Re: Two EPR questions
From: Ilja Schmelzer (Ilja.Schmelzer_at_FernUni-Hagen.de)
Date: 11/16/04
- Next message: John T Lowry: "Re: Boyancy and Gravity!"
- Previous message: carlip-nospam_at_physics.ucdavis.edu: "Re: sources of gravity"
- In reply to: seratend: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Next in thread: seratend: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Reply: seratend: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:56:46 +0000 (UTC)
"seratend" <ser_monmail@yahoo.fr> schrieb
> "Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote
> > Translated into our physics "looking into the box" can be understood
> > as developing realistic hidden variable theories. We know from Bell
> > that they need a preferred frame. Therefore we have to develop
> > theories with preferred frames.
> >
> > That's what I'm doing. I wonder why I'm almost alone.
> I understand that you are saying that hidden variable theories need a
> preferred frame (I have suppressed the realistic : ).
> I have not considered this problem but I am surprised as almost all
> (the one's I know) such theories mimics the QM so adding special
> relativity should not be a problem. Would you mind giving us more
> details on the preferred frame problem?
A preferred frame we need if we want a realistic interpretation of
QM. The simplest choice is Bohmian mechanics.
"Realistic" means, roughly speaking, what we have to make a
hypothesis about reality. The realistic theory has an ontology,
a description of reality. In Bohmian mechanics, the reality
consists of two parts, the wave function Psi(q) and the state of the
universe q. Except in the simplest case of one-particle-theory
q is not the location in space. It is the general configuration of
the whole universe, including positions of all particles. Therefore
Psi(q) is not a local function. But it is local in time, a function
Psi(q,t). As well, the state of the universe is a function of t q(t).
The problem with relativistic QFT is that it extends the "shut up and
calculate" ideology. It does not care at all about an explanation
for the observed probabilities - being able to compute them is
sufficient. This is not an explanation. Compare with the theory:
"We hear voices every Friday the 13. at midnight in the castle."
It is a falsifiable theory. But, let's assume it is supported by
observation. Would you accept such a successful prediction
as an explanation? Certainly not. We would search for other
explanations. As physicists we would search for physical
explanations. In the worst case, if no physical explanation is
possible, we would take into consideration explanations using
ghosts, magic, UFOs and so on. That would be really strange,
only the last resort, but at least explanations.
Instead, the position "We do not need ghosts for
explanation. We have predicted that we hear the voices again
this Friday, the prediction was successful, fine. No problem
at all." would be much more strange, not?
Now, if we reject the "shut up and calculate" ideology as not
giving a realistic explanation, we have BM which has a preferred
frame as a realistic theory.
And we have Bell's inequality. It shows that for every pair of events
A, B, such that measurements and observations at these events
allow to violate Bell's inequality, we have a (hidden) causal
influence A->B or B->A. Given the predictions of QM, this holds
for almost every pair of events. Now, let's consider the question what
really happens, A->B or B->A. We cannot measure this. It is
a hidden variable. Nonetheless, in a realistic causal theory we
postulate that there are no closed causal loops. Thus, A->B xor
B->A, and the realistic theory has to make a hypothesis which of
the claims is the correct one. Combining this with the usual causality
related with light cones we can see that every such consistent set of
hypotheses about these hidden directions of the causal influence
defines a preferred foliation.
Note that this discussion about EPR, Bell and preferred frames is
only one part of my general argumentation in favour of a preferred frame.
It includes many other, completely independent parts.
* An ether theory of gravity with preferred frame, GR limit, EEP
derived from ether axioms. It is related with the three-dimensional
geometric interpretation of gravity known as ADM decomposition
in harmonic coordinates.
* Considerations of quantum gravity problems (problem of time,
information loss problem, noncovariance of the renormalization
of the energy-momentum tensor on curved background,
quantization of harmonic gauge as constraints).
See gr-qc/0205035, gr-qc/0001101.
And, from the paper I'm working on now:
* A three-dimensional geometric interpretation of the SM
fermions as sections of A(3)xCx/\(R^3)
* A related lattice theory with configuration space
A(3)(Z^3) or phase space CxA(3)(Z^3) where the
additional factor /\ of the continuous limit appears as
a consequence of the species doubling effect.
* The hypothesis that the gauge fields appear as
lattice defects of the lattice A(3)(Z^3).
See hep-th/0310241 (which gives the geometric interpretation
Tx/\x/\(R^3) which is close to A(3)xCx/\(R^3)),
hep-lat/0311009 (which defines strong interaction on
an octet /\(Z^3) which gives /\x/\(R^3)) for earlier versions.
Ilja
- Next message: John T Lowry: "Re: Boyancy and Gravity!"
- Previous message: carlip-nospam_at_physics.ucdavis.edu: "Re: sources of gravity"
- In reply to: seratend: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Next in thread: seratend: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Reply: seratend: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
