Login Register

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

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 08-31-2016, 01:36 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)