EPR Paradox - explanation requested

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Sacks

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
 
-- 
Ben Sacks
Home  :  (703) 566-5391
Cell  :  (703) 258-0935
email :  be...@cicero.uchicago.edu
Would someone please explain the EPR paradox. I have a good working knowledge of statistics, calculus, matrix algebra and am familiar with quantum mechanics in so far as I understand the double-slit experiment and wave interference but I am not familiar with the Schodinger wave equation etc. I specifically want to know what Bell's Inequality is and in what way the results of Aspects experiment either conform to or violate Bell's inequality and thus "disprove" the existence of local hidden variables - i.e. appear to involve action at a distance of some sort.

Bye the way - the FAQs I've been refered to seem to either omit a cruical part of the explanation or just get Bell's Inequality wrong because, the FAQ I've seen, has an inequality that is always satisfied by non-quantum systems and claims that satisfying it disproves local hidden-variable theory.
 
 

z@z

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
Hello Ben Sacks!

| I specifically want to know what Bell's Inequality is and
| in what way the results of Aspects experiment either conform to or
| violate Bell's inequality and thus "disprove" the existence of local
| hidden variables - i.e. appear to involve action at a distance of some
| sort.

Some years ago I had the same problem as you have now.
It is rather difficult to find the relevant principles
explained in a transparent and simple way.

I think, however, that in the meanwhile I really understand
the basic underlying principles. The principle of Bell's
argument becomes very simple if one uses polarization in a
plane instead of spin in 3 dimensions.

If have written the following rather short and simple texts
on EPR and and Bell's paradox (unfortunately in German):
http://members.lol.li/twostone/a1.html
http://members.lol.li/twostone/a2.html

In any case, it is wrong to claim that Aspect's experiment
actually has shown that such "spooky actions at a distance"
(Einstein) do exist. Here quote from Bell himself:

"Streng genommen werden diese irritierenden Korrelationen
in den Experimenten nicht nachgewiesen. Man kann feststellen,
dass die verwendeten Zähler zu leistungsschwach sind, dass
die Geometrie mangelhaft ist, nicht der ideale Versuchsaufbau
gelungen ist, und man muss gewaltige Extrapolationen vornehmen,
um ... "
Der Geist im Atom, 1988, ISBN 3-7643-1944-5, Seite 69)

Maybe, someone can provide the original of this quote from
the recommendable book 'The ghost in the atom. A discussion of
the mysteries of quantum physics', 1986, Cambridge University
Press.


Regrards, Wolfgang


P.S. Wouldn't it be better to use standard email-format
when posting on newsgroups?

Nathan Urban

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to

> Bye the way - the FAQs I've been refered to seem to either omit a
> cruical part of the explanation or just get Bell's Inequality wrong
> because, the FAQ I've seen, has an inequality that is always satisfied
> by non-quantum systems and claims that satisfying it disproves local
> hidden-variable theory.

Are you referring to the Physics FAQ? If so, what error do you find in
it, and have you contacted the author of that entry?

Richv928

unread,
Oct 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/11/99
to
EPR refers to a Gedanken Experiment postulated by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen
circa 1935. These chaps, angry with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
decided to test the concept using two particles that interact.

Essentially we measure the total momentum of a system of two particles, where
Ptot = P1 + P2. We allow the particles to interact, and one stays local to our
laboratory, the other flies off very far away. Now Heisenberg doesn't apply to
the distances between particles, only of individual particles.

We again measure the momentum of particle 1 after the collision and determine
its final momentum P1f. Knowing what Ptot was beforehand (it's conserved) - we
deduce the momentum of #2 as P2f, without having it at hand, when it reaches
the far off place.

Now EPR is logically able to determine each particle's momentum and final
positions precisely. Hence it appears the Heisenberg is violated. Since we
know P2 a priori.

But alas - Heisenberg is still valid. The reason - we haven't actually
determined the momentum, P2. And so we have persisted in the idea that P2 was
indeed in a definite state for particle #2 - but do we actually know that?? NO
- we don't.

Neils Bohr would say - OK tell me the momentum of the particle that flew off to
your far away lab? Ah Ha ya didn't!!


Bell's inequality is more sophisticated. Essentially we have a system of
atoms (positronium with a positron, e+, bound to an electron, e-. Upon
cascade (decay) the atoms annhilate and produce oppositely directed photons.
With a polarizer and detector we can detect each oppositely-directed beam.

Now if we rotate polarizer #1 wrt the other (#2) we get a string of hits and
misses, (1s and 0s). Likewise of we fix polarizer #1 and rotate polarizer #2
we get another string of hits and misses for the pair of photons. And so we
can get a count (identical) of 1s, and 0s called the sum of the errors of the
polarizers when each was rotated individually. this is called E(theta). So
their sum 2*E(theta) is a know commodity.

However, if we fix one polarizer and rotate the second by 2*theta the following
inequality holds.

E(2*theta) <= 2*E(theta) - and for classical experiments it holds quite well.
However in the case of photons it is always violated hence Bell's Inequality is
ALWAYS VIOLATED for paired photons from cascade decay. This means that the
photons are paired in their chamber (I conjectured this in 1971), and are now
called by other physicists as "Entwined' in their cascade. Indeed they are
entwined forever.

So put one polarizer on the moon and one in our lab - guess what you either
have the disconfirmation of all local hidden variable theories (or they are
entangled at infinity - which by the way I am exploring for the graviton - as
being non locally detectable) OR you have that desirable situation that the
Schroedinger eqn contains all ther is about QM phenomena.

Rich v

Frank Wappler

unread,
Oct 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/11/99
to
Rich v wrote:
> Essentially we measure the total momentum of a system of two particles,
> where Ptot = P1 + P2. [...]

> We again measure the momentum of particle 1 after the collision
> and determine its final momentum P1f.
> Knowing what Ptot was beforehand (it's conserved)

AFAIU, Ptot is conserved if the experimental region which contains
those two particles is "homogenious in the direction between" them;
and otherwise Ptot is _not necessarily_ conserved.

How would you determine whether or not the experimental region
containing those two particles has this special property,
in each individual trial?

> Bell's inequality is more sophisticated. [...]

> Now if we rotate polarizer #1 wrt the other (#2) we get a string of hits
> and misses, (1s and 0s). Likewise of we fix polarizer #1 and rotate
> polarizer #2 we get another string of hits and misses for the pair
> of photons. And so we can get a count (identical) of 1s, and 0s called
> the sum of the errors of the polarizers when each was rotated individually.
> this is called E(theta).

How do you determine whether and to which extent those two polarizers are
"rotated" wrt. each other at all, in each trial (or set of trials),
other than deriving "rotation angle theta" from the correlation
of hits and misses _itself_?

Also, how exactly is "E" defined in terms of hits and misses, 1s, and 0s?


> However, if we fix one polarizer and rotate the second by 2*theta

... again: how do you measure "2*theta" to begin with ...

> the following inequality holds E(2*theta) <= 2*E(theta)

That's not what I know as one of "Bell's inequalities".
Can you sketch its derivation, please?


Thanks, Frank W ~@) R

Gerry Quinn

unread,
Oct 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/11/99
to
In article <19991010234529...@ng-fy1.aol.com>, rich...@aol.comnospam (Richv928) wrote:
[--]

>
>E(2*theta) <= 2*E(theta) - and for classical experiments it holds quite well.
>However in the case of photons it is always violated hence Bell's Inequality is
>ALWAYS VIOLATED for paired photons from cascade decay. This means that the
>photons are paired in their chamber (I conjectured this in 1971), and are now
>called by other physicists as "Entwined' in their cascade. Indeed they are
>entwined forever.
>

In fact, the system <Photon 1 --- Source --- Photon 2> is a single
quantum system. It interacts atemporally, but there is no reason to
postulate that the interactions have any space-time locations other than
along this line.

This is only non-local if you postulate an arrow of time so that
advanced local interactions are defined as non-local. But the arrow of
time is inapplicable to this system.

- Gerry Quinn

Richv928

unread,
Oct 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/12/99
to
Gerry:

I have to reply to this and I refer you to the Photon Inversion experiment
conducted in 1998. There two oppositely directed photons were passed thru
polarizers. They were bounced of a succession of mirrors.

One beam was split and retained its polarization. then one of the split beams
was reversed polarized, all the while that the first of the pair was
transversing the mirrors.

Then one of the split beams was extinguished. Gues what happened to the
original photon?

It inverted its polarization. This hardly qualifies for a single QM event.

Rich V.

Jim Carr

unread,
Oct 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/17/99
to

... followups to sci.physics ...


Hello Ben Sacks!
}
} I specifically want to know what Bell's Inequality is and
} in what way the results of Aspects experiment either conform to or
} violate Bell's inequality and thus "disprove" the existence of local
} hidden variables - i.e. appear to involve action at a distance of some
} sort.

In article <7td03m$8g6$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>

"z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> writes:
>
>Some years ago I had the same problem as you have now.

You mean posting relativity questions in sci.physics, and
questions about non-relativistic quantum mechanics in
sci.physics.relativity?

I will comment that the basics of the EPR experiments are in the
FAQ, and that there has been extensive discussion of them over
the last few years in sci.physics. IMO the Weihs et al experiment
has eliminated most of the loopholes people like Caroline Thompson
have talked about over the years.

