Schrodinger Aether vs Michelson-Morley
mano...@gmail.com
can't communicate, is like claiming that we can time travel to the
distant past but just can't do anything to alter the future. In other
words, it doesn't sound plausible or rational.
One can reasonably conclude that such speculations are based on
abstract book-keeping terms that have no tangible meaning,
significance, or use, and whose existence are thus inherently
misleading. Being "correlated to randomness" is a meaningless phrase
which has no practical weight at all. "Action that does not
communicate" is also a meaningless idea. These notions are arising from
the flawed premise of quantum indeterminacy. The contrived solution of
"probability function" then forces the further contrived notion of
"spooky action at a distance" which according to the calcite paper can
then force the notion of "non-locality", etc, etc, error building upon
error, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Quantum indeterminacy of the photon should therefore not be
real/absolute but only *apparent*. The wave-particle duality idea
should be scrapped, and we should simply see the discrete quantum
particle as only having wave behavior imparted to it by the much much
finer sub-planck scale of the quantum vacuum.
We need to then visualize things more easily using analogies like
Brownian Motion. Like the speck of dust jiggling in the water drop
because the unseen water molecules are battering it, we need to see the
photons and other small particles in the same way. Their apparent
indeterminacy is only due to the constant perturbation from the
surrounding medium.
I was reading up on Michelson-Morley, trying to see why its conclusions
totally oppose and contradict what I've just stated above. I wonder if
there may be flaws in the Michelson-Morley model which are alluded to
in my title phrase "Schrodinger's Aether"
Schrodinger's Cat fans like to point out that so-called quantum
indeterminacy doesn't scale up to macroscopic objects like cats, etc.
Well, consider the fact that Michelson's idea for his aether-wind
experiment is based on the notion of swimmers crossing a stream.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html
So, conversely to the Schrodinger's Cat example, I'm forced to wonder
if the Michelson-Morley premise of macroscopic swimmers in a stream can
really scale down to the quantum level of the photon. Is this premise
of the Michelson Morley aether wind experiment fundamentally flawed?
Consider that a photon in space is going to suffer perturbation effects
from the quantum vacuum, analogous to the way a speck of dust in water
is going to jiggle from Brownian motion. Michelson-Morley is based on
the analogy of macro-sized swimmers in the stream, which doesn't take
into account any apparent effects from Brownian motion like the speck
of dust would experience in water, or that the photon would experience
in aether. If the Michelson-Morley premise then doesn't take into
account this "Brownian motion" effect on the photons actually used in
the experiment for measurement purposes, then there's a possibility of
it yielding erroneous results and conclusions because of this.
How can one then re-phrase the Michelson-Morley experimental parameters
to take into account this "Schrodinger's Aether" -- ie. the
quantum-level perturbational effects by the dynamic vacuum on the
Michelson-Morley photons which is not accounted for in the macroscopic
swimmers-in-a-stream model?
Bill Hobba
> can't communicate, is like claiming that we can time travel to the
> distant past but just can't do anything to alter the future. In other
> words, it doesn't sound plausible or rational.
Ilja Schmelzer
<mano...@gmail.com> schrieb
> Saying that you can have spooky action at a distance but that it just
> can't communicate, is like claiming that we can time travel to the
> distant past but just can't do anything to alter the future. In other
> words, it doesn't sound plausible or rational.
Not at all.
Imagine the following situation: You observe some strange
correlations, and you can explain these correlations in two
different ways: Or A sends information to B, or B sends
information to A.
Above explanations use some spooky (unknown to you)
information transfer. Thus, there is some spooky information
transfer.
On the other hand, it is impossible for you to use the
correlations you observe for your own communication.
Indeed, to use some correlation for information transfer
from A to B is impossible if the correlation may be
explained by information transfer from B to A.
Following your logic, we would have to conclude that
there is no spooky information transfer.
Ilja
jem
>
> <mano...@gmail.com <mailto:mano...@gmail.com>> wrote in message
> news:1134457152.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Saying that you can have spooky action at a distance but that it just
> > can't communicate, is like claiming that we can time travel to the
> > distant past but just can't do anything to alter the future. In other
> > words, it doesn't sound plausible or rational.
>
> Please, please learn the facts QM does not have necessarily have
> 'spooky action at distance'.
