Hidden Variables
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Printable Version

+- Hidden Variables (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables)
+-- Forum: Foundations of Quantum Theory (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Violation of Bell's Inequalities (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? (/showthread.php?tid=8)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 08-30-2016

secur previously wrote: "Obviously there may be ether, and there may be a fixed reference frame ..."

Thomas Ray wrote: And you find that obvious by what principle?

The Principle of Relativity (POR).

POR says one reference frame is as good as any other. You can consider yours "at rest" and everyone else moving relative to you, but anyone else can do the same. Since there's no way to identify a Newtonian "absolute reference frame", we can ignore it. We can even suppose there isn't one, as in Einsteinian Special Relativity. But, equally, we can choose a frame and identify that as the absolute reference frame, as in Lorentzian Relativity. All the math still works fine. The obvious absolute frame to choose, for every spacetime point, is the one that makes the Microwave Background Radiation isotropic. With current technology we can't prove it's any more "absolute" than any other frame, although perhaps in the future it will be possible. But the point is, we can't prove it's not either.

That's why there may be a fixed reference frame - allowed by all modern physics.

As for ether, that also may exist, as Schmelzer's work (and others) shows. Of course it's not a mechanical ether as envisioned 110 years ago. Don't forget Einstein "believed in" such an ether, after 1917 or so, based on the curved spacetime of GR.

Note the fixed reference frame can exist without ether, but it's harder to imagine ether without the fixed frame.

More can be said but that should be enough to demonstrate that there may be ether and/or fixed frame.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Thomas Ray - 08-30-2016

" ... equally, we can choose a frame and identify that as the absolute reference frame, as in Lorentzian Relativity."

That violates the Einstein principle of relativity.

"The obvious absolute frame to choose, for every spacetime point, is the one that makes the Microwave Background Radiation isotropic."

Every arbitrarily chosen point of four dimension spacetime in an isotropically expanding universe is the origin of CMB.

"Note the fixed reference frame can exist without ether, but it's harder to imagine ether without the fixed frame."

Why?  The coordinate point at infinity isn't fixed, and survives nicely with an ether.  Just not a 'luminiferous" ether, due to the limiting speed of light -- a spacetime ether is unbounded.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 08-30-2016

secur previously wrote: " ... equally, we can choose a frame and identify that as the absolute reference frame, as in Lorentzian Relativity."

Thomas Ray wrote: That violates the Einstein principle of relativity.

No, it doesn't. Here's how he states POR in "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies": "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics holds good". BTW, Sommerfeld included the note: "The preceding memoir of Lorentz was not at this time known to the author" - because Lorentz said the same thing, a year earlier, in "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity less than that of light". They both agreed, as we do today, that there's no way to tell the "fixed frame", if there is one. Einstein says, a couple sentences later, "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an 'absolute reference frame' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic properties take place". He didn't say - here, or elsewhere - that such a frame must not exist, rather it's not required. That's still true as far as we know.

It's a mistake to call it "Einstein's POR" since Lorentz (and Poincare) stated it first. Lorentz chose to use a fixed frame, since POR doesn't disallow it.

It was Minkowski, and others, who said the fixed frame definitely does not exist. They were wrong. Note well, this isn't "against the mainstream". Any modern physicist agrees that a fixed frame is possible. Go to PF, for instance: the professional physicists there will agree with me. Ask Peter Donis, who said it just a week ago. (I can give many references.) That would be much better than making me explain it! Ask the experts.

This is a very typical example of misinformation in modern physics. We were all told by our professors that Einstein "proved ether doesn't exist". It's simply not true. He never said that, and didn't believe it. Neither does any modern physicist, although they tell it to freshmen. It's a myth.

secur previously wrote: "The obvious absolute frame to choose, for every spacetime point, is the one that makes the Microwave Background Radiation isotropic."

Thomas Ray wrote: Every arbitrarily chosen point of four dimension spacetime in an isotropically expanding universe is the origin of CMB.

Only at the time of the Surface of Last Scattering - about 380,000 years after Big Bang, IIRC. For instance the spacetime point you're at right now is not emitting CMB! Also, we're talking about a reference frame, which consists of any spacetime point PLUS a velocity vector.

secur previously wrote: "Note the fixed reference frame can exist without ether, but it's harder to imagine ether without the fixed frame."

Thomas Ray wrote: Why?  The coordinate point at infinity isn't fixed, and survives nicely with an ether.  Just not a 'luminiferous" ether, due to the limiting speed of light -- a spacetime ether is unbounded.

Alright, I'll give you that.

This is only one of many myths in modern physics. Typically any sensible physicist knows it's a myth but due to peer pressure doesn't say so, except when you ask directly, and know what you're talking about. For instance Einstein said "All physics is local". But neither he nor anyone else has ever proven it. It may or may not be true. Another myth is that Copenhagen Interpretation has somehow been proven false - no, it hasn't. Also, "string theory is true" - no, that hasn't been proven either. And many more.

