EPR Paradox - explanation requested
Ben Sacks
-- 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.
z@z
| 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
> 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
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
> 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
Gerry Quinn
[--]
>
>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
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
... 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
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
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
"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
>
>
>Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's inequality
>are telling us
>
>> 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
Louis Savain
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.
Edward Green
>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
> 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
> 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
<nur...@crib.corepower.com> writes
>
>> Quantum mechanics and relativity both follow from the idea that
>> existent property of an ontological manifold.
>
>the spacetime manifold, and by itself postulates nothing about particle
>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
Charles Francis
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
<fw7...@csc.albany.edu> writes
>Nathan Urban wrote:
>> Charles Francis wrote:
>
>> > 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 ...).
>
>> the spacetime manifold, and by itself postulates nothing about particle
>> 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
>>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
deja.com> writes
>> <bobk...@usa.net> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >Louis Savain wrote:the confusion. What nonlocality and Bell's
>> >inequality are telling us
>> >
>> >> 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.
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
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
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>>
>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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
Louis Savain
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
<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
Charles Francis
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
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?