> http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/quest.html
Bill, the referenced page includes a section on the EPR paradox which
indicates that "However, when one does a proper analysis [3], the
conclusion is just the same as in the "classical" case of the colored
slips of paper.", but that link to [3] is broken. You don't happen to
have access to the "proper analysis" that's referred to, do you?
Harry
It's based on Maxwell's unproven assumption that wave velocity is completely
(down to second order) independent of the velocity of the source. AFAIK,
this was never obtained by derivation from the wave equation. Voigt messed
up when he tried to do it, we didn't find a better attempt in literature.
Now I have the Master thesis of a student who tried to solve it but he did
not obtain it and we haven't found the error -- if there is one (he didn't
get a prize because we're not sure). Also some recent experiments with sound
put that premise in doubt. Thus, it's possibly fundamentally flawed, except
if someone has very convincing data that really demonstrates it beyond
doubt.
Harald
Bilge
>can't communicate, is like claiming that we can time travel to the
>distant past but just can't do anything to alter the future. In other
>words, it doesn't sound plausible or rational.
either of those things.
Bilge
of photons. You can search google for ``density matrix'' and ``bell's
inequality''.
Tom Roberts
> words, it doesn't sound plausible or rational.
You confuse yourself by mis-stating the situation.
Quantum mechanics does not have "spooky action at a distance", it
actually has spooky _CORRELATION_ at a distance.
Here's an example: take a red ball and a green ball, and hidden from
John and Joe place one in each of their pockets, telling them to not
look at it until they get home. When they get to their separate homes,
John looks in his pocket, sees a red ball, and immediately concludes Joe
has a green ball in his pocket. Note that John's action did not change
anything about Joe's pocket -- there is _correlation_ at a distance, but
not any sort of "action".
The correlations of QM are more subtle than this, but the principle is
similar. In particular, neither John nor Joe sent any information to the
other, and they cannot possibly use this to communicate with each other
-- communication is between YOU and each of them.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
corleone
ok, but based on the color discovered by Joe, he can make an
interpretation, he could done a nanosecond before, something
similar to a codecs
does it counts as information?
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
corleone
Bilge wrote:
> mano...@gmail.com:
> >Saying that you can have spooky action at a distance but that it just
> >can't communicate, is like claiming that we can time travel to the
> >distant past but just can't do anything to alter the future. In other
> >words, it doesn't sound plausible or rational.
>
> Then, I guess it's a good thing that we don't have theories with
> either of those things.
who are "we" ?
how many of you are there?
Bill Hobba
"jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:1nAnf.11739$fz5.2988@dukeread04...
I have purchased his book but have not had time to study it properly. So
all I can suggest is for you to do the same.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
"corleone" <er...@alumnidirector.com> wrote in message
news:1134508247.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bilge wrote:
>> mano...@gmail.com:
>> >Saying that you can have spooky action at a distance but that it just
>> >can't communicate, is like claiming that we can time travel to the
>> >distant past but just can't do anything to alter the future. In other
>> >words, it doesn't sound plausible or rational.
>>
>> Then, I guess it's a good thing that we don't have theories with
>> either of those things.
>
> who are "we" ?
>
> how many of you are there?
Bilge is the one and only. However since you are simply another incarnation
of the dyslexic troll your number is rather less certain.
Bill
jem
Yes, I know what the EPR setup is, Bilge. What the web doc. seems to
indicate is that the EPR experimental result (i.e. violation of the Bell
inequality) can be duplicated classically, and since I don't believe it
can, I'd like to see what their "proper analysis" consists of.
Bill Hobba
"jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
I don't think that is what it is suggesting. Please remember that what
Bells inequality disproves is local realism. Recall what the assumption of
realism is and remember in the consistent history interpretation particles
do not have a position unless measured, thus there is nothing to be non
local. Remember the Copenhagen interpretation has two variants - one where
the wavefuntion is real and one where it is not. It is only if you consider
it real that you have problems with locality. If you consider it just a
theoretical device and the state as real then you have no problems. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics
I too am intrigued by the actual details and is one of the reasons why I
purchased Griffiths book. Now if I can only get around to studying it.