>In any case, it is wrong to claim that Aspect's experiment
>actually has shown that such "spooky actions at a distance"
>(Einstein) do exist. Here quote from Bell himself:
>
> "Streng genommen werden diese irritierenden Korrelationen
> in den Experimenten nicht nachgewiesen. Man kann feststellen,
> dass die verwendeten Zähler zu leistungsschwach sind, dass
> die Geometrie mangelhaft ist, nicht der ideale Versuchsaufbau
> gelungen ist, und man muss gewaltige Extrapolationen vornehmen,
> um ... "
> Der Geist im Atom, 1988, ISBN 3-7643-1944-5, Seite 69)

Bell wrote that 10 years before the definitive experiments were done.

In addition, "spooky actions at a distance" is just a phrase
science journalists use to get attention for their stories.

--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.

Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
In article <7udhrm$35b$1...@news.fsu.edu>,

j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>
> In addition, "spooky actions at a distance" is just a phrase
> science journalists use to get attention for their stories.

True. It is neither "spooky" not is it "action at a distance."
Einstein (and Minkowski and Newton and most physicists) was convinced
that space exists as a separate entity from matter and therein lies all
the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's inequality are telling us
is that there really is no space, and that position is an intrinsic
property. There is no FTL communication at a distance because there is
no distance between particles, regardless of how far away we think they
are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference between
two particle properties, not something that physically exists.

Louis Savain

-There exists only particles, their intrinsic properties and their
interactions. Everything else is superstition.
-Space (and spacetime) is an abstract mathematical construct, i.e., a
strong illusion based on real physical properties but an illusion
nonetheless.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to

Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's inequality
are telling us

> are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference between


> two particle properties, not something that physically exists.
>

In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.

Bob Kolker


Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
In article <380B69BB...@usa.net>,

"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
> Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's
> inequality are telling us

I wish you'd do a better job at quoting.

> > are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference
> > between two particle properties, not something that physically
> > exists.
> >
>
> In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
> every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.

You can believe anything you want. My messages are obviously being
wasted on you. Please don't read them because you're wasting your
time, and mine. Ciao!

Louis Savain

Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
In article <380B69BB...@usa.net>, Robert J. Kolker
<bobk...@usa.net> writes

>
>
>Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's inequality
>are telling us
>
>> are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference between
>> two particle properties, not something that physically exists.
>>
>
>In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
>every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.
>
We are expected to believe it if it is true, and there really isn't any
option. Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that
distance is a relationship found in particle interactions, not a pre-
existent property of an ontological manifold.

What we experience as three dimensional space is our interpretation of
sense data, not the fact of material reality.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909047
A Model of Classical and Quantum Measurement
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909048
Conceptual Foundations of Special and General Relativity
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051
A Pre-Geometric Model Exhibiting Physical Law
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909055
An Alternative Model of Quark Confinement

Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
In article <wdHtHIAQ...@clef.demon.co.uk>,

Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <380B69BB...@usa.net>, Robert J. Kolker
> <bobk...@usa.net> writes
> >
> >
> >Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's
> >inequality are telling us
> >
> >> are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference
> >> between two particle properties, not something that physically
> >> exists.
> >>
> >
> >In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
> >every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.
> >
> We are expected to believe it if it is true, and there really isn't
> any option. Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the
> idea that distance is a relationship found in particle interactions,
> not a pre-existent property of an ontological manifold.

>
> What we experience as three dimensional space is our interpretation of
> sense data, not the fact of material reality.
> --
> Charles Francis
> cha...@clef.demon.co.uk

Well put. I would caution that both Einstein and Minkowski (and most
relativists since) believed that space and spacetime have a physical
existence independent of matter. I'll dig up the quotes if needed.
Indeed, Einstein believed that spacetime curvature is a causal
explanation of gravity, one which did away with [Newtonian] action at a
distance. Of course nothing could be further from the truth.
Spacetime curvature is an abstract interpretation of the *effect* of
gravity, not the cause of gravity. GR has nothing to say regarding the
causal mechanism of gravity.

Louis Savain

-Nothing moves in spacetime.
-Nothing moves without cause.

Edward Green

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:

>In article <380B69BB...@usa.net>, Robert J. Kolker
><bobk...@usa.net> writes
>>
>>
>>Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's inequality
>>are telling us
>>
>>> are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference between
>>> two particle properties, not something that physically exists.
>>>
>>
>>In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
>>every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.
>>
>We are expected to believe it if it is true, and there really isn't any
>option. Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that
>distance is a relationship found in particle interactions, not a pre-
>existent property of an ontological manifold.
>
>What we experience as three dimensional space is our interpretation of
>sense data, not the fact of material reality.

Respectfully, I think you and Savain are adding a new attribute to
physical theory, "exists", whose empirical antecedents are suspect.

You are undoubtably correct that "three dimensional space is our
interpretation of the sense data", but what isn't? How would we know?
We assume there is something behind our sense data, but our only clues
to the structure of such a thing are persistence and parsimony.

Even then, nothing, once affirmed by sense data, is every truly
demolished. At best it is dethroned from its seat in the presumptive
"ontological manifold", to take a place squatting on the floor with
the rest of the derived concepts, before a new presumptive monarch.

Ed Green

Nathan Urban

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
In article <wdHtHIAQ...@clef.demon.co.uk>, Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:

> Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that
> distance is a relationship found in particle interactions, not a pre-
> existent property of an ontological manifold.

This is not true. Relativity is predicated purely on the geometry of
the spacetime manifold, and by itself postulates nothing about particle
interactions. Quantum mechanics is built upon the background spacetime
of relativity, and particle interactions take place upon that "stage".

Now, there _have_ been attempts to do what you describe -- namely, to take
distance as a relationship derived from particle interactions, and not
as a pre-existent geometric property of a background spacetime manifold.
In fact, this is precisely why Penrose invented spin networks; he wanted
to see if it was possible to do away with the "ontological spacetime
manifold". However, he was only partially successful in this endeavor.
Spin networks were only a toy model -- they assumed that particles had
only the property of spin and no other properties -- and they were only
successful in deriving a correct distance concept for space, not for
spacetime. Penrose has made attempts to generalize this model (twistors
were an idea born from it, IIRC), but has never managed to find a theory
that really succeeds in replacing spacetime with particle interactions.

Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found in particle
interactions or a pre-existent property of the spacetime manifold is
unknown. However, it is a fact that both quantum theory and relativity
theory as they exist today model distance using the latter and not
the former.

Frank Wappler

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
Nathan Urban wrote:
> Charles Francis wrote:

> > Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that
> > distance is a relationship found in particle interactions,

> > not a preexistent property of an ontological manifold.

AFAIU, both follow from the idea that certain relationships can be
unambiguously _measured_; that reproducible measurement procedures
can be formulated and conducted trial by trial, such that their
individual results (values) can be meaningfully compared to each other.

QM describes measured relations of particles (or more inclusively:
observers) with each other in general, based on the description of
measured pairwise relations,

while relativity, being a special case, is concerned with measurements
of pairwise coordinate relations (e.g. of calibration of ordered sets of
states/proper_time of pairs with each other; determination of pairwise
distance, velocity, etc.), and measurements derived from those pairwise
coordinate relations (curvature, surface, volume ...).

> This is not true. Relativity is predicated purely on the geometry of
> the spacetime manifold, and by itself postulates nothing about particle

> interactions. [...]


> Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found in particle
> interactions or a pre-existent property of the spacetime manifold is
> unknown.

How do you suggest that "geometry of the spacetime manifold" is to be
determined in the first place, trial by trial?, and

What do you mean by a "pre-existent property" unless you specify
_how to measure_ it?

> Now, there _have_ been attempts [...] to take distance as a relationship
> derived from particle interactions

Sure:
Einstein's calibration procedure and the associated distance definition,
by which to determine and to describe coordinate relations of particles
(or more inclusively: observers) based on their mutual observations
(their exchange of light signals) has been a most successful attempt;
IMHO, and also indicated by wide use of and reference to those
reproducible measurement procedures (SR) in the physics of this century.


Regards, Frank W ~@) R


Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
In article <7uib85$nvc$1...@crib.corepower.com>, Nathan Urban
<nur...@crib.corepower.com> writes

>In article <wdHtHIAQ...@clef.demon.co.uk>, Charles Francis
><cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
>
>> Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that
>> distance is a relationship found in particle interactions, not a pre-

>> existent property of an ontological manifold.
>
>This is not true. Relativity is predicated purely on the geometry of
>the spacetime manifold, and by itself postulates nothing about particle
>interactions. Quantum mechanics is built upon the background spacetime
>of relativity, and particle interactions take place upon that "stage".
>
>Now, there _have_ been attempts to do what you describe -- namely, to take
>distance as a relationship derived from particle interactions, and not
>as a pre-existent geometric property of a background spacetime manifold.
>In fact, this is precisely why Penrose invented spin networks; he wanted
>to see if it was possible to do away with the "ontological spacetime
>manifold". However, he was only partially successful in this endeavor.
>Spin networks were only a toy model -- they assumed that particles had
>only the property of spin and no other properties -- and they were only
>successful in deriving a correct distance concept for space, not for
>spacetime.