Note again - this is very important - none of this is "against the mainstream" - all physicists agree. For instance even Lubos Motl admits that string theory isn't proven. His position is that if you don't believe it, you're an idiot; but he can't prove you wrong. This is typical. Whenever a physicist says you're an idiot, it means you may be right. In fact that's a generic truth in all discussion. When they resort to insults you know they have no actual argument.

This is why, when confronted with someone like Joy Christian, or Karl Hess, take a close look at their papers. It means absolutely nothing that the entire physics establishment says they're wrong, they do that often, with no basis for their assertion. (Of course sometimes they're right.) Christian's example of Grete Hermann is excellent. For thirty years they dissed her; but she was right, and many of them knew it, even while trying to ruin her career. Christian picked a great example, but there are many others; for instance, David Bohm.

Finally - I mentioned "Einstein worship" (although that's only one facet of this pervasive mistake). There's nothing wrong with Einstein; I almost "worship" him myself. It's his followers, much lesser men, who insist that everything he said must be exactly true - while misunderstanding his sayings! It's very common that a great man becomes deified, and that dogma holds up the progress of science. Aristotle is perhaps the best example. Also Newton's corpuscular theory of light, and so on. ad almost infinitum.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Heinera - 08-31-2016

It seems that "Local causality in a Friedmann–Robertson–Walker spacetime" has now been removed from Annals of Physics and replaced with the text "This article was erroneously included in this issue. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause."


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Thomas Ray - 08-31-2016

secur, my reading of Einstein's paper is slightly different.  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"The theory to be developed is based—like all electrodynamics—on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters."

Unambiguously, this obviates a fixed frame.

secur wrote:  "It was Minkowski, and others, who said the fixed frame definitely does not exist. They were wrong."

They were right.  

Einstein was a fan of Mach's principle.  That principle, however, assumes a bounded space, while space in general relativity is "finite but unbounded," meaning finitely bounded in time at the singularity of creation, and unbounded in space.  What does it do to the equations of special relativity to have a finite space unbounded in time?  Nothing.

" ... the spacetime point you're at right now is not emitting CMB!"

Only if you choose a fixed frame.  This is an illusion, however.  And it underscores why Joy Christian's experiment is so important -- a nonarbitrary initial condition brings creation within the domain of local spacetime.  " ... Einstein said 'All physics is local'. But neither he nor anyone else has ever proven it."  Then it's about time someone did, right?


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 08-31-2016

(08-31-2016, 07:08 AM)Heinera Wrote: It seems that "Local causality in a Friedmann–Robertson–Walker spacetime" has now been removed from Annals of Physics and replaced with the text "This article was erroneously included in this issue. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause."

This is an example of what we might call "community-based peer review". They published the paper, then the community "peer-reviewed" it for them, decided it shouldn't be in the journal. Of course this is not new, witness Einstein's "electrodynamics of moving bodies". Probably all the errors have finally been caught by now, by the community, but it took a long time!

It's interesting that Microsoft uses this system also - we're all Beta testers for each release of Windows. Recently Windows 10 had a severe problem, an update caused many user's computers to freeze. See this notice from MS: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-performance/windows-10-may-freeze-after-installing-the/5a60d75d-120a-4502-873c-8bfec65c82d0?page=1&auth=1

Here's a quote from MS, encouraging frustrated users to use google to "search for existing threads":

"From users posting here and visiting the Microsoft Store, we have been able to collect log files... the community has also reported a number of their own solutions... Users have posted about their experiences and concerns and the community has helped , given direction... encourage you to search for existing threads and share your experience and feedback... Please know we are listening..."

Fortunately the community was able to come up with work-arounds, MS was quite useless(as usual). It seems peer-review, and formal Beta-testing, doesn't really work any more.

@Thomas Ray,

Thanks for that reference to John Walker's updated "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". He caught a couple of errors I didn't know about; perhaps his version is, finally, entirely correct (?). The two in section 4 I had already "worked around" myself. It turns out the first was Einstein's original typo, the other was introduced only in the English translation (which was approved by Einstein). I really don't know if this level of carelessness is typical of papers from that era, but don't think so - hope not! There's only one error AFAIK in Lorentz' 1904 paper mentioned above.

Anyway, we'll have to "agree to disagree" about the fixed frame. IMHO my comments are correct.

This is only one example of common mis-information. The physics establishment knows about these misunderstandings but refuses to admit them, unless you ask specifically and know what you're talking about. Then they admit it, but make a note you're a "crackpot", to be avoided in the future.

That's why people like Christian exist. They're absolutely right to not accept the prevailing dogma, although of course that doesn't necessarily mean their own work is correct.

Re. "all physics is local": like most science, this can never actually be proven, only disproven. Except for issues surrounding entanglement, it certainly seems to be true.

Bell-type experiments don't "prove" non-locality, but can be interpreted that way. To put it most simply: the Copenhagen Interpretation is still valid, with its "instantaneous collapse". This is one of those many points that physics professionals do, in fact, admit, if you put the question directly and know what you're talking about.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Thomas Ray - 08-31-2016

secur wrote:  "Anyway, we'll have to 'agree to disagree' about the fixed frame. IMHO my comments are correct."