Thanks
Bill
Thanks
Bill
TTY
Bill Hobba wrote:
> "corleone" <er...@alumnidirector.com> wrote in message
> news:1134508247.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Bilge wrote:
> >> mano...@gmail.com:
> >> >Saying that you can have spooky action at a distance but that it just
> >> >can't communicate, is like claiming that we can time travel to the
> >> >distant past but just can't do anything to alter the future. In other
> >> >words, it doesn't sound plausible or rational.
> >>
> >> Then, I guess it's a good thing that we don't have theories with
> >> either of those things.
> >
> > who are "we" ?
> >
> > how many of you are there?
>
> Bilge is the one and only. However since you are simply another incarnation
> of the dyslexic troll your number is rather less certain.
what tha fok have you against tha "dyslectics" you fokin moron
you said you killfile you foken liar son of a whore
not enuff that you are a more stoopid fok than a singularity, you are
also
a liar
not only that you lie pretending killfileing, but you also reply to
post not
addressed ta yo
according to the books i read, not me, you descend from thiefs and
whores,
the skambags from europe and other places around the world
therefore, according to qm, there is a very high probability that your
descend
directly from a whore
do i have a point here or i am dyslectings again as usual?
kindly regards
Ilja Schmelzer
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> schrieb
> "jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote
> > Bilge wrote:
> I don't think that is what it is suggesting. Please remember that what
> Bells inequality disproves is local realism. Recall what the assumption
of
> realism is
almost nothing but elementary common sense.
> and remember in the consistent history interpretation particles
> do not have a position unless measured, thus there is nothing to be non
> local. Remember the Copenhagen interpretation has two variants - one
where
> the wavefuntion is real and one where it is not. It is only if you
consider
> it real that you have problems with locality.
No. You have problems with locality if you try to give an explanation
which includes some description "what really happens" - an explanation
in agreement with the rules of classical logic and probability theory.
> If you consider it just a
> theoretical device and the state as real then you have no problems. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics
Nonsense. Whatever space X you want to define as the space of
possible states of reality, if it allows to explain the observed
expectation values of functions of measurement results m
depending on decisions of experimenters a
E(f,a)= int f(m) rho(m,a) dm
using some classical probability distribution rho(x) of
possible states of reality X so that
E(f,a) = int f(m(x,a)) rho(x) dx
you have problems with locality.
Ilja
jem
Looks to me like it's not only suggesting it, Bill, but coming right out
and saying it. I'm not going to buy the book to find out though, but
perhaps you'll be so kind as to pass along what the book does say, once
you've had a chance to read it.
Harry
"jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:0weof.755$NS.478@dukeread04...
Oh Jem, I didn't answer because I expected Bill to answer: if you scroll
down the page you'll find that [3] is simply the reference at the bottom of
the page (and funny enough, [5] works).
It has some other papers that you can download, such as Consistent quantum
realism,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0001093
Also, I downloaded one of the other references, a big paper by Roland Omnes,
"consistent interpretations of QM" (1992), PDF, 9.15 Mb... It's a lot of
pages and it'll take me some time to read it but it looks highly
interesting. For now I can only say that he partly or fully agrees with
Griffith.
Cheers,
Harald
Bill Hobba
"Ilja Schmelzer" <q686...@mailstore.fernuni-hagen.de> wrote in message
news:dnr3ot$853$1...@tamarack.fernuni-hagen.de...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> schrieb
>> "jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote
>> > Bilge wrote:
>> I don't think that is what it is suggesting. Please remember that what
>> Bells inequality disproves is local realism. Recall what the assumption
> of
>> realism is
>
> almost nothing but elementary common sense.
>
>> and remember in the consistent history interpretation particles
>> do not have a position unless measured, thus there is nothing to be non
>> local. Remember the Copenhagen interpretation has two variants - one
> where
>> the wavefuntion is real and one where it is not. It is only if you
> consider
>> it real that you have problems with locality.
>
> No. You have problems with locality if you try to give an explanation
> which includes some description "what really happens" - an explanation
> in agreement with the rules of classical logic and probability theory.
I can not agree. If one accepts a state may not have the property of a well
defined position ie you can only say in lies within such and such boundaries
then their is nothing to be non local.