I have carried out necessary constructions and proofs

Conceptual Foundations of Special and General Relativity
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051
A Pre-Geometric Model Exhibiting Physical Law

--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk


Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
In article <7ui8bs$1ou$1...@panix2.panix.com>, Edward Green <e...@panix.com>
writes
>Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
>
>>>Louis Savain wrote:

>>>
>>>> are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference between
>>>> two particle properties, not something that physically exists.
>>>>
>>>
>>>In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
>>>every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.
>>>
>>We are expected to believe it if it is true, and there really isn't any

>>option. Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that


>>distance is a relationship found in particle interactions, not a pre-
>>existent property of an ontological manifold.
>>

>>What we experience as three dimensional space is our interpretation of
>>sense data, not the fact of material reality.
>
>Respectfully, I think you and Savain are adding a new attribute to
>physical theory, "exists", whose empirical antecedents are suspect.
>
>You are undoubtably correct that "three dimensional space is our
>interpretation of the sense data", but what isn't? How would we know?
>We assume there is something behind our sense data, but our only clues
>to the structure of such a thing are persistence and parsimony.
>
>Even then, nothing, once affirmed by sense data, is every truly
>demolished. At best it is dethroned from its seat in the presumptive
>"ontological manifold", to take a place squatting on the floor with
>the rest of the derived concepts, before a new presumptive monarch.
>

I think not. On the basis of observational data we may construe what
might cause our sense perceptions, not on the basis of interpretation,
but from observation and mathematical reason. If metaphysics can be
established from empiricism and mathematical reason then it is no
presumptive monarch but rightly becomes the throne. That is where
physical theory is leading us

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time

>>Charles Francis
>>cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
>>

--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk


Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
In article <7uihn3$9...@mary.csc.albany.edu>, Frank Wappler
<fw7...@csc.albany.edu> writes

>Nathan Urban wrote:
>> Charles Francis wrote:
>
>> > Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that
>> > distance is a relationship found in particle interactions,
>> > not a preexistent property of an ontological manifold.
>
>AFAIU, both follow from the idea that certain relationships can be
>unambiguously _measured_; that reproducible measurement procedures
>can be formulated and conducted trial by trial, such that their
>individual results (values) can be meaningfully compared to each other.
>
>QM describes measured relations of particles (or more inclusively:
>observers) with each other in general, based on the description of
>measured pairwise relations,
>
>while relativity, being a special case, is concerned with measurements
>of pairwise coordinate relations (e.g. of calibration of ordered sets of
>states/proper_time of pairs with each other; determination of pairwise
>distance, velocity, etc.), and measurements derived from those pairwise
>coordinate relations (curvature, surface, volume ...).
>
>> This is not true. Relativity is predicated purely on the geometry of
>> the spacetime manifold, and by itself postulates nothing about particle
>> interactions. [...]
>> Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found in particle
>> interactions or a pre-existent property of the spacetime manifold is
>> unknown.
>
>How do you suggest that "geometry of the spacetime manifold" is to be
>determined in the first place, trial by trial?, and
>
>What do you mean by a "pre-existent property" unless you specify
>_how to measure_ it?

Precisely. I am glad to find someone who understands this so well. My
papers, and what I say in these posts, only describe the standard model
of physics when it is correctly understood. And when it is correctly
understood we find that we need no further GUTs.

--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk


Edward Green

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:

>>Respectfully, I think you and Savain are adding a new attribute to
>>physical theory, "exists", whose empirical antecedents are suspect.
>>
>>You are undoubtably correct that "three dimensional space is our
>>interpretation of the sense data", but what isn't? How would we know?
>>We assume there is something behind our sense data, but our only clues
>>to the structure of such a thing are persistence and parsimony.
>>
>>Even then, nothing, once affirmed by sense data, is every truly
>>demolished. At best it is dethroned from its seat in the presumptive
>>"ontological manifold", to take a place squatting on the floor with
>>the rest of the derived concepts, before a new presumptive monarch.
>>
>I think not. On the basis of observational data we may construe what
>might cause our sense perceptions, not on the basis of interpretation,
>but from observation and mathematical reason. If metaphysics can be
>established from empiricism and mathematical reason then it is no
>presumptive monarch but rightly becomes the throne. That is where
>physical theory is leading us

Reason is not that strong. All we can do is guess and verify. There
is no way we can turn the crank, and come up with a fool-proof "this
is what there is, jack" result.

What is well-verified, is presumptively an aspect -- words chosen with
care -- of reality.


Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
In article <7uiv75$43e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain <louis_savain@my-
deja.com> writes

>In article <wdHtHIAQ...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
> Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
>> In article <380B69BB...@usa.net>, Robert J. Kolker
>> <bobk...@usa.net> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's
>> >inequality are telling us
>> >
>> >> are. Distance should be interpreted as an abstract difference
>> >> between two particle properties, not something that physically
>> >> exists.
>> >>
>> >
>> >In short we are expected not to believe in something we experience
>> >every waking moment of our lives. Sure we wont.
>> >
>> We are expected to believe it if it is true, and there really isn't
>> any option. Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the

>> idea that distance is a relationship found in particle interactions,
>> not a pre-existent property of an ontological manifold.

>>
>> What we experience as three dimensional space is our interpretation of
>> sense data, not the fact of material reality.
>> --
>> Charles Francis
>> cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
>
> Well put. I would caution that both Einstein and Minkowski (and most
>relativists since) believed that space and spacetime have a physical
>existence independent of matter. I'll dig up the quotes if needed.

One should separate his personal belief from his science. We do know
that Einstein had not resolved his "unified field theory", and with
hindsight it will be seen that the reason for this is tied to the
failure to drop ontological space-time altogether. I would rather
concentrate on what he had right, than what he had wrong, and give him
credit for knowing the difference between what he had established and
what he believed there was still to be established. Since he developed
the theory of relativity it is likely that he understood it better than
he described it.

--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk


Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
In article <7uj1sj$bf$1...@panix2.panix.com>, Edward Green <e...@panix.com>
writes
Reason, properly applied, is absolute. The ability of human beings to
apply it is fragile, but once we do apply it we can ascertain at our
leisure that it is perfect. Is 2+2 not going to be equal to 4, tomorrow?
The positivists have made a religious, not a rational, presumption that
we cannot demonstrate the material consistency of the universe, a
presumption which is already known by some to be false and which will be
consigned to the dustbin of superstitious belief, along with flat earth
and Ptolemy.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk


me...@cars3.uchicago.edu

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
In article <W4m0eUAX...@clef.demon.co.uk>, Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>Reason, properly applied, is absolute.

:-))))))))

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
In article <7uib85$nvc$1...@crib.corepower.com>,
nur...@vt.edu wrote:

>[snip]


>
> Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found in particle
> interactions or a pre-existent property of the spacetime manifold is
> unknown.

It is unknown to you because you must toe the usual stupid party
line. The irrefutable fact remains that spacetime could not possibly
have a pre-existent property because it is an abstract mathematical
construct. How can spacetime have physical properties if it is known
by everyone (it should be by now) that spacetime is 100% frozen from
the infinite past to the infinite future. Nothing moves in spacetime
(deny at your own detriment) and yet we observe motion. How can
something as ontologically impossible as spacetime have physical
properties?

> However, it is a fact that both quantum theory and relativity
> theory as they exist today model distance using the latter and not
> the former.

They can model it as much as they want but it's still rank
superstition and it does not belong in science. Crackpottery in high
places!

Louis Savain

Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
In article <7ui8bs$1ou$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
e...@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:
> Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
> >What we experience as three dimensional space is our interpretation
> >of sense data, not the fact of material reality.

>
> Respectfully, I think you and Savain are adding a new attribute to
> physical theory, "exists", whose empirical antecedents are suspect.

"Exists" simply means that something can be logically deduced to have
causal/physical properties. We are forever at the mercy of causality
in our efforts to understand nature. What are the empirical
antecedents of the existence of space/spacetime pray tell?

> You are undoubtably correct that "three dimensional space is our
> interpretation of the sense data", but what isn't? How would we know?
> We assume there is something behind our sense data, but our only clues
> to the structure of such a thing are persistence and parsimony.
>
> Even then, nothing, once affirmed by sense data, is every truly
> demolished. At best it is dethroned from its seat in the presumptive
> "ontological manifold", to take a place squatting on the floor with
> the rest of the derived concepts, before a new presumptive monarch.

I'd would like to strongly protest against this agnostic stance. I
am forever astonished at the hopelessly circular view that we can never
be sure of what we understand. If this view were true, how can one be
so certain of it in the midst of such oppressing uncertainty?

Louis Savain

Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
In article <PY$yGaAx1...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <7uiv75$43e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
<louis_...@my-deja.com> writes
> >In article <wdHtHIAQ...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
> > Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:

>[snip]
> >


> > Well put. I would caution that both Einstein and Minkowski (and
> >most relativists since) believed that space and spacetime have a
> >physical existence independent of matter. I'll dig up the quotes if
> >needed.
>
> One should separate his personal belief from his science. We do know
> that Einstein had not resolved his "unified field theory", and with
> hindsight it will be seen that the reason for this is tied to the
> failure to drop ontological space-time altogether. I would rather
> concentrate on what he had right, than what he had wrong, and give him
> credit for knowing the difference between what he had established and
> what he believed there was still to be established. Since he developed
> the theory of relativity it is likely that he understood it better
> than he described it.

Sorry, I make no such apology, for either Einstein or any physicist
who teaches that spacetime is a physical entity. IMO, it is one of the
most damaging concepts ever introduced in physics right up there with
acausal motion and exclusive relativity. Still, these false doctrines
do not invalidate the mathematical correctness of either SR and GR
(both are purely mathematical theories). They simply retard further
progress in our understanding of motion and gravity. Indeed, I believe
they are the major reasons that we have not come up with a truly
comprehensive and testable theory of the physical cause of gravity, one
which is strictly based on particles, their properties and their
interactions.

Louis Savain

-No particle "cares" about its motion relative to anything. Unless
it's psychic. If the only motion that exists is relative motion, then
all particles are psychic. Draw your own conclusion.

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to

Louis Savain wrote:

>
> "Exists" simply means that something can be logically deduced to have
> causal/physical properties. We are forever at the mercy of causality
> in our efforts to understand nature. What are the empirical
> antecedents of the existence of space/spacetime pray tell?

