Recent content by gentzen

A "good explanation" is what I mean by “mechanism”. Therefore, my question becomes whether the explanation from Mermin's chapter 9 is actually "good", especially whether it is better than Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). My guess is that the third frame (with its suitably chosen speed) is a good...

I "claimed" that the wave equation perspective is different from Lorentz Ether Theory (original post, before the edit). In the Lorentz Ether Theory, you accept that moving things "really get length contracted". That would be something mysterious to worry about. It is more his pedagogic attempt...

It was not ment as a complaint, and especially the lengthy parts were not part of that reference to moderation actions. My physics question (or physics topic) is the bold part below: (Quoted from RUTA's Insights article) Is there really nothing to be explained except for "relativity of...

The reference given in the original post (before the edit) was:

Here are more examples that I do believe that this analog contains an important grain of truth: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/evolution-of-the-renner-et-al-wigner-like-paradox.1004063/post-6503102...

In most textbooks on special relativity or electrodynamics, it is mentioned sooner or later that the Lorentz transformations are symmetries of the wave equation (and of the vacuum Maxwell equations). I no longer remember whether I ever worried about interpretation of special relativity. But this...

Yes, this is the meaning of that product symbol with two subscripts.

Let me verify: I have to admit that the bold parts (bold by me) suggest that Barandes distinguishes between the t' at which the subsystem is divisible and those which are a conditioning time. This is new in v3, compared to v2 which I once read: However, even the new passage suggests that...

But Barandes didn't even clarify this much. And it can make sense not to clarify, because there could be spurious division events. I suspect that Albert noticed how Barandes answered questions for clarifications, and did what was most consistent with that. (But of course, I basically already...

Thanks, now I see what you mean. And based on Barandes' answer (he doesn't want to make any "arbitrary" clarifications beyond what is enforced by his definition of indivisible stochastic dynamics), I also see why David Albert had to use his minimal completion, which doesn't give any special...

That is beside the point. After one has setup a model for a specific physical situation, the roles are fixed. Procrastinating over the fact that one could also have setup the roles and the model differently is not helpful. It even risks to confuse object level facts with meta-level stuff like:

What you are missing is that Barandes’ proposal is not just a different perspective, but incomplete in some very concrete ways. One can argue about whether staying silent about the dynamical laws is a problem, but at least it is clear that those laws are unrelated to his proposal. But...

So you label the screen as agent, because it plays the role of observer in your modeling of the S-G experiment? I don‘t like this way of dropping the distinction between observer and agent. An observer suggest something passive, like the screen. An agent suggest something more active, like an...

No, even so this is a point which came up in the discussions here (on PhysicsForums), the two main objections raised by David Albert (incompleteness and locality) are not directly related to this. The incompleteness he highlights is that the „causal power“ of the current configuration is not...

Bell on Bell’s theorem: The changing face of nonlocality Harvey R Brown, Christopher G Timpson https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03521 So here we have a claim that MWI is local, at least that is how David Marcus interpreted that paper here. Not sure how they argue themselves, but they certainly cite...