It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That might be true in the Copenhagen interpretation but despite that interpretation appearing in so many textbooks, there doesn't seem to be any real consensus on interpretation.
originally posted by: mbkennel
As far as I understand QM is incompatible with *local* realism, not realism generally.
In our view, the significance of the Bell theorem, both in its deterministic and stochastic forms, can only be fully understood by taking into account the fact that a fully Lorentz-covariant version of quantum theory, free of action-at-a-distance, can be articulated in the Everett interpretation.
I show that quantum nonlocality is an artifact of the assumption that observers obey the laws of classical mechanics, whereas observed systems obey quantum mechanics. Locality is restored if observed and observer both obey quantum mechanics, as in the many-worlds interpretation (MWI). Using the MWI, I show that the quantum side of Bell’s inequality is entirely local. Thus, experiments confirming “nonlocality” are actually confirming the MWI.
originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: delbertlarson
What's the difference between 'aether' and another quantum field in the SM?
originally posted by: mbkennel
As far as I understand QM is incompatible with *local* realism, not realism generally.
I'm OK to abandon that. Non-local effects in 3-d macroscopic space doesn't necessarily seem so bad to me: entangled particles may still yet be 'local' in the metric of an incomprehensible high-dimensional functional space, giving effects which are non-local in ordinary 3+1 space, the famed spooky correlations.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I do see part of the problem with the Copenhagen interpretation seems to be hanging on to some aspect of classical thinking as mentioned in the second source above.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: delbertlarson
What's the difference between 'aether' and another quantum field in the SM?
Each aether substance (there are two) is a solid, physical substance occupying a flat, Euclidean, 3 space. Time is a fully independent parameter that serves only to order events temporally.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
originally posted by: mbkennel
As far as I understand QM is incompatible with *local* realism, not realism generally.
I'm OK to abandon that. Non-local effects in 3-d macroscopic space doesn't necessarily seem so bad to me: entangled particles may still yet be 'local' in the metric of an incomprehensible high-dimensional functional space, giving effects which are non-local in ordinary 3+1 space, the famed spooky correlations.
In the flat, Euclidean space with an independent time parameter of the aether model, QM results are explained by an instantaneous collapse of the wave function. The entanglement issue is just one such collapse, but the simple two slit experiment is a good enough example of the problem of SRT, and since simple experiments are often the most instructive, let's look at that.
If we postulate the reality of the wave function, then the two-slit experiment can be understood by a single photon going through both slits. When it does so, its real wave function either collapses to the combined region of both slits, or it collapses on the wall containing the slits. For a photon that collapses to both slits, the two parts of the photon travel to the distant wall, interfere, and collapse there. One can work out the math, and it agrees with the observed interference pattern. But the collapse at the second wall must be instantaneous, so that it can't also occur somewhere else. Now, SRT says an observer moving parallel to the second wall would have a different concept of what is instantaneous, and that is why SRT is incompatible with QM under this very simple physical philosophy.
Where did Everett ever claim "multiple worlds"? As far as I know, when he mentioned that it was to say that wasn't his idea, see below. But there is plenty of literature that tries to imply it's Everett's idea; it's not.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
I believe both the multiple worlds and the extra dimensions can achieve an explanation for QM. I've just always believed that such proposals are considerably more objectionable than the original Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction and the Larmor time dilation. For the latter, we're just supposing that familiar objects are affected by their motion through the aether, while for the former we are introducing radical concepts that are there predominantly just to satisfy QM observations. I'd prefer to hang on to the classical thinking about a single universe in three spatial dimensions with time as an independent parameter ordering events.
It seems clear that DeWitt and Graham consider that the multitude of branching worlds are “real” in the ordinary sense of the word. In this sense, their Many Worlds perspective certainly departs from Everett’s intent.
In a 1976 philosophy paper on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, Levy-Leblond offers critical comments on the many worlds interpretation and compared it to his understanding of Everett’s theory.
Now, my criticism here is exactly symmetrical of the one I directed against the orthodox position: the “many worlds” idea again is a left-over of classical conceptions. The coexisting branches here, as the unique surviving one in the Copenhagen point of view, can only be related to “worlds” described by classical physics. The difference is that, instead of interpreting the quantum “plus” as a classical “or”, De Witt et al. interpret it as a classical “and”. To me, the deep meaning of Everett's ideas is not the coexistence of many worlds, but on the contrary, the existence of a single quantum one.The main drawback of the “many-worlds” terminology is that it leads one to ask the question of “what branch we are on”, since it certainly looks as if our consciousness definitely belonged to only one world at a time: But this question only makes sense from a classical point of view, once more. It becomes entirely irrelevant as soon as one commits oneself to a consistent quantum view.
In a letter to Levy-Leblond (Barrett 2011), Everett indicated that he quite agreed with Levy-Leblond’s argument and emphasized that the many worlds terminology was not his. I’m sympathetic with this view.
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: delbertlarson
originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: delbertlarson
What's the difference between 'aether' and another quantum field in the SM?
Each aether substance (there are two) is a solid, physical substance occupying a flat, Euclidean, 3 space. Time is a fully independent parameter that serves only to order events temporally.
Is it relativistically covariant?
What are the conserved quantities, and do the match experiments?
What does it mean to be 'solid, physical' substance? Are waves possible? Is there a dispersion relationship? Does it gravitate being 'physical'?
And finally, what observational issues does this theory satisfy that QFT doesn't, and how do you explain the immense quantitative success of QFT or even plain QM?
Nice to hear you're making progress. It's nice that your som is able to help review your work, he's trained in physics if I recall.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
My best guess on completion is sometime in 2022.
You know more about it than I do in that case, since I'm just an interested outside observer. But, the old joke about commercial nuclear fusion always being 30 years away doesn't seem so funny as it does true, and it's still happening:
Arbitrageur, I saw your fusion conspiracy thread. From 2001 to 2013 fusion was my focus. I hope to return to fusion once the aether work is done. (That was always the plan, but I thought the aether work would take at most two years). Yes, there are certainly problems within mankind's pursuit of fusion.
“I’ve heard all the jokes,” said Don Spong, a fusion energy researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in a recent talk to Friends of ORNL.
Spong noted that both the European Union and the United States are projecting that the first commercial fusion power plants may come online around 2050. That’s 30 years away.