>
>> If you consider it just a
>> theoretical device and the state as real then you have no problems. See
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics
>
> Nonsense. Whatever space X you want to define as the space of
> possible states of reality, if it allows to explain the observed
> expectation values of functions of measurement results m
> depending on decisions of experimenters a
>
> E(f,a)= int f(m) rho(m,a) dm
>
> using some classical probability distribution rho(x) of
> possible states of reality X so that
>
> E(f,a) = int f(m(x,a)) rho(x) dx
>
> you have problems with locality.
There is no problems with locality if you consider the wave function as an
expansion in the eignefunctions of position and of value only in calculating
probabilities of position if you observe it. In that view, unless it is in
an eignestate of position, it has no position - the most you can say it does
not lie outside a certain range. As the article correctly points out in
interpreations where wafefuntions do not actually collapse, ie they are a
calculation device only, then their is zero trouble with locality. See
also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality
'Local realism is the combination of the principle of locality with the
assumption that all objects must objectively have their properties already
before these properties are observed. Einstein liked to say that the Moon is
"out there" even when no one is observing it. Local realism is a significant
feature of classical general relativity and classical Maxwell's theory, but
quantum mechanics rejects this principle. Every theory that, like quantum
mechanics, is compatible with violations of Bell's inequalities must abandon
local realism. (Most physicists believe that experiments have demonstrated
such violations, but some local realists dispute the claim, in view of the
recognised loopholes in the tests.) Different interpretations of quantum
mechanics reject different parts of local realism. In most of the
conventional interpretations, such as the version of the Copenhagen
interpretation in which the wavefunction is not real, the many-worlds
interpretation, and the interpretation based on Consistent Histories, it is
realism that is rejected. The actual definite properties of a physical
system "do not exist" prior to the measurement and the wavefunction is only
interpreted as a mathematical tool used to calculate the probabilities of
the outcome of the experiments, which is, in agreement with positivism in
philosophy, the only topic that science should discuss. In the version of
the Copenhagen interpretation where the wavefunction is real, it is the
principle of locality that is violated. The wavefunction is a real object
that exists prior to the measurement, but the measurement causes the
wavefunction collapse which is a non-local process. The Bohm interpretation
always wants to preserve realism, and it needs to violate the principle of
locality to achieve the required correlations. In fact, it needs to violate
not only locality, but also causality which seems to imply a real conflict
with the special theory of relativity because real, superluminal signals
would have to be propagated. Because the differences between the different
interpretations are mostly philosophical ones (except for the Bohm
interpretation), the physicists usually use the language in which the
important statements are independent of the interpretation we choose. In
this framework, only the measurable action at a distance - a superluminal
propagation of real, physical information - would be usually considered to
be a violation of locality by the physicists. Such phenomena have never been
seen, and they are not predicted by the current theories (with the possible
exception of the Bohm theory). This is why relativistic quantum field theory
is usually considered to be a local theory.'
Thanks
Bill
>
> Ilja
>
>
Bill Hobba
"TTY" <oe...@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:1134598602....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> "corleone" <er...@alumnidirector.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134508247.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Bilge wrote:
>> >> mano...@gmail.com:
>> >> >Saying that you can have spooky action at a distance but that it
>> >> just
>> >> >can't communicate, is like claiming that we can time travel to the
>> >> >distant past but just can't do anything to alter the future. In
>> >> other
>> >> >words, it doesn't sound plausible or rational.
>> >>
>> >> Then, I guess it's a good thing that we don't have theories with
>> >> either of those things.
>> >
>> > who are "we" ?
>> >
>> > how many of you are there?
>>
>> Bilge is the one and only. However since you are simply another
>> incarnation
>> of the dyslexic troll your number is rather less certain.
>
>
> what tha fok have you against tha "dyslectics" you fokin moron
Nothing against dyslexics only idiot ones like you.
Bill
Ilja Schmelzer
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> schrieb
> "Ilja Schmelzer" <q686...@mailstore.fernuni-hagen.de> wrote
> > "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> schrieb
> >> Remember the Copenhagen interpretation has two variants - one
> >> where
> >> the wavefuntion is real and one where it is not. It is only if you
> >> consider it real that you have problems with locality.
> >
> > No. You have problems with locality if you try to give an explanation
> > which includes some description "what really happens" - an explanation
> > in agreement with the rules of classical logic and probability theory.
>
> I can not agree.
Ok, let's start with the math.