That's collegial and fair.  All I can ask is that you please consider my argument, as carefully as I have considered yours.

It is of logical necessity that fixed frames cannot exist in a four-dimension, connected and continuous, spacetime.  This is a property among others that led Einstein to the coordinate-free geometry of general relativity.  What is true in GR cannot be false in SR.

secur: "Re. 'all physics is local': like most science, this can never actually be proven, only disproven."

Falsification is indeed the highest honor that one can bestow on a scientific theory.  In this case, though, we are not speaking of a theory; rather, a measurement framework.  As Wheeler said, "No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon."  

And that is what Joy Christian promises:  a coordinate-free framework.  How does one have a coordinate-free framework with a privileged observer?  Joy adds the concept of nature's random choice, that stands in for the role of time -- a nonlinear time that forces the framework to be analytical.  An analytical measure is dependent on boundary conditions.  

So the boundary conditions are built into the 3-dimension ball analyzed in 4-dimension spacetime.  The parts share a rest frame initially.  http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_geometry.html Einstein, from "Geometry and Experience":  "All practical geometry is based upon a principle which is accessible to experience, and which we will now try to realise. We will call that which is enclosed between two boundaries, marked upon a practically-rigid body, a tract. We imagine two practically-rigid bodies, each with a tract marked out on it. These two tracts are said to be 'equal to one another' if the boundaries of the one tract can be brought to coincide permanently with the boundaries of the other. We now assume that:

If two tracts are found to be equal once and anywhere, they are equal always and everywhere."

Can't do that with dice.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 09-01-2016

You may be misunderstanding my assertion: the fixed frame idea, known sometimes as Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) is possible only. Normal Special Relativity with no fixed frame, also called Block Universe (BU), is preferred by most physicists.

Here's one of many references I could give: "PF’s policy on Lorentz Ether Theory and Block Universe", https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/pfs-policy-on-lorentz-ether-theory-and-block-universe/. An insight article from Dale. This is gospel, establishment physics! There is no controversy about this issue. Quote from the article:

"The LET considers the universe to be a 3D world evolving over time and with a single undetectable “true” rest frame. Both BU and LET use the Lorentz transform, etc., to make all of their experimental predictions, and therefore they are scientifically indistinguishable, making the same experimental predictions in all cases."

Having understood that in Special Relativity, fixed frame is not ruled out, what about GR? By the same reasoning fixed frame is possible there also. But GR philosophy is very much against it, and many of the stranger GR concepts, like wormholes, are impossible. But there is no experimental data to disprove fixed frame. It's harder to establish for GR so for the time being let's concentrate on SR. Until you see that SR allows fixed frame there's no point in considering GR.

We haven't heard from Schmelzer in a while unfortunately! Fixed-frame is fundamental to all his work. If it's impossible all the other topics on this web site - in the main section, "The Ether vs. Relativity" - are ridiculous. Go to the main page and read some of his work there, you'll see that he agrees with me. That may help convince you.

If you claim SR (and GR) doesn't allow fixed-frame you disagree with the entire mainstream physics community! That's the main point I'd like to get across. If you understand and acknowledge that, but still disagree, we can get into detailed arguments. But I don't want to do that until you read the establishment position, there's no point in repeating these standard arguments that professional physicists have already explained better than I can.

I agree with your Wheeler and Einstein quotes (with minor quibble regarding the word "real"). Also with your take on what Christian is trying to provide.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Thomas Ray - 09-01-2016

Thanks for the clarification and the link, secur.  I was reading "fixed" for "privileged";  I forgot that we were talking about the Lorentz ether--my fault.

I stand by my assertion that what is true in GR cannot be false in SR (they belong to the same domain).  The converse doesn't necessarily apply.  I agree heartily that "There is often a desire by the philosophical community to add more structure to a scientific theory than what is represented by the 'mathematical model and minimal interpretation'."

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/pfs-policy-on-lorentz-ether-theory-and-block-universe/

This is the case with quantum theory based on Bell's theorem, with its ad hoc assumptions and diverse interpretations.  The theories of relativity are mathematically complete.   We forget that Einstein's intent was to allow GR as an intermediate theory toward a unified theory of gravity.  That it fails does not warrant throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  My case is quantum theory incompleteness -- same as EPRB.

You're right -- I should read Schmelzer, especially in his own forum.

Curious -- how do you interpret "real"?

No, I don't consider myself outside the mainstream; neither is Joy Christian.  He has been marginalized unjustly.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Thomas Ray - 09-01-2016

secur wrote:  "This is an example of what we might call 'community-based peer review'. They published the paper, then the community 'peer-reviewed' it for them, decided it shouldn't be in the journal."

I was going to stay out of this, but on reflection, I find this disturbing.  Consensus science is where the likes of Vongehr and Gill want to take us.  Nothing could be more destructive to the creativity and progress of the discipline. Suppose "100 scientists against Einstein"  (or a thousand) decided the issue.  We would all be flat earthers or we would be gone.

There's a rabbinic proverb:  "Be wary of the man that nobody likes; be even more wary of the one that everybody likes."