Rulers, range finders and clocks. Next question?


Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to

Louis Savain wrote:

>
> They can model it as much as they want but it's still rank
> superstition and it does not belong in science. Crackpottery in high
> places!

That rank superstition has produced the computer you rant and rave
your foolishness upon.

Bob Kolker


Frank Wappler

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
Charles Francis wrote:
> Frank Wappler [wrote:]

> > Nathan Urban wrote:
> > > Relativity is predicated purely on the geometry of the
> > > spacetime manifold, [...]

> > > Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found
> > > in particle interactions or a pre-existent property of
> > > the spacetime manifold is unknown.

> > How do you suggest that "geometry of the spacetime manifold"

> > is to be determined in the first place, trial by trial?, and

> > What do you mean by a "pre-existent property" unless you specify
> > _how to measure_ it?

> I am glad to find someone who understands this so well.

Well - thanks for the compliment.
Unfortunately, I have great difficulty to return it:

> My papers, and what I say in these posts, [...]

From http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058 and the little I've seen of
your posts you seem just as unconcerned about reproducible measurement
procedures as the poster to whom I directed my questions above.

For instance: you're discussing "accurate measurements by good clocks"
without prescribing a calibration procedure by which to detertmine
the relations between the individual ordered sets of states of
various clocks in the first place.

Are you unfamiliar with

> > Einstein's calibration procedure and the associated distance

> > definition [...] based on exchange of light signals,

Synge's procedure for determining "curvature" (via Heron's formula)
from measured pairwise distances, or

Malus' procedure for determining pairwise "orientation_angle"
from correlated counts?

Or do you suggest that those are not reproducible?,
and/or do suggest any other measurement procedures?

> [...] only describe the standard model of physics when it is

> correctly understood. And when it is correctly understood
> we find that we need no further GUTs.

I'll take a closer look at your paper, and I may post some further
questions or comments.
My understanding of certain characteristics of the standard model derives
from the (presumably interesting) question how a pair of observers could
measure/agree on any statement at all, given their mutual observations.
That someone else should ask the same questions without realizing it
would be just as surprising as if the attempt to address a different
set of questions would imply the same standard model.


Best regards, Frank W ~@) R


Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In article <380E165E...@usa.net>,

You're a pompous idiot Kolker. BTW, don't bother responding to my
posts any more because I won't see them.

Louis Savain

Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In article <7ulelg$3...@mary.csc.albany.edu>, Frank Wappler
<fw7...@csc.albany.edu> writes

>Charles Francis wrote:
>> Frank Wappler [wrote:]
>> > Nathan Urban wrote:
>> > > Relativity is predicated purely on the geometry of the
>> > > spacetime manifold, [...]
>> > > Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found
>> > > in particle interactions or a pre-existent property of
>> > > the spacetime manifold is unknown.
>
>> > How do you suggest that "geometry of the spacetime manifold"
>> > is to be determined in the first place, trial by trial?, and
>
>> > What do you mean by a "pre-existent property" unless you specify
>> > _how to measure_ it?
>
>> I am glad to find someone who understands this so well.
>
>Well - thanks for the compliment.
>Unfortunately, I have great difficulty to return it:
>
>> My papers, and what I say in these posts, [...]
>
>From http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058 and the little I've seen of
>your posts you seem just as unconcerned about reproducible measurement
>procedures as the poster to whom I directed my questions above.

Obviously I see the need for such things. But the formalism of bras and
kets is an abstract way of discussing the results of measurement with
becoming embroiled in the details.

>
>For instance: you're discussing "accurate measurements by good clocks"
>without prescribing a calibration procedure by which to detertmine
>the relations between the individual ordered sets of states of
>various clocks in the first place.
>
>Are you unfamiliar with
>
>> > Einstein's calibration procedure and the associated distance
>> > definition [...] based on exchange of light signals,
>

I have removed this from 9905058 on the grounds that the paper is
already long, that this is (or rather should be) well known and well
understood, and because there is a brief (though I hope adequate)
discussion in http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051

>Synge's procedure for determining "curvature" (via Heron's formula)
>from measured pairwise distances, or
>
>Malus' procedure for determining pairwise "orientation_angle"
>from correlated counts?

My background is in qed, and while I can see clearly how curvature
arises in the model my exposition is weak, except as a conceptual
introduction. I would appreciate references, since none of Synge nor
Malus nor Heron appear in Wald or MTW.

>
>
>> [...] only describe the standard model of physics when it is
>> correctly understood. And when it is correctly understood
>> we find that we need no further GUTs.
>
>I'll take a closer look at your paper, and I may post some further
>questions or comments.

I look forward to it.

>My understanding of certain characteristics of the standard model derives
>from the (presumably interesting) question how a pair of observers could
>measure/agree on any statement at all, given their mutual observations.
>That someone else should ask the same questions without realizing it
>would be just as surprising as if the attempt to address a different
>set of questions would imply the same standard model.
>

I find it more surprising that after more than seventy years of
relativity and quantum mechanics there are so few people who seem able
to ask a correct set of questions, and think clearly enough about them
to find correct answers, less surprising if there are differences in the
actual questions asked. So long as both questioners are asking genuine
questions about the universe and how we measure it, I think it
unsurprising if they end up describing the same universe.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time

Conceptual Foundations of Special and General Relativity
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051
A Pre-Geometric Model Exhibiting Physical Law

Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In article <7ulh4l$t4g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain <louis_savain@my-
deja.com> writes

I think we have, it is the standard model, but it is the bigotry of
working physicists who do not realise that SR & GR are mathematical
theories and corrupt the model with false ideas. I believe Newton made
clear that he regarded space and time as mathematical idealisations, not
real physical things, but many smaller minds have not been able to see
what he said. I would not like to suggest that Einstein did not know
this, simply on the grounds that someone may have misinterpreted what
Einstein believed.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk


Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In article <Y9R1MsAi...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <7ulh4l$t4g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
<louis_...@my-deja.com> writes
>[snip]

> > Sorry, I make no such apology, for either Einstein or any physicist
> >who teaches that spacetime is a physical entity. IMO, it is one of
> >the most damaging concepts ever introduced in physics right up there
> >with acausal motion and exclusive relativity. Still, these false
> >doctrines do not invalidate the mathematical correctness of either
> >SR and GR (both are purely mathematical theories). They simply
> >retard further progress in our understanding of motion and gravity.
> >Indeed, I believe they are the major reasons that we have not come
> >up with a truly comprehensive and testable theory of the physical
> >cause of gravity, one which is strictly based on particles, their
> >properties and their interactions.
>
> I think we have, it is the standard model,

I don't see that. The standard model does not explain why no
particle can go faster than c. It does not give a causal explanation
for gravity and gravitational time dilation. Both acausal motion and
exclusive relativity are ingrained assumptions of the standard model.
Unless one groks that all movements must have a causal mechanism and
that the only motion that physically exists in nature (see below) is
absolute motion, one does not really understand motion.

> but it is the bigotry of
> working physicists who do not realise that SR & GR are mathematical
> theories and corrupt the model with false ideas. I believe Newton made
> clear that he regarded space and time as mathematical idealisations,
> not real physical things, but many smaller minds have not been able
> to see what he said.

This is true as far as the Principia itself is concerned but Newton
in many of his writings insisted in the existence of a physical space
separate from matter. This was a major point of contention between him
and his nemesis Leibniz.

> I would not like to suggest that Einstein did
> not know this, simply on the grounds that someone may have
> misinterpreted what Einstein believed.

Einstein made it clear that he considered the existence of space to
be independent of matter. Here is a quote from "Relativity: The
Special and the General Theory" in the fifth appendix:

"What is the position of the special theory of relativity in
regard to the problem of space?...The rigid four-dimensional
space of the special theory of relativity is to some extent
a four-dimensional analogue of H. A. Lorentz's rigid three-
dimensional aether. For this theory also the following
statement is valid: The description of physical states
postulates space as being initially given and as existing
independently."

I don't see much room for misinterpretation here, if that is what you
are implying. The fact, however painful, is that, on this issue,
Einstein was as wrong as can be. The end result has been a virtual
halt in our further understanding of motion and gravity since.

Louis Savain

-A particle in motion or rest does not "care" about its motion or rest
(and position) relative to anything, unless it has psychic abilities.
Consequently, if nature does not "care" about relative motion, why do
physicists base their entire physics on the assumption that relative
motion is the only motion that exists? Is this an example of mass
stupidity or is it just politics as usual?

Michael Kagalenko

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
Louis Savain (louis_...@my-deja.com) wrote
]In article <7uib85$nvc$1...@crib.corepower.com>,
] nur...@vt.edu wrote:
]
]>[snip]
]>
]> Whether distance in our universe is a relationship found in particle

]> interactions or a pre-existent property of the spacetime manifold is
]> unknown.
]
] It is unknown to you because you must toe the usual stupid party

]line. The irrefutable fact remains that spacetime could not possibly
]have a pre-existent property because it is an abstract mathematical
]construct. How can spacetime have physical properties if it is known
]by everyone (it should be by now) that spacetime is 100% frozen from
]the infinite past to the infinite future. Nothing moves in spacetime
](deny at your own detriment) and yet we observe motion. How can
]something as ontologically impossible as spacetime have physical
]properties?
]
]> However, it is a fact that both quantum theory and relativity
]> theory as they exist today model distance using the latter and not
]> the former.
]
] They can model it as much as they want but it's still rank

]superstition and it does not belong in science. Crackpottery in high
]places!
]
]Louis Savain
]
]-Nothing moves without cause.

