Lorentz Invariance as local limit of Bigger Manifold

rogerl
Messages
238
Reaction score
2
Is it possible that Lorentz invariance is just a lower limit of a larger manifold that has a priveleged frame?

Even if Bell's experiments can't transmit signal faster than light. The spirit of relativity is still violated by say instantaneous correlation between 10 billion light years. As Popper said "we have to give up Einstein’s interpretation of special relativity and return to Lorentz’s interpretation and with it to . . . absolute space and time. . . . The reason for this assertion is that the mere existence of an infinite velocity entails [the existence] of an absolute simultaneity and thereby of an absolute space. Whether or not an infinite velocity can be attained in the transmission of signals is irrelevant for this argument: the one inertial system for which Einsteinian simultaneity coincides with absolute simultaneity . . . would be the system at absolute rest – whether or not this system of absolute rest can be experimentally identified. (Popper 1982: xviii, 20)"

Has anyone encountered a theory wherein Lorentz Invariance is just a lower limit of a another bigger manifold that allows Bell-like instantaneous correlations? Of course by default the bigger manifold can't transmit signal. But supposed signal can be transmitted. We can modify the manifold in such a way that a signal that reaches the other party 10 billion light years away instantaneously in the bigger manifold will take time (equal to the time it takes light to travel) to reach the smaller manifold that is lorentz invariance? Has anyone heard such a thing or close to it?

Does anybody really think that instantaneous, non-local, space-like, universe-wide
relations of absolute simultaneity (and EPR causal correlations) are logically, mathematically and ontologically consistent with Einstein’s GTR?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rogerl said:
Is it possible that Lorentz invariance is just a lower limit of a larger manifold that has a priveleged frame?

Yes.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4652
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2495

rogerl said:
Has anyone encountered a theory wherein Lorentz Invariance is just a lower limit of a another bigger manifold that allows Bell-like instantaneous correlations? Of course by default the bigger manifold can't transmit signal. But supposed signal can be transmitted. We can modify the manifold in such a way that a signal that reaches the other party 10 billion light years away instantaneously in the bigger manifold will take time (equal to the time it takes light to travel) to reach the smaller manifold that is lorentz invariance? Has anyone heard such a thing or close to it?

Does anybody really think that instantaneous, non-local, space-like, universe-wide
relations of absolute simultaneity (and EPR causal correlations) are logically, mathematically and ontologically consistent with Einstein’s GTR?

I don't know of any case of emergent quantum mechanics. The relationship between GR and QM is still not understood (except in special cases like AdS/CFT or perturbative quantum gravity).
 
atyy said:

I mean, is it possible that Lorentz invariance is just a lower limit of a larger manifold that has a priveleged frame that is instantaneous universe wide non-locally connected??
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top