Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(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/windo...e=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.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 08-31-2016, 07:14 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 51 Guest(s)