I forgot to add Louis Savain to the canonical crackpots list.


Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
In article <7ul3kj$j40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain <louis_savain@my-
deja.com> writes

> I'd would like to strongly protest against this agnostic stance. I
>am forever astonished at the hopelessly circular view that we can never
>be sure of what we understand. If this view were true, how can one be
>so certain of it in the midst of such oppressing uncertainty?

We can be certain of its negation, even if we do not yet know what that
negation entails. We can be certain that there is an ultimate simple
theory, which will complete physics and that everyone who says otherwise
is not a good philosopher of science.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk


Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
In article <7uo0ro$md2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain <louis_savain@my-
deja.com> writes

>In article <Y9R1MsAi...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
> Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
>> In article <7ulh4l$t4g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
><louis_...@my-deja.com> writes
>>[snip]
>> > Sorry, I make no such apology, for either Einstein or any physicist
>> >who teaches that spacetime is a physical entity. IMO, it is one of
>> >the most damaging concepts ever introduced in physics right up there
>> >with acausal motion and exclusive relativity. Still, these false
>> >doctrines do not invalidate the mathematical correctness of either
>> >SR and GR (both are purely mathematical theories). They simply
>> >retard further progress in our understanding of motion and gravity.
>> >Indeed, I believe they are the major reasons that we have not come
>> >up with a truly comprehensive and testable theory of the physical
>> >cause of gravity, one which is strictly based on particles, their
>> >properties and their interactions.
>>
>> I think we have, it is the standard model,
>
> I don't see that. The standard model does not explain why no
>particle can go faster than c. It does not give a causal explanation
>for gravity and gravitational time dilation. Both acausal motion and
>exclusive relativity are ingrained assumptions of the standard model.
>Unless one groks that all movements must have a causal mechanism and
>that the only motion that physically exists in nature (see below) is
>absolute motion, one does not really understand motion.
>

?????? Belief in causality to this degree is religion, not science. It
would be more accurate to say that there is no motion at all for a
particle in isolation.

>
> Einstein made it clear that he considered the existence of space to
>be independent of matter. Here is a quote from "Relativity: The
>Special and the General Theory" in the fifth appendix:
>
> "What is the position of the special theory of relativity in
> regard to the problem of space?...The rigid four-dimensional
> space of the special theory of relativity is to some extent
> a four-dimensional analogue of H. A. Lorentz's rigid three-
> dimensional aether. For this theory also the following
> statement is valid: The description of physical states
> postulates space as being initially given and as existing
> independently."
>
> I don't see much room for misinterpretation here, if that is what you
>are implying. The fact, however painful, is that, on this issue,
>Einstein was as wrong as can be. The end result has been a virtual
>halt in our further understanding of motion and gravity since.
>

agreed. It is surprising that Einstein had not understood the basis of
his own theory.


--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk


David Elm

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

Louis Savain wrote:


> Unless one groks that all movements must have a causal mechanism and
> that the only motion that physically exists in nature (see below) is
> absolute motion, one does not really understand motion.
>

Its not often I've seen a clear reverence to Heinlein these days.
Drink deeply and never thirst!

-- David Elm

Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
In article <DirDrOAV...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <7uo0ro$md2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
<louis_...@my-deja.com> writes
>[snip]

> > I don't see that. The standard model does not explain why no
> >particle can go faster than c. It does not give a causal explanation
> >for gravity and gravitational time dilation. Both acausal motion and
> >exclusive relativity are ingrained assumptions of the standard model.
> >Unless one groks that all movements must have a causal mechanism and
> >that the only motion that physically exists in nature (see below) is
> >absolute motion, one does not really understand motion.
>
> ?????? Belief in causality to this degree is religion, not science.

You're kidding me? Causality is the most empirically confirmed
postulate ever. To assume that motion is an exception to the rule of
cause and effect is more than just irresponsible science, it's akin to
medieval superstition.

> It
> would be more accurate to say that there is no motion at all for a
> particle in isolation.

Sorry, this is nonsense. The motion of a particle has nothing to do
with whether or not it is in isolation, unless the particle is psychic
and is somehow "aware" of the presence/absence of other objects. At
this point I sense that our exchange has come to an end. Exclusive
relativity is one the most stupid and damaging doctrines of modern
science. I don't think I can have a meaningful debate with anyone who
subscribes to something so patently absurd. Ciao!

Louis Savain

Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
In article <381041D4...@mediaone.net>,
David Elm <davi...@mediaone.net> wrote:

>
>
> Louis Savain wrote:
>
> > Unless one groks that all movements must have a causal mechanism and
> > that the only motion that physically exists in nature (see below) is
> > absolute motion, one does not really understand motion.
> >
>
> Its not often I've seen a clear reverence to Heinlein these days.
> Drink deeply and never thirst!

It's a rare opportunity to be able to share water with complete
strangers.

Louis Savain

PS. Heinlein is a must for any lover of Sci-fi.

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

Charles Francis wrote:

> We can be certain of its negation, even if we do not yet know what that
> negation entails. We can be certain that there is an ultimate simple
> theory, which will complete physics and that everyone who says otherwise
> is not a good philosopher of science.

How can you be certain that the last word in physical theories will be
simple?

We have not gotten their yet and current theories are complicated.

How can you be sure there will be an ultimate (in the logical sense)
theory at all?

Bob Kolker

Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
In article <$Rv8nrAG...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <7ul3kj$j40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
<louis_savain@my-
> deja.com> writes

> > I'd would like to strongly protest against this agnostic stance.
> > I am forever astonished at the hopelessly circular view that we
> > can never be sure of what we understand. If this view were true,
> > how can one be so certain of it in the midst of such oppressing
> > uncertainty?
>
> We can be certain of its negation, even if we do not yet know what
> that negation entails. We can be certain that there is an ultimate
> simple theory, which will complete physics and that everyone who says
> otherwise is not a good philosopher of science.

I agree.

Louis Savain

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

Louis Savain wrote:

> You're kidding me? Causality is the most empirically confirmed
> postulate ever. To assume that motion is an exception to the rule of
> cause and effect is more than just irresponsible science, it's akin to
> medieval superstition.
>

Consider a radioactive substance. A certain percent of the atoms in
the collection of atoms will split and the others will not (in any given
interval). If the atoms are all identical then why should some split and
others not. If the atoms are not all identical how do they differ one from
the other. There indications are that processes at the subatomic level
are random with know statistics. Where is causality here?

It turns out the Quantum Mechanics which is firmly based on non
deterministic causality is the most successful scientific theory ever
produced. Why is it so successful?

Bob Kolker

Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
In article <3810722C...@usa.net>, Robert J. Kolker
<bobk...@usa.net> writes

>
>
>Charles Francis wrote:
>
>> We can be certain of its negation, even if we do not yet know what that
>> negation entails. We can be certain that there is an ultimate simple
>> theory, which will complete physics and that everyone who says otherwise
>> is not a good philosopher of science.
>
>How can you be certain that the last word in physical theories will be
>simple?
>
By the inductive argument that nature can be broken down into simpler
and simpler units, and because there is no scientific justification of
infinity. This enough for me to be certain, though I do not believe in
the possibility of mathematical proof for such an argument.

>We have not gotten their yet and current theories are complicated.
>

Not in their most fundamental forms. In its discrete reformulation, qed
describes a simple model of electroweak interactions and the origin of
curvature in space-time, unifying it with gravity, and in which is
fairly easy to postulate strong interactions.


http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909055
An Alternative Model of Quark Confinement

>How can you be sure there will be an ultimate (in the logical sense)
>theory at all?
>

We are much further from that, it is one thing to describe the
mechanical laws of matter, quite another to explain consciousness.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk


Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/23/99
to
In article <7ulm5v$4ln$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu>,
mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu wrote:

> I forgot to add Louis Savain to the canonical crackpots list.

I too have a crackpot list. But you're way too chicken shit to be in
it. See ya!

c.h.thompson

unread,
Oct 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/23/99
to

Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7ul1es$hj8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> They can model it as much as they want but it's still rank
> superstition and it does not belong in science. Crackpottery in high
> places!

You seem to have drifted from the original topic but never mind. Your
remark is still relevant: the whole EPR paradox is "crackpottery"!

In case anyone really wants to know, what it amounts to is that back in 1935
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen wrote this paper showing that quantum theory
made some impossible predictions. By the time anyone came near to being
able to test them (the late 1960's) QT was well entrenched and had become
used to using its own logic. That logic seems to have said, among other
things, that if you couldn't disprove something experimentally it must be
true, regardless of how impossible it seemed!

Anyway, so far as I'm concerned, EPR proved that QT was impossible and they
were right. However, the experiments couldn't prove QT wrong, but if you
look at my web site you will find some of the reasons why. The
experimenters had forgotten how to search for true causes of things! They
did not dare explore alternative hypotheses to the full, as this would have
meant challenging QT ideas on the existence of the photon, as well as the
existence of "entanglement" and that action at a distance.

So there is no "EPR paradox", only an EPR proof of the impossibility of QT
being a true model of our world. Unfortunately Einstein himself believed in
"photons", so he might have had difficulty in accepting my explanations of
how the actual "Bell test" experiments work. Have a look for yourself,
though, at my site. I've looked hard at the details of experiments such as
Aspect's. In order to see what is going on, you need to look also at
related experiments that are supposed to establish the particle nature of
light. They don't.

