1 view

Skip to first unread message

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

to

-- Ben Sacks Home : (703) 566-5391 Cell : (703) 258-0935 email : be...@cicero.uchicago.eduWould 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.

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?

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

to

In article <37F9592E...@cicero.uchicago.edu>, Ben Sacks <be...@cicero.uchicago.edu> wrote:

> 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?

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.

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

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. [...]> Essentially we measure the total momentum of a system of two 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)

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

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.

>

[--]

>

>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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

"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

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>> 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.

>

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

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

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,

>

> 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.

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

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.

Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99

to

Nathan Urban wrote:

> Charles Francis 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

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

>> existent property of an ontological manifold.

>

<nur...@crib.corepower.com> writes

><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->

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

>> 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

>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.

>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

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058

A Theory of Quantum Space-time

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909047

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

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:

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

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:

>

<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. >> > distance is a relationship found in particle interactions,

>

>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 ...).

>

>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

>> 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?

>> 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

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.

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

>> 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.

deja.com> writes

>> 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

>> >

>> <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>> >> 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

>> idea that distance is a relationship found in particle interactions,

>>

>> 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.

>> 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

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

to

In article <7uj1sj$bf$1...@panix2.panix.com>, Edward Green <e...@panix.com>

writesReason, 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

writes

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

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.

>>

>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"

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

to

In article <7uib85$nvc$1...@crib.corepower.com>,

nur...@vt.edu wrote:

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

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.

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

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:

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.

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

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

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.

> Frank Wappler [wrote:]

> > Nathan Urban wrote:

> > > Relativity is predicated purely on the geometry of the

> > > 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

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

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.

<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

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

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

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

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,

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?

Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99