View Single Post
Dec21-11, 06:58 AM
P: 3,187
Quote Quote by stglyde View Post
We know that we didn't go from Galilian Invariance to Lorentz Invariance by just adding lenght contraction and time dilation. We also added the speed limit of light as c. So Lorentz Spacetime is a completely new foundation than Galilian Spacetime. And Spacetime foliation as I understood it being a slice of different nows and lengths giving rise to relativity of simultaneity. However, I can't understand what Tim Maudlin was talking about in the article "Non-Local Correlations in Quantum Theory: How the Trick Might Be Done" when he tried to make compatible Bohmian mechanics non-local nature by adding a new "Spacetime Foliation". Maudlin said:

How does it differs to the normal Spacetime foliations in Lorentz Spacetime? Is Mauldin describing about adding Spacetime foliations to Newtonian absolute space and time. Or is it adding additional structure to Lorentz Spacetime? But why did he refer to it as spacetime foliations (which has generic meaning in SR as slicing of spacetime in relativity of simultaneity)? Also wouldn't this end up the same as Lorentz Spacetime? I just can't imagine how the two differs and want to know how their spacetime diagrams differ.
I didn't know that article (although I now had a quick look at it); but I do have (and read) his book "Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity". One of the possible options that he mentions in view of Bell's theorem (which he takes for granted) and relating to Bohm's explanation is the existence of what he calls a "preferred frame", with which he obviously does not really mean a preferred but an "absolute" frame - just as Bell did before him.

So, perhaps he means with "further space-time structure" simply the addition of a Lorentz-Einstein ether, in which, as he mentions, "absolute simultaneity" exists although we cannot detect it ("not empirically accessible"). However, he calls such an interpretation of relativity not "completely relativistic" and presents another interpretation by Tumulka which he does hold to be completely relativistic - but which I do not understand (and neither do I understand the one by Ghirardi).
Anyone else?