Login Register

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

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 08-30-2016, 04:31 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 35 Guest(s)