Re: Lorentz Ether Theory and FTL Paradoxes

From: Ilja Schmelzer (q6867901_at_mailstore.fernuni-hagen.de)
Date: 09/13/04 

Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:55:38 +0200

"chaverondier" <bernard.chaverondier@wanadoo.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:a883a4e1.0409091139.203e54aa@posting.google.com...
> "Ilja Schmelzer" <q6867901@mailstore.fernuni-hagen.de> wrote in message
news:<chothe$dqf$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de>...
>
> Ilja Schmelzer
> > > > That the EPR correlations cannot be used
> > > > to transfer information is a triviality :
>
> Chaverondier
> > > Yes, provided we assume two hypotheses which
> > > (in my opinion) are not trivialities
> > >
> > > H1 : all phenomena without any exception
> > > satisfy the principle of relativity of motion.
> > >
> > > H2 : quantum indeterminism is fundamental
> > > (H2 is necessary to warranty H1 not to be
> > > violated by quantum measurements)
>
> Ilja Schmelzer
> > Certainly my argumentation is not based on these two hypotheses.
> > I don't need them at all. All I need is that two causal realistic
> > explanations are possible.
>
> Chaverondier
> Actually, I fear that I misunderstood your claim. I thought you
> pretended that, in the EPR experiment, two causal explanations were
> possible without conflict with the principle of relativity ?

Hm. To clarify, above explanations are not in contradiction with
the relativity principle as long as the relativity principle is understood
as a claim about observations, not about reality.

> * One causal explanation would pretend measurement A to be the
> cause of measurement B without conflict with the relativity principle.
>
> * One causal explanation pretending measurement B to be the cause
> of measurement A without conflict with the relativity principle.

Yep.

> However, when measurements A and B are space-like separated, any one
> of these two causal explanations conflicts with the principle of
> relativity of motion.

No. They make a claim about what really happens. Relativistic symmetry
holds
for observable effects.

> Moreover, the relativist time ordering cannot be assumed to define a
> realistic (hence observer independent) cause-effect ordering because
> the relativist time ordering between space-like separated measurements
> A and B depends on the motion of the observer which decide to time
> order them (with his relativist synchronization related time
> ordering).

Why care? Each of the two explanations is based on some time ordering
which is compatible with relativistic causality (in the sense that causal
influences allowed by RT are allowed in this time ordering too.)

> So where do these two incompatible causal explanations of EPR effect
> stem from ?

>From two versions of BM related with two choices of a preferred frame.

> So, what is exactly your claim ?

My claim is that
(A->B) or (B->A) => The effect cannot be used for FTL information transfer.

Moreover,
(A->B) or (B->A) => Einstein-causality is violated.

Usual reasoning argues

The effect cannot be used for FTL information transfer => Einstein-causality
is not violated.

If we combine all this, we obtain
(A->B) or (B->A) => Einstein-causality is violated and Einstein-causality
is not violated.

This is nonsensical. Therefore, one of the considerations is invalid. And
it is easy
to see which. It is the usual reasoning
"The effect cannot be used for FTL information transfer =>
Einstein-causality
is not violated."

Ilja

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lorentz Ether Theory and FTL Paradoxes
    ... >> pretended that, in the EPR experiment, two causal explanations were ... >> cause of measurement B without conflict with the relativity principle. ... > Relativistic symmetry holds for observable effects. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The relativity of simultaneity
    ... Einstein's relativity principle states that: ... for the performance of all physical experiments. ... inertial frames. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The three theories in physics. Which is correct?
    ... but the special relativity principle, ... that of a third cesium clock that remained locally at rest. ... account for gravitation effects, but that matters less for the general ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The three theories in physics. Which is correct?
    ... Note that the above is not Einstein's relativity principle but the ... flown in opposite directions and then their "times" were compared to ... that of a third cesium clock that remained locally at rest. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lorentz Ether Theory and FTL Paradoxes
    ... >> satisfy the principle of relativity of motion. ... pretended that, in the EPR experiment, two causal explanations were ... cause of measurement B without conflict with the relativity principle. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)