We make an experiment, measure some m in M, in dependence
of control parameters c in C, measure some probability distribution
rho(m|c). Expectation values for functions f(m) are defined as
E(f|c) =int f(m) rho(m|c) dm
Now, I define a realistic explanation of this observation to
be given by a space X of states of reality x, with a probability
distribution rho(x) on it which is independent of c which explains
(by defining some function m(x,c)) the observed results so that
E(f|c) =int f(m(x,c)) rho(x) dx
We have no additional conditions about the choice of the
space X of possible states of reality. Especially we do _not_
require that X is the Hilbert space of wave functions.
Thus, in this definition of realism it is certainly allowed to
consider the wave function not to be real. The function
m(x,c) is IMHO the most general description of
what really happens.
> If one accepts a state may not have the property of a well
> defined position ie you can only say in lies within such and
> such boundaries then their is nothing to be non local.
The definition of locality (better: Einstein causality) in this
definition is that if some paramter m is measured in some event
A, and the control parameter c is set in some event B,
and A is not located in the future light cone of B, then
there can be no dependence of the function m(x,c) on c.
The events A and B should not be specified in an exact way,
it is sufficient to fix them inside some boundaries. Despite this,
using this definition of locality there is something to be
nonlocal.
Note that above events are macroscopic,
the setting of the control parameter may be a free
human choice or some random number generator
or some combination of them.
> There is no problems with locality if you consider the wave function as an
> expansion in the eignefunctions of position and of value only in
calculating
> probabilities of position if you observe it.
Another idea: There is no problem with locality if you ignore
QM and consider, instead, nice girls (or boys, whatever).
IOW: considering something completely different is not a solution.
> In that view, unless it is in
> an eignestate of position, it has no position - the most you can say it
does
> not lie outside a certain range. As the article correctly points out in
> interpreations where wafefuntions do not actually collapse, ie they are a
> calculation device only, then their is zero trouble with locality.
Please note that in my definition of realism and locality the word
"wavefunction" and "collapse" has not been used at all. Feel free
to define a space X, a probability distribution rho(x) and the function
m(x,c) for the Bell device (with C = C_A x C_B is the choice of
the angles of the detectors in A resp. B,
M = {1,-1}_A x {1,-1}_B the result of the spin measurement.)
You cannot do it, without assuming that m_A depends on c_B
or m_B on c_A. This is the problem with locality known as
the violation of Bell's inequality.
> 'Local realism is the combination of the principle of locality with the
> assumption that all objects must objectively have their properties already
> before these properties are observed.
Questionable. The observed "property" m in our (Bells) definition of
realism is allowed to depend also on the choice of control parameters:
m=m(x,c). Moreover, time is not even mentioned, thus, the use of
"before" seems quite meaningless.
> the wavefunction is only
> interpreted as a mathematical tool used to calculate the probabilities of
> the outcome of the experiments, which is, in agreement with positivism in
> philosophy, the only topic that science should discuss.
Positivism, as a philosophical doctrine, is dead after Popper's
logic of scientific discovery.
> The Bohm interpretation
> always wants to preserve realism, and it needs to violate the principle of
> locality to achieve the required correlations. In fact, it needs to
violate
> not only locality, but also causality
Of course. The whole game (Bells original proof) is about the
incompatibility of realism and Einstein causality.
The use of "locality" is confusing. (It is often used, in a sloppy way,
to mean Einstein causality. But this place shows that the author
uses it in a different meaning.)
> which seems to imply a real conflict
> with the special theory of relativity because real, superluminal signals
> would have to be propagated.
Bohmian theory requires to go back to a theory with a hidden preferred
frame.
> Because the differences between the different
> interpretations are mostly philosophical ones (except for the Bohm
> interpretation),
The hidden preferred frame of BM remains unobsevable, therefore
the difference is, in case of BM, philosophical too.
> In
> this framework, only the measurable action at a distance - a superluminal
> propagation of real, physical information - would be usually considered to
> be a violation of locality by the physicists. Such phenomena have never
been
> seen, and they are not predicted by the current theories (with the
possible
> exception of the Bohm theory).
There is no such exception. Einstein causality in the weak sense
(restricted to the dependence of the probability distribution
rho(m|c) on c instead of the function m(x,c) on c) holds in BM in
quantum equilibrium. This is a simple theorem in the related
relativistic versions of BM.
Ilja