Caroline Thompson

--
Caroline H Thompson
Department of Computer Science
University of Wales Aberystwyth, SY23 3DB, UK
<http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat>

Frank Wappler

unread,
Oct 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/23/99
to
Charles Francis wrote:

> Frank Wappler [wrote:]


> > From http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058 and the little I've
> > seen of your posts you seem just as unconcerned about

> > reproducible measurement procedures as [...]

> Obviously I see the need for such things. [...]

Having read a little more, I find my remark above an overstatement
and I apologize for having been indiscriminate. However ...

> > Are you unfamiliar with
> > Einstein's calibration procedure and the associated distance
> > definition [...] based on exchange of light signals,

> there is a brief (though I hope adequate) discussion in
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051

and there (p. 3):

. Once clocks are separated, there is no way to synchronize them directly,
. but, according to the principle of homogeneity, two clocks will give
. the same unit of time if the physical processes in each are identical.

... indicates that you _are_ unfamiliar with calibration procedures
in general: how should be _determined whether_ or to which extent
"physical processes in" of two distinct clocks are "identical"
in the first place, especially while they're separated?

Einstein's calibration procedure is a (and AFAIK the conventional)
solution:

"Pairs of events/states/clock_readings/proper_times of two observers
correspond to each other (they are simultaneous) if they contain
observations of the same light signals from the middle between
those two observers".

(The most explicit equivalent statement of this procedure that I know
is in A. Einstein, Relativity. The special and the general theory,
sect. viii: On the idea of time in physics.)

You do state a distance definition

. The distance of an event is half the elapsed time for light
. to go from the clock to the event and return to the clock.
. The time at which the signal is reflected is the mean time
. between between when it is sent and when it returns.

which corresponds loosely to what I understand of
Ann. d. Physik 17, 891 (1905):

"Distance of a pair of observers wrt. each other is

c/2 * light_signal_roundtrip_interval;
if the beginning and end states of that interval, and the state
of reflecting the light signal, have been calibrated between
those two observers through Einstein's calibration procedure".

Note that the distance definition (on which we seem to agree)
_requires completed_ calibration procedures already:
The pair of times/states "end/returned_signal", and "beginning/go_signal",
which constitute the interval that's supposed to represent the
measurement are times/states only of _one_ observer (A),
not of the _other_ (B).

There's no measurement obtained if the result stated by (A)
couldn't be reproduced/understood by (B) in his/her/its own terms,
as an interval between _own_ times/states.
In turn, the time/state of "reflecting the light signal" is a priori
a state only of (B), not of (A); it must be calibrated between
those two observers in order to be mutually meaningful.

This raises the question who/what if anyone/thing is meant by
"the middle" in Einstein's calibration procedure, _before and without_
having the notion of measured pairwise distances available already.

AFAIU, as I use, and as I suggested in the newsgroup before,

"the middle between" a given pair of observers, A and B, trial by trial,
may be identified as the (auxiliary) observer (or observer system)
who satisfies the following requirements:

- "the middle" must find the light signal roundtrip interval
to A (and back) same as to B (and back);
- A must find two roundtrips to "the middle" same as one to B;
- B must find two roundtrips to "the middle" same as one to A;
(one can formulate additional requirements, involving additional
auxiliary observers).


> > Synge's procedure for determining "curvature" (via Heron's formula)
> > from measured pairwise distances, or

> > Malus' procedure for determining pairwise "orientation_angle"
> > from correlated counts?

> I would appreciate references, since none of Synge nor Malus nor

> Heron appear in Wald or MTW.

J.L. Synge, Relativity. The General Theory, p. 408, presents a "Five-point
curvature detector", which employs Heron's formula for the volume of a
tetrahedron in terms of the pairwise distances between its vertices.
(Btw., that's mentioned in Ciufolini/Wheeler, Gravitation and Inertia.)

Essentially, given the measured values of pairwise distances AB, AC, BC,
etc., of a quintuple A, B, C, D, E of observers wrt. each other,
trial by trial, the region containing those five is called "flat",
in this trial, if

sqrt( det{ 0 AB^2 AC^2 AD^2 1
AB^2 0 BC^2 BD^2 1
AC^2 BC^2 0 CD^2 1
AD^2 BD^2 CD^2 0 1
1 1 1 1 0 } ) +

sqrt( det{ 0 AB^2 AC^2 AE^2 1
AB^2 0 BC^2 BE^2 1
AC^2 BC^2 0 CE^2 1
AE^2 BE^2 CE^2 0 1
1 1 1 1 0 } ) =


sqrt( det{ 0 DE^2 DA^2 DB^2 1
DE^2 0 EA^2 EB^2 1
DA^2 EA^2 0 AB^2 1
DB^2 EB^2 AB^2 0 1
1 1 1 1 0 } ) +

sqrt( det{ 0 DE^2 DB^2 DC^2 1
DE^2 0 EB^2 EC^2 1
DB^2 EB^2 0 BC^2 1
DC^2 EC^2 BC^2 0 1
1 1 1 1 0 } ) +

sqrt( det{ 0 DE^2 DC^2 DA^2 1
DE^2 0 EC^2 EA^2 1
DC^2 EC^2 0 CA^2 1
DA^2 EA^2 CA^2 0 1
1 1 1 1 0 } )

(where det{ M } denotes the determinant of matrix M).


(Synge's actual procedure is not stated in terms of measured pairwise
distances, but simply through various light signal roundtrip intervals
observed by any _one_ point/observer/clock.
The five points might thereby obtain _different_ individual results
about the "curvature" of the region in which they are contained,
in any particular trial; i.e. not necessarily a _measurement_.)


For Malus' procedure I didn't find in QM text books either (not even
mentioned by his compatriots, in QM by Cohen-Tannoudji et. al.),
but only general encyclopedic references.

Nevertheless, Malus' definition of "orientation_angle" in terms of
"intensity" (or pairwise correlations) seems widely understood and used:

"orientation_angle =

1/2 arccos( Sum_{ trials k }_(
(Ap_k Bx_k + Aq_k By_k - Ap_k By_k - Aq_k Bx_k) /
(Ap_k Bx_k + Aq_k By_k + Ap_k By_k + Aq_k Bx_k) ) ) =

1/2 arccos( Sum_{ trials k }_(
2 (Ap_k Bx_k + Aq_k By_k) /
(Ap_k Bx_k + Aq_k By_k + Ap_k By_k + Aq_k Bx_k) - 1 ) ) =

arccos( sqrt( Sum_{ trials k }_(
(Ap_k Bx_k + Aq_k By_k) /
(Ap_k Bx_k + Aq_k By_k + Ap_k By_k + Aq_k Bx_k) ) ) ) =

arccos( sqrt( Intensity ) ),

where Ap_k and Aq_k denote the counts in trial k obtained in one
particular two-valued coordinate system, A_{ p, q },
Bx_k and By_k denote the counts in the same trial k obtained in another
two-valued coordinate system, B_{ x, y },
and the "orientation_angle" is to be measured from those correlated counts,
as a relation of those two coordinate systems wrt. each other, in this
particular set of trials.

For example, one might measure the "orientation_angle" of coordinate
systems A_{ on, off } and B_{ hit, no_hit } wrt. each other.

Terms of the form "cos( angle )" can be found throughout many
QM text books. If those terms weren't defined via Malus' procedure,
then how else, if at all?


> > I'll take a closer look at your paper, and I may post some further
> > questions or comments.

> I look forward to it.

Well, here's are at least a few preliminary impressions:

You seem to be making extensive use of "creation operators" and
. the idea that particles of the same type are identical.

Fine; but the question arises
_how to determine whether or to which extent_
particles are pairwise "of the same type" and/or "identical".

Perhaps, given that there are quite independent ways for obtaining
what you derive (i.e. most notably Dirac's and Maxwell's equations),
your approach may _in turn provide_ such a procedure in the first place.


Best regards, Frank W ~@) R


p.s.

Further, since you mentioned that

> > > My papers [...] describe the standard model

I was a little disappointed that you didn't derive some of its main
features: three spatial dimensions, three particle generations,
spin 1/2 constituents. But without explicitly considering
calibration procedures I wouldn't know how to derive those either.


Tom Roberts

unread,
Oct 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/23/99
to
Louis Savain wrote:
> The standard model does not explain why no
> particle can go faster than c.

Sure it does: The standard model is locally Lorentz invariant.

If you don't accept that as explanation, then please tell me what sort
of "explanation" you would accept for the fact that the length of a
meter stick remains 1 meter no matter how it is oriented?

The constancy of the speed of light is isomorphic to that, and c
as a speed limit for timelike objects inevitably follows.


> It does not give a causal explanation
> for gravity and gravitational time dilation.

Because in GR these are _geometrical_ effects, not physical ones. You
attempt to restrict the universe to conform to your personal predjudices,
and then complain when modern physical theories do not conform to them.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/24/99
to
In article <38120...@news2.vip.uk.com>,

"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@newscientist.net> wrote:
>
> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7ul1es$hj8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > They can model it as much as they want but it's still rank
> > superstition and it does not belong in science. Crackpottery
> >in high places!
>
> You seem to have drifted from the original topic but never mind. Your
> remark is still relevant: the whole EPR paradox is "crackpottery"!

I may disagree with the modeling of space as if it were a physical
entity with a priori physical properties, but that does not mean I
reject QT altogether. We seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum
when it comes to quantum entanglement.

> In case anyone really wants to know, what it amounts to is that back
> in 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen wrote this paper showing that
> quantum theory made some impossible predictions. By the time anyone
> came near to being able to test them (the late 1960's) QT was well
> entrenched and had become used to using its own logic. That logic
> seems to have said, among other things, that if you couldn't disprove
> something experimentally it must be true, regardless of how
> impossible it seemed!

