07-29-2016, 04:32 PM

Thomas Ray wrote: Not properties of space; properties of spacetime.

Sorry, that's what I should have said.

Thomas Ray wrote: The so-called QRC is a perpetual time-wasting game of tic-tac-toe (naughts and crosses to you Brits). It prescribes its own boundary, without a physical space to frame it, and so presents the illusion of individual discrete choice on an infinite two-dimension plane.

I know little about QRC. But I've coded, and directed the development of, many simulation programs and facilities. In comments above about QRC, I was supposing it is done the way it ought to be done, like any other effective numerical program that simulates the results of a scientific experiment. Anyway, you're right: even supposing it's well-written, it's not the same as the real physical situation. It's just a digital reproduction of the equations. A very elaborate game of tic-tac-toe, if you will. It has many artificial features, like the illusion of a perfectly uniform infinite space (based on the computer's virtual memory), round-off errors, and so forth. A simulation is NOT the real thing. However a good simulation does mimic the equations (the math, the theory) very well, so it can be used to explore theoretical concepts.

Thomas Ray wrote: Events in four dimension spacetime are reversible.

I don't think so. Consider: I can get older (often do, in fact) but not younger. If you can reverse that event, I'll give you 500,000 USD, cash, to put me back the way I was 50 years ago. Please PM me with your technique to reverse aging!

Thomas Ray wrote: There is no need to violate special relativity -- special relativity in fact may be the key to our comprehensibility of a finite world.

Without it, modern physics would indeed be incomprehensible.

Thomas Ray wrote: What is exotic, actually, is the infinite and unbounded space of conventional quantum theory, which has no physical sense independent of experiment.

If I understand you correctly, you're right. (Dirac discussed this at length.) Don't forget a "theory" is, just like a computer simulator, an artificial construct to represent the real physical situation. All theories are "unreal" in various ways. For instance, they conventionally use infinity: integrals are taken from -inf to +inf, and so on. That's impossible in the real world.

Anyway, you think that real spacetime has certain properties which are not correctly accounted for in QM theory. For one thing, it's finite, and this simple fact points to a correspondence between local and global phenomena. So we can mistakenly think a phenomenon is "global" (or, non-local) when actually it's local. That makes sense, as far as it goes. But, like Schmelzer, I don't see how it can explain Bell. Of course maybe that's because I don't understand Christian, or Hess, or other pertinent information.

Thomas Ray wrote: Einstein can say that all physics is local, because all physics is not other than local.

No he can't, he's dead. (Unless you can reverse that event also!) However, you can say it. Naturally it depends what we mean by "local".

Well at least I've learned one thing: "non-local" is another one of those terms, so common in today's physics, which I'm not supposed to use. Like ether, collapse of wavefunction, "lost information", etc. Many physicists seem to care more about language than math! So I'll just call it "Property X". All that actually matters - to me, anyway - is results of experiments, not what you call them. Theory matters also, but not as much.

Sorry, that's what I should have said.

Thomas Ray wrote: The so-called QRC is a perpetual time-wasting game of tic-tac-toe (naughts and crosses to you Brits). It prescribes its own boundary, without a physical space to frame it, and so presents the illusion of individual discrete choice on an infinite two-dimension plane.

I know little about QRC. But I've coded, and directed the development of, many simulation programs and facilities. In comments above about QRC, I was supposing it is done the way it ought to be done, like any other effective numerical program that simulates the results of a scientific experiment. Anyway, you're right: even supposing it's well-written, it's not the same as the real physical situation. It's just a digital reproduction of the equations. A very elaborate game of tic-tac-toe, if you will. It has many artificial features, like the illusion of a perfectly uniform infinite space (based on the computer's virtual memory), round-off errors, and so forth. A simulation is NOT the real thing. However a good simulation does mimic the equations (the math, the theory) very well, so it can be used to explore theoretical concepts.

Thomas Ray wrote: Events in four dimension spacetime are reversible.

I don't think so. Consider: I can get older (often do, in fact) but not younger. If you can reverse that event, I'll give you 500,000 USD, cash, to put me back the way I was 50 years ago. Please PM me with your technique to reverse aging!

Thomas Ray wrote: There is no need to violate special relativity -- special relativity in fact may be the key to our comprehensibility of a finite world.

Without it, modern physics would indeed be incomprehensible.

Thomas Ray wrote: What is exotic, actually, is the infinite and unbounded space of conventional quantum theory, which has no physical sense independent of experiment.

If I understand you correctly, you're right. (Dirac discussed this at length.) Don't forget a "theory" is, just like a computer simulator, an artificial construct to represent the real physical situation. All theories are "unreal" in various ways. For instance, they conventionally use infinity: integrals are taken from -inf to +inf, and so on. That's impossible in the real world.

Anyway, you think that real spacetime has certain properties which are not correctly accounted for in QM theory. For one thing, it's finite, and this simple fact points to a correspondence between local and global phenomena. So we can mistakenly think a phenomenon is "global" (or, non-local) when actually it's local. That makes sense, as far as it goes. But, like Schmelzer, I don't see how it can explain Bell. Of course maybe that's because I don't understand Christian, or Hess, or other pertinent information.

Thomas Ray wrote: Einstein can say that all physics is local, because all physics is not other than local.

No he can't, he's dead. (Unless you can reverse that event also!) However, you can say it. Naturally it depends what we mean by "local".

Well at least I've learned one thing: "non-local" is another one of those terms, so common in today's physics, which I'm not supposed to use. Like ether, collapse of wavefunction, "lost information", etc. Many physicists seem to care more about language than math! So I'll just call it "Property X". All that actually matters - to me, anyway - is results of experiments, not what you call them. Theory matters also, but not as much.