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: " ... 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.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 08-30-2016, 02:18 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)