Validity of Relativity

Doc Al

Most certainly. If UglyDuckling wishes to discuss his personal "Proper Interval Locality" theory, he should submit it to the Independent Research Forum, subject to the applicable guidelines, found here.

UglyDuckling

Hi Farsight

Perhaps not exactly?

What the Bell Local theory is saying, is there is no requirement for a photon at all! The geometry of space-time, demanded by the special theory of relativity, creates zero interval paths that link directly spatially separated quantum systems. This allows energy/momentum to instantly (relative to the two participating systems) and directly pass from one system to another without the need of a carrier particle.

In the case you quote where you wish to detect the “photon” in flight at some point B between points A and C; where the donor system is at A and the acceptor System at C.
Here you are altering the experimental setup. By placing a detector system at position B the donor system becomes linked by zero interval paths to the detector system at B. When an interaction occurs the donor’s energy of excitation, relative to the proper interval of time separating the two systems, is instantly passed between the systems.(A to B rather than A to C)
Nothing actually has to travel between A and C or A and B.

The basic problem we have in understanding what is going with electromagnetic interactions boils down to the fact that the geometry of the physical world particularly the geometrical relationship between space and time cannot be graphically represented. For instance let us fix a pair of events which are spatially and temporally distant from each other on a rectilinear space-time diagram. The appearance of the interval of separation represented on the diagram will be greater than the true proper interval of separation. This is an error introduced because of the way we measure and represent the locations of events in space time.

The error in the graphical representation is

((deltaX)^2 +(deltaY)^2+(deltaZ)^2+(CdeltaT)^2)^1/2 -((deltaX)^2 +(deltaY)^2+(deltaZ)^2-(CdeltaT)^2)^1/2

When
((deltaX)^2 +(deltaY)^2+(deltaZ)^2= (CdeltaT)^2)

The representational error becomes equal to the perceived gulf between the events and the true interval of separation has zero magnitude.

This defines a condition that allows objects which are distant from each other (relative to measurements in space and time) to touch each other in space-time.

Since the perceived gulf between pairs of interacting quantum systems results from errors arising from the way we measure and represent events in space and time, it is a nonsense to have a carrier particle traversing a non existent gap.

All the characteristics attributed to the photon therefore come from the donor and acceptor systems and their relationship with the geometry of space-time.

The advantage of having photonless electrodynamics is that the contradictions between special relativity and quantum mechanics disappear whilst QED can be reinterpreted without any loss of accuracy.

Someone should prove me wrong if they want to call the idea crank, bogus, crackpot, jagtump etc. Although half the fun is keeping a tag of all the names people can invent.

Cheers

UglyDuckling

OK Point Taken

Unless asked directly for a reply I'll keep off the subject of proper interval locality.

I'm away until the end of June so I will submit a compliant post probably sometime in July.

Cheers

Ernies

pat said:Classically, we are used to equate "correlation between events" and "causality". In quantum mechanics, this link is broken. There may be correlation without a cause/effect relationship.[end of quote].

Is the assertion that the link is always broken? If it is, what is the sense in saying that a measurement 'causes' the collapse of the wave function, and allows us to deduce some result, though other properties are made uncertain? If not always then under what conditions? To assert 'under space-like separations' seems to me to beg the question.

nekkert llup

We are missing the point by considering SR instead of GR. In the settings of EPR-like experiments, we have two setups and measurement events that are outside each other's light cone. Proclaiming that we know the angle between the SG-magnets during these events without providing an operational definition of this angle is not free. You pay a price, which is entanglement.
In the context of SR the angle between the SG magnets is precisely defined, because we can unambiguously parallel-transport a vector over any distance, but in GR we cannot. Furthermore, in GR the angle, assessed for measurement pair m, has to be reassessed for pair m+1.
If you claim that you know the metric well enough to define the angle once and for all, you are stepping outside the context where you can discuss non-locality and entanglement.