Re: Why LET Is Superior to SR!

From: chaverondier (bernard.chaverondier_at_wanadoo.fr)
Date: 06/04/04 

Date: 4 Jun 2004 06:07:31 -0700

dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrncc05pa.5c.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...

Bilge
>>> Without boost symmetry, we are not doing physics in this
universe,
>>> since in this universe, we observe that boost symmetry.

Chaverondier
> >And, for most phenomena, we observe P and T symmetry too...
> >...Nevertheless the neutral Kaon disintegration violates this
> >symmetries.

Bilge
> But we obviously observe that P and T are not good symmetries by
> themselves. What requires P and T to be good symmetries? Violation
> of those two symmetries doesn't conflict with relativity, either.
> Only the combination CPT is invariant.

Chaverondier
It was an example to illustrate the fact that certain symmetries
happen to have a strong physical meaning (P and T symmetries are
satisfied by electromagnetism to say the least) and nevertheless
aren't satisfied by any phenomenon.

However, you stress that P and T symmetries violations have been
indisputably proven experimentally (which is not the case of possible
Lorentz invariance violations up to now) and of course, I agree with
you about this point.

Bilge
>>> You're redefining the causality defined by the lorentz
>>> transforms to include what is by definition, acausal
>>> unless you define causal to include acausal, in which case,
>>> causal has no meaning.

Chaverondier
>>That's a matter of opinion.
 
Bilge
> It's not a matter of opinion. We define causal events as those
> which are time ordered.

Chaverondier
Yes, and you are convinced that only time-like separated events can be
time ordered in an objective manner (according to Minkowski space-time
causal structure) whatever any future observation. This amounts to
assume that space-time itself is endowed with a Minkowski space-time
geometry. This may be a nearly acceptable interpretation as far as we
assume the relativist invariance to be an universal principle
satisfied all the time by any phenomenon. That's your opinion and I
understand your point of view (though I don't share the strength of
your scientific belief of this interpretation).

Bilge
> If you define it some other way, you are
> just playing with semantics.

Chaverondier
Provided you assume that a physical interpretation is just semantics
as far as no physical observation is up to provide a proof up to
discriminate this interpretation with a previous one.

Bilge
> You are playing with semantics to satisfy
> some superficial desire to kludge a definition
> of causality for philosophical reasons at the
> expense of the physics.

Chaverondier
No.

Bilge
> Why is it so important to force nature to be causal.

Chaverondier
Nature doesn't bother about our philosophical wishes. Developments in
quantum measurement studies have soon proven that the decoherence
phenomenon is a deterministic process guided by the interaction
between the measuring apparatus and the environment that interacts
with it. The apparent irreducible indeterminacy occurring at the end
of the decoherence process may be explained by the lack of account for
the quantum state of the measuring apparatus and that of the
environment interacting with it.

Actually, I doubt the scientific believes grounding the putative
impossibility of superluminal signalling, ie the two following
interpretations of known physical observations
  * The relativist invariance is an universal principle satisfied all
the time by any phenomenon
  * Quantum indeterminacy is a fundamental indeterminacy so that
there is no possibility to bias the statistics of quantum measurement
outcomes (ie the Born rule) thanks to a strong control of the
environment interacting with a quantum measurement apparatus (see the
thread "quantum state diffusion question"
http://minilien.com/?yWenpCKAQy on sci.physics.research and answers of
Arnold Neumaier to get more details about possible Born rule deviation
in the framework of quantum state diffusion theory of Nicolas Gisin
and Ian Percival).

Of course, I understand the reasons for these 2 scientific believes
and I think that they can be strongly advocated. However, I more or
less believe that Quantum state diffusion theory may perhaps enlighten
these issues thanks to future developments.

> Gisin has already produced
> an experiment demonstrating that there is no way to time
> order measurements of entangled states.

Gisin experiment have proven that multisimultaneity hypothesis doesn't
work (which I would have bet without hesitation before knowing the
result). Indeed, what I propose is mono-simultaneity resting on
Aristotle space-time causal structure (ordering space-like separated
events in an observer independent manner). Such a measuring apparatus
motion independent simultaneity (ie an "objective quantum
simultaneity") is just the reverse of multisimultaneity hypothesis
(which has been disproved by Gisin experiments).

> Your attempt to reinvent the terms ``before'' and ``after'' to mean some-
> thing other than ``before'' and ``after'' [in Minkowski space-time]
> is just a play on words.

That's your opinion. That's not mine.

Bernard Chaverondier
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
Compatibility of Alain Aspect experiment interpretation as an action
at a distance with a formulation of Special Relativity in the
framework of Aristotle space-time (and an interpretation of relativist
invariance as an intrinsic property of phenomena that actually satisfy
this invariance).

Relevant Pages
Loading