View Single Post
harrylin
#44
Mar8-12, 01:06 PM
P: 3,184
[QUOTE=Chestermiller;3804649]
Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
[..] Unfortunately, any thought experiments that agree with the Lorentz Transformation can not be used as a method of distinguishing which, if either of the two descriptions, provides a better representation of physical reality. There may be other equally valid mechanistic equivalents of the Lorentz Transformation that would also be in the running.
From this, I think it follows that, if mechanistic models such as these are to be tested to determine which if any are better representations of physical reality, we must look to experiments beyond the realm of SR, such as those which require application of GR; even there it might be very difficult to provide resolution.
Yes, the main contender of today is, I think, the one thought up by Bell (search for Bell Theorem, I also started a new topic on it in the QM group). Bell favoured the "older" interpretation and thought to have found a proof for that in QM. However, while I also think that the older interpretation makes more sense, his solution doesn't make much sense to me - it's as Einstein called it, a "spooky" solution and I'm not (yet) convinced that his theorem is faultless for sure.