I could say the same thing to those who subscribe to exclusive
relativity and acausal motion but there is a flip side to this argument
that weakens it considerably: just because you think something is
impossible does not necessarily mean it is.

> Anyway, so far as I'm concerned, EPR proved that QT was impossible
> and they were right. However, the experiments couldn't prove QT
> wrong, but if you look at my web site you will find some of the
> reasons why. The experimenters had forgotten how to search for true
> causes of things! They did not dare explore alternative hypotheses
> to the full, as this would have meant challenging QT ideas on the
> existence of the photon, as well as the existence of "entanglement"
> and that action at a distance.
>
> So there is no "EPR paradox", only an EPR proof of the impossibility
> of QT being a true model of our world. Unfortunately Einstein
> himself believed in "photons", so he might have had difficulty in
> accepting my explanations of how the actual "Bell test" experiments
> work. Have a look for yourself, though, at my site. I've looked
> hard at the details of experiments such as Aspect's. In order to see
> what is going on, you need to look also at related experiments that
> are supposed to establish the particle nature of light. They don't.
>
> Caroline Thompson

Well I completely disagree. The so-called wave nature of light is a
sham, IMO. Ondulatory phenomena are *macroscopic* phenomena. As such
they could not possibly be part of the nature of light since the nature
of light forcibly resides in the realm of the microscopic. The problem
with waves is that they require the existence of continuous
structures. Let me come right out and say that I think continuity is
one of the most crackpotish concept ever invented by science. The
universe is discrete.

Having said that, I'll go ahead and take a close look at your ideas.
I'm not one to hold on to my erroneous views in the face of strong
evidence or arguments to the contrary. If I think your objections are
valid I'll be the first to switch sides. But I doubt very much that I
will. Quantum entanglement is in perfect agreement with my
understanding of nature. It is a direct concequence of the ONENESS of
the UNIverse, as the name implies.

Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/24/99
to
In article <7utcn2$7...@mary.csc.albany.edu>, Frank Wappler

<fw7...@csc.albany.edu> writes
>Charles Francis wrote:
>
>. Once clocks are separated, there is no way to synchronize them directly,
>. but, according to the principle of homogeneity, two clocks will give
>. the same unit of time if the physical processes in each are identical.
>
>... indicates that you _are_ unfamiliar with calibration procedures
>in general: how should be _determined whether_ or to which extent
>"physical processes in" of two distinct clocks are "identical"
>in the first place, especially while they're separated?
>
>Einstein's calibration procedure is a (and AFAIK the conventional)
>solution:
>
>"Pairs of events/states/clock_readings/proper_times of two observers
>correspond to each other (they are simultaneous) if they contain
>observations of the same light signals from the middle between
>those two observers".
>
I find this a little tricky. If we are talking about relativistic laws,
for example the laws obeyed by the particles in an accelerator, it
appears to presume that we can arrange for a light source travelling at
'half' the speed of the particles. Even for a space-ship I do not see
how to apply it, in practice. I know you give a definition, but it begs
the question as to whether it is feasible to set up the auxiliary
observer, and whether the derived laws would be the same if it were not.

The definition I use, in terms of identical physical processes, is an
attempt to circumnavigate the issue (not ignore it), by relying on the
principle of homogeneity (laws everywhere the same) and psycho-physical
parallelism to assert that if we can examine and describe a clock
mechanically then we can also compare the mechanisms. An alternative
might be to bring the clocks together to calibrate them, then assert
from the principle of homogeneity that since they are self-contained
systems, they must continue to keep time in the same way when they are
separated and moving wrt each other. If I remember rightly Bondi did
something like that, but I was uncomfortable because I could not easily
describe how to accelerate a clock while being sure that its mechanism
was not put out of balance. I felt that much greater knowledge of
physics than I was assuming would be required to do that satisfactory.

>Note that the distance definition (on which we seem to agree)
>_requires completed_ calibration procedures already:

<snip, in agreement>


> it must be calibrated between
>those two observers in order to be mutually meaningful.

Yes, observers can carry out measurements individually, but not compare
them without first agreeing on calibration.
>
>
Thanks for the info on Synge & Malus

>
>
>Terms of the form "cos( angle )" can be found throughout many
>QM text books. If those terms weren't defined via Malus' procedure,
>then how else, if at all?
>

I have wondered. I don't find it easy to go from two dimensions to four.

>You seem to be making extensive use of "creation operators" and
>. the idea that particles of the same type are identical.
>
>Fine; but the question arises
>_how to determine whether or to which extent_
>particles are pairwise "of the same type" and/or "identical".

Yes, it is, at least in part, a metaphysical assumption that matter
reduces to a finite number of types of particles, and that particles of
the same type are identical (though I am not sure what else one can
reasonably assume). Mostly my paper is abstract, and avoids the issue of
how we actually determine that particles are identical. In this approach
I derive laws on the basis of a finite number of particle types and
later expect to identify particles empirically when it is observed that
they obey the same laws. So long as the observed particles are solutions
of the Dirac equation, or composites of solutions of the Dirac equation,
that should be adequate, but the actual procedures I leave to the
experimentalists.


>
>
>Further, since you mentioned that
>
>> > > My papers [...] describe the standard model
>
>I was a little disappointed that you didn't derive some of its main
>features: three spatial dimensions, three particle generations,
>spin 1/2 constituents. But without explicitly considering
>calibration procedures I wouldn't know how to derive those either.
>

I do not know how to derive three particle generations - do you have an
insight on that? Three space dimensions and spin half constituents seem
to come out of the requirement for a continuous equation into which the
solution of the discrete equation in any reference frame can be
embedded. I do not think I can improve on Dirac's original argument, as
it was presented in lectures. If I were able to write a text book, it
would obviously be included, but it does not seem suitable for an
already long pre-print. There is a great deal of work which has been
done on this by mathematical physicists, and I would have to do an
extensive literature search before saying anything about the
possibilities for other solutions in other dimensions.

I am not sure how calibration procedures would help in this context,
because for anything we do in practice, three dimensions are already
present, so it seems impossible to avoid taking three dimensions as an
assumption. But we do already have a requirement of Lorentz covariance
(which is independent of dimension) and satisfying it in a simple manner
seems to require 3 dimensions and spin.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk


Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/24/99
to
In article <38120...@news2.vip.uk.com>, c.h.thompson <c.h.thompson@new
scientist.net> writes

>
>So there is no "EPR paradox", only an EPR proof of the impossibility of QT
>being a true model of our world.

This is true in so far as qt is not a description of the world. A ket,
or 'state' in quantum does not *describe* an actual state or matter, it
is simply a label for the result of a measurement. Measurement results
are not sufficient to describe the ontological properties or matter.

It is false in so far as the laws of quantum mechanics make correct
statistical predictions about relationships between fore and after
measurements. Quantum mechanics might be seen as a calculus for
predictions of measurement results, not as a model of reality.

To illustrate the point, since quantum mechanics is a naming system for
states which are directly or indirectly measured, the entanglement which
appears in the EPR paradox is merely an entanglement of names, not
evidence of ontological entanglement.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk


c.h.thompson

unread,
Oct 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/24/99
to

Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IJVxBNAt...@clef.demon.co.uk...

> In article <38120...@news2.vip.uk.com>, c.h.thompson <c.h.thompson@new
> scientist.net> writes
> >
> >So there is no "EPR paradox", only an EPR proof of the impossibility of
QT
> >being a true model of our world.
>
> This is true in so far as qt is not a description of the world.
[snip]

>
> It is false in so far as the laws of quantum mechanics make correct
statistical predictions about > relationships between fore and after
measurements. Quantum mechanics might be seen as a
> calculus for predictions of measurement results, not as a model of
reality.

But that's the point! It does NOT, in the case of "nonlocal entanglement"
give "correct" predictions! This impression is the result of most unnatural
and, if I may say so, unscientific, interpretation of the evidence. QT
predicts that even in perfect conditions Bell's inequality would be
violated, but this has never been proved. Since to violate this inequality
is impossible (in these conditions) the only logical thing to do is to
believe that QT will fail in a rigorous test. It is NOT a perfect theory!
It is not hard to show why it gives correct statistical predictions in many
cases, but it gives a wrong one for EPR experiments. The real experiments
show no sign of the nonlocality that MUST be there according to QT.

Again, please do look at my web site (http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat). The
powers that be have been keeping very quiet about the alternative, local
realist, explanations of the results. They have also played down the known
experimental faults, such as the totally unjustifiable data adjustment that
is made in many experiments before analysis. They have ignored the fact
that the "visibility" ((max-min)/(max+min)) of a coincidence curve is the
most unreliable statistic you can imagine, given that the recorded "min"
depends on the way the experimenter sets his detectors! (I've nearly
finished a new paper on this, but there are several useful old ones on my
site.)

> To illustrate the point, since quantum mechanics is a naming system for
> states which are directly or indirectly measured, the entanglement which
> appears in the EPR paradox is merely an entanglement of names, not
> evidence of ontological entanglement.

No, it is more than this. You seem to have learned a certain amount of
double-think!

Bell's inequality, I repeat, cannot be infringed in a real perfect
experiment, and a theory that predicts that it can is illogical if you
accept that, to be logical, it has to be compatible with the law of cause
and effect. A logical theory cannot, in my view, allow instantaneous action
at a distance. There is absolutely no evidence in our universe that this
ever happens. You can have "nonlocal effects", agreed, but there is no
evidence that these are ever due to distant causes AT THE PRESENT INSTANT.
They are due to the effect of distant events that happened at some finite
time in the past.

