Re: Hobba's misconceptions


Happy New Year,

"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
> Ilja Schmelzer:
> >"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
> >> Ilja Schmelzer:
> >> >"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
> >> >> Except that it won't be considered a relativistically correct
result
> >> >> without a proof that the result is manifestly covariant.
> >> >
> >> >without a proof that the observables results are covariant.
> >> >Manifest covariance is not that important.
> >>
> >> It's not important to _you_.
> >
> >It's not important to obtain correct predictions about observable
> >(physical) effects. Which is what is important for physics.
>
> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it's ok to
> violate the premises of the theory to get the right answer and
> then claim the answer is predicted by the theory.

No.

> >> It is important to physicists because
> >> for relativity, it constituites one of those popperian tests you are
> >> so fond of mentioning (but you don't seem to take too seriously).
> >> If a manifestly covariant theory cannot describe the observables,
> >> relativity would be falsified.
> >
> >If this would be the case, relativity would be falsified. But, because
> >you are wrong, SR is not considered to be falsified.
>
> As usual, you provide no evidence for your claims.

There is no manifestly covariant version of the wave function of
standard quantum theory. There are (AFAIK) no manifestly
covariant regularizations for the standard model, therefore we
have no manifestly covariant (in a sufficiently strong sense)
quantum theories at all.

What can be computed in manifest covariant ways is only
the scattering matrix, which is an infinit limit. This infinit limit
is a very good approximation for the observations, but,
last not least, all our experiments are, in principle, finite,
and for finite distances we have no manifestly covariant
quantum field theory.

> >LOL. In SR it is impossible to give a mathematically consistent
> >description of reality.
>
> It's impossible to give a mathematically consistent description of
> _your_ idea of reality using special relativity.

Which follows Einstein (EPR) and Bell.

> However, it's also
> impossible to give a mathematically consistent description of your
> idea of reality, period,

Nonsense. Mathematically consistent descriptions of reality
which fit with my ideas about realism exist, for example,
Bohmian mechanics.

> >Instead, in every mathematically consistent
> >description of reality which includes Einstein causality (for the real
> >effects) Bell's inequality can be proven. But Bell's inequality is
> >violated. Therefore, realistic versions of SR are falsified.

> You are deliberately being dishonest by conflating a particular
> definition of reality with the reality of how nature works.

I'm not dishonest at all. To describe my concepts, I use the
words realism (a philosophical theory), realistic explanation
(something done by humans), or, in the above quote, "description
of reality" (which is also something done by humans).

It's you who tries to conflate this.

> Fine,
> on that basis, nature is falsified, since nature doesn't fit your
> definition.

Nonsense. My definition is not about nature, but about
theories about Nature, which may be realistic theories about
Nature or non-realistic theories about Nature. If there exists
no viable realistic theory of Nature, my concept of realism
would be falsified, but not Nature.

BTW, viable realistic theories exist, thus, nor Nature nor
my concept of realism are falsified.

> Since you don't really demand reality to have any
> direct relationship to measurements, that shouldn't be a problem.

The relationship between realistic theory and measurement is
well-defined and sufficiently direct, given by the basic formula
of realism:

E(f|c) = int f(m(x,c)) rho(x) dx

Here, E(f|c) is the observable expectation value of the function
f(m) defined on the set of measurement results m, depending on
control parameters c.
The requirement of realism is that for _every_ observation there
should be a realistic explanation of this form.

Ilja


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hobbas misconceptions
    ... >have no manifestly covariant ... Is that supposed to add any reality to the description? ... >> definition of reality with the reality of how nature works. ... >words realism, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Two EPR questions
    ... >>some Psiwhich is not spatial but defined on the configuration ... does not describe some state of reality but our knowledge about ... >>algorithm has been guessed correctly. ... > sense" which is inevitably reached by proponents of realism ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Things we take for granted
    ... Entire books could be written on realism vs ... > better statements about reality, ... You divide understanding reality into "understanding deep reality" and ... that "realism" is a short form of "scientific realism." ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Philosophy specifies: organisms process information
    ... think that it really *is* an IBE that there is an external reality. ... I think scientific realism does conform to Occam's Razor - because it ... If all that "reality" is is the sum of human acts of knowing, ... from ideational narratives. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Philosophy specifies: organisms process information
    ... think that it really *is* an IBE that there is an external reality. ... I think scientific realism does conform to Occam's Razor - because it ... All we need *in science* is some kind of internal ... think modern physics has shown that this kind of reality is a chimera. ...
    (talk.origins)