentence, and omitting the argument about
why unobservable changes in measuring tools conflicts with the main
goal of such modified ether theories.
>Here is a person who believes without question in
>mutual time dilation, curving space, massless particles, wave-particle
>duality, constant c, non-baryonic dark matter, ...
You failed to justify this comment with quotations, just as
you fail to explain where his "beliefs" (as defined by his
own, unedited, words) are contradicted by experiment. For
example, do you think the experiments done showing neutron
or C60 single-particle interference did not take place and
that there is no evidence for neutrino mass? Further, all
you do here is substitute ridicule for reasoned argument.
Do you really think that *Huygens* thought it was common
sense that rulers and clocks changed when you used a different
coordinate system?
Ilja Schmelzer
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> writes:
> } The answer to all these questions can be summed up in a single word:
> } Symmetry.
>
> In article <i3g66in...@ilja-schmelzer.net>
> Ilja Schmelzer <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> writes:
>>
>> And the main criticism can be summed up in a single word too: realism.
>>
>> We know since Bell's theorem an the observed violation of Bell's
>> inequality that realism and Einstein causality are incompatible.
>
> You continue to assume that these are the only two assumptions
> required to derive Bell's Theorem and the CHSH inequality.
Indeed. Using the definition of realism I use (see gr-qc/0001101) and
Einstein causality to reduce A(a,b,\lambda) (the dependence of the
measurement result A on the decisions of the experimenters a and b) to
A(a,\lambda), you immediately obtain formula (2) of Bell's paper.
What remains is simple math.
Whatever you like to interpret as a "loophole" in this proof is,
essentially, explicitly or implicitly part of my definition of
realism. My definition of realism has been designed in this way.
So, if you want to use any of the possible "loopholes", you have to
use an essentially weaker notion of realism in comparison with my
notion of realism.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> , http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Jim Carr
|
| Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> writes:
| } The answer to all these questions can be summed up in a single word:
| } Symmetry.
|
| In article <i3g66in...@ilja-schmelzer.net>
| Ilja Schmelzer <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> writes:
| > And the main criticism can be summed up in a single word too: realism.
| >
| > We know since Bell's theorem an the observed violation of Bell's
| > inequality that realism and Einstein causality are incompatible.
|
| You continue to assume that these are the only two assumptions
| required to derive Bell's Theorem and the CHSH inequality.
In article <i3gg0ha...@ilja-schmelzer.net>
Ilja Schmelzer <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> writes:
>
>Indeed. Using the definition of realism I use (see gr-qc/0001101) and
>Einstein causality to reduce A(a,b,\lambda) (the dependence of the
>measurement result A on the decisions of the experimenters a and b) to
>A(a,\lambda), you immediately obtain formula (2) of Bell's paper.
You did not say "some definition of realism that includes a
large number of assumptions not identified by that term by CHSH".
Or perhaps you have not identified all of your own hidden assumptions.
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they
come at you rapidly. (anon source via e-chain-letter)
Ilja Schmelzer
> | You continue to assume that these are the only two assumptions
> | required to derive Bell's Theorem and the CHSH inequality.
>> Indeed. Using the definition of realism I use (see gr-qc/0001101) and
>> Einstein causality to reduce A(a,b,\lambda) (the dependence of the
>> measurement result A on the decisions of the experimenters a and b) to
>> A(a,\lambda), you immediately obtain formula (2) of Bell's paper.
> You did not say "some definition of realism that includes a
> large number of assumptions not identified by that term by CHSH".
So what? I see no reason for assuming that CHSH subscribe to my
notion of realism. And of course it is easy to subdivide the
definition of realism into a large number of axioms, starting with the
axioms of Boolean logic and Kolmogorov's axioms for probability
theory.
> Or perhaps you have not identified all of your own hidden
> assumptions.
The assumptions are quite explicit and clear. Feel free to criticize
this definition, I have given you the source.