Incidentally, I'm glad to see you have found you audience!

Caroline
<http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat>


Tom Roberts

unread,
Oct 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/24/99
to
Charles Francis wrote:
> I was uncomfortable because I could not easily
> describe how to accelerate a clock while being sure that its mechanism
> was not put out of balance. I felt that much greater knowledge of
> physics than I was assuming would be required to do that satisfactory.

This is physics, and one should _MEASURE_ how accelerations affect the
operation of the clocks. Bailey et al did this for the "clocks" inside
muons, and found them unaffected by their acceleration of ~10^18 g.
Hewlett-Packard does this for their commercial atomic clocks, and IIRC
they specify that the clocks maintain their accuracy for accelerations
up to 0.5 g (or so) -- sufficient for Haefle and Keating and similar
experiments.


> Yes, it is, at least in part, a metaphysical assumption that matter
> reduces to a finite number of types of particles, and that particles of
> the same type are identical (though I am not sure what else one can
> reasonably assume).

Again, one can _MEASURE_ how identical particles are. We observe discrete
classes of particles which are indistinguishable within each class. But
these classes do not appear to be fundamental (e.g. U-238 does not seem
as fundamental as does an electron). And, of course, indistinguishability
is an important aspect of quantum mechanics; the resounding success of QM
gives support to the assumption of indistinguishability. But this is at a
different level than you seem to be trying to approach....

Bottom line: make your assumptions (indistinguishability, etc.) and derive
a theory from them, and compare to experiments. Let the chips fall where
the measurements dictate. This is called science.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/24/99
to
In article <3812d...@news1.vip.uk.com>,
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@newscientist.net> wrote:

>[snip]


> A logical theory cannot, in my view, allow instantaneous action at a
> distance. There is absolutely no evidence in our universe that this
> ever happens.

And you are absolutely right in this regard but it does not
invalidate nonlocality. Quantum entanglement requires no distance (and
no propagation) whatsoever. Why? Because there really is no distance
(space) between particles. Distance is an entirely abstract concept
that has no ontological existence of its own. If distance existed
physically then you would be right in your criticism. So by assuming
distance a priori, you have trapped yourself in a quandary of your own
making. When was the last time you or anyone else proved the physical
existence of distance? Why make the assumption in the first place?

> You can have "nonlocal effects", agreed, but there is no evidence
> that these are ever due to distant causes AT THE PRESENT INSTANT.
> They are due to the effect of distant events that happened at some
> finite time in the past.

This is not an example of a nonlocal effect. There is no elapsed
time in quantum entanglement. The two phenomena that make up
entanglement are part and parcel of the same effect. One does not
cause each other. On the contrary, they constitute a single effect
resulting from a separate physical cause. IOW, there is no causal link
between a change in the spin of one particle and that of the other.
The link is between a change in the entangled opposite spins of two
particles (the effect) and whatever physical interaction caused the
change.

Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/24/99
to
In article <38131D64...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts
<tjro...@lucent.com> writes

>Charles Francis wrote:
>> I was uncomfortable because I could not easily
>> describe how to accelerate a clock while being sure that its mechanism
>> was not put out of balance. I felt that much greater knowledge of
>> physics than I was assuming would be required to do that satisfactory.
>
>This is physics, and one should _MEASURE_ how accelerations affect the
>operation of the clocks. Bailey et al did this for the "clocks" inside
>muons, and found them unaffected by their acceleration of ~10^18 g.
>Hewlett-Packard does this for their commercial atomic clocks, and IIRC
>they specify that the clocks maintain their accuracy for accelerations
>up to 0.5 g (or so) -- sufficient for Haefle and Keating and similar
>experiments.
>
>
>> Yes, it is, at least in part, a metaphysical assumption that matter
>> reduces to a finite number of types of particles, and that particles of
>> the same type are identical (though I am not sure what else one can
>> reasonably assume).
>
>Again, one can _MEASURE_ how identical particles are. We observe discrete
>classes of particles which are indistinguishable within each class. But
>these classes do not appear to be fundamental (e.g. U-238 does not seem
>as fundamental as does an electron). And, of course, indistinguishability
>is an important aspect of quantum mechanics; the resounding success of QM
>gives support to the assumption of indistinguishability. But this is at a
>different level than you seem to be trying to approach....
>
It may be a different level in the actual detail of what is done, but I
find it a simple intuitive idea in concept. That is what my argument
relies on.

>Bottom line: make your assumptions (indistinguishability, etc.) and derive
>a theory from them, and compare to experiments. Let the chips fall where
>the measurements dictate. This is called science.
>

Absolutely.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk


Charles Francis

unread,
Oct 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/24/99
to
Hi Caroline,

Nice to hear from you.

In article <3812d...@news1.vip.uk.com>, c.h.thompson <c.h.thompson@new
scientist.net> writes

>
>But that's the point! It does NOT, in the case of "nonlocal entanglement"
>give "correct" predictions! This impression is the result of most unnatural
>and, if I may say so, unscientific, interpretation of the evidence. QT
>predicts that even in perfect conditions Bell's inequality would be
>violated, but this has never been proved. Since to violate this inequality
>is impossible (in these conditions) the only logical thing to do is to
>believe that QT will fail in a rigorous test. It is NOT a perfect theory!
>It is not hard to show why it gives correct statistical predictions in many
>cases, but it gives a wrong one for EPR experiments. The real experiments
>show no sign of the nonlocality that MUST be there according to QT.

While I have every mistrust of experimental procedures, QT is not really
the non-local theory it appears. Locality is a very firm principle in
relativistic quantum electrodynamics, which subsumes QT and is the most
accurate physical theory ever devised.

>
>Again, please do look at my web site (http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat).

I have looked at it, and at your papers. It does not surprise me that
they will not look properly at your papers, which appear to be solid
pieces of work, properly rooted in statistical analysis and worthy of
serious consideration. Peer review is a sham.


>> To illustrate the point, since quantum mechanics is a naming system for
>> states which are directly or indirectly measured, the entanglement which
>> appears in the EPR paradox is merely an entanglement of names, not
>> evidence of ontological entanglement.
>
>No, it is more than this.

There is obviously more to it if you want everything expressed
rigorously and logically within the ket notation. But in essence that is
it. Have you looked at my papers?

>You seem to have learned a certain amount of
>double-think!

I do not think double-think is not prohibited from my thinking. What I
do allow, however, is many valued logic - the recognition that language
is inherently inaccurate and misleading, the quantification of
uncertainty, the use of mathematical reasoning on the basis of
that quantification.


>Bell's inequality, I repeat, cannot be infringed in a real perfect
>experiment, and a theory that predicts that it can is illogical if you
>accept that, to be logical, it has to be compatible with the law of cause

>and effect. A logical theory cannot, in my view, allow instantaneous action


>at a distance. There is absolutely no evidence in our universe that this

>ever happens. You can have "nonlocal effects", agreed, but there is no


>evidence that these are ever due to distant causes AT THE PRESENT INSTANT.
>They are due to the effect of distant events that happened at some finite
>time in the past.
>

Bell's inequality does not show the existence of non-local effects. It
may show the existence of some backwards in time causality, but that is
not clear. The spins of the particles in are causally related at the
time of their emission, but the meaning of spin is its experimental
determination, and that is also dependent upon the environment. Of its
nature the environment is non-local.

Just to recap, the Bell's theorem predictions are also be made by qed,
and qed is very clear about the absence of physical effects outside the
light cone.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk


Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/24/99
to
In article <38125C6A...@lucent.com>,
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> Louis Savain wrote:
> > The standard model does not explain why no
> > particle can go faster than c.
>
> Sure it does: The standard model is locally Lorentz invariant.

Lorentz invariance is not a causal explanation. It is an observed
effect. Are you feigning not to know the diference between cause and
effect? Or are you just stupid?

> If you don't accept that as explanation, then please tell me what sort
> of "explanation" you would accept for the fact that the length of a
> meter stick remains 1 meter no matter how it is oriented?

An explanation involving physical interactions between particles
would be nice, which said interactions depend on the postulated
intrinsic properties of said particles.

>[snip]


> > It does not give a causal explanation
> > for gravity and gravitational time dilation.
>
> Because in GR these are _geometrical_ effects, not physical ones.

Let's see now. We have a physical phenomenon (gravity) and you are
telling the world with a straight face that it is caused by non-
physical phenomena? You pompous asses in the physics community must
really believe that you have huevos the size of planets, don't you?
How else can one explain the blatant in-your-face nature of your
crackpottery? Well I've got news for you: your huevos are microscopic
and they're all in your minds! Besides, the context of this discussion
is QT not GR. But no matter, GR gives even less of a causal
explanation of gravity than QT: doodly squat! GR has nothing to say
about particles, their intrinsics properties and their interactions.
So how can it possibly explain what's going on in terms of causes and
effects? Did you learn to be this dumb or were you born that way?

> You
> attempt to restrict the universe to conform to your personal
> predjudices, and then complain when modern physical theories do not
> conform to them.

You are a first class idiot, Roberts. If you (and Nathan Urban and
all the other so-called "physicists" who post here) are what physicists
are supposed to be after years of brainwashing by other pompous idiots,
I pity the physics community. You are a joke. And it ain't that funny.

Louis Savain

-A short list of crackpottery, courtesy of the physics community:

Exclusive relativity
Acausal motion
The a priori existence of space
Worm holes
Advanced and retarded waves
Motion in spacetime along geodesics
Spacetime geometry is a causal explanation of gravity (my favorite so
far)

Louis Savain

unread,
Oct 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/24/99