Action-at-a-distance in Sideways EPR-Bell?

[DevilsAvocado]

RUTA, I’m still digesting your https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3048084&postcount=80". There’s a lot going around in my head, including Swedish hotdogs... But there will be a lengthy reply, ASAP.

I will just chime in with some "good news" and some maybe "less good news", for RBW.

EDIT: Forget 1 I was wrong, dBB do not satisfy Leggett’s assumptions.

[STRIKE]1) Check out https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459148". It looks like a new test of Leggett's inequality (computer-controlled holograms), is pointing towards a non-local + non-separable world! Must be good for RBW, right?[/STRIKE]

2) I found this (one year old) 'news' from http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/first_year.html" indicating that the old man was right - experimental evidence showing that spacetime is smooth as Einstein predicted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="385">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1mkKhn53L68&fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca">
</param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1mkKhn53L68&fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed>
</object>

Does this have any 'implications' on the Euclidean simplices in RBW?

 

[RUTA]

I found this (one year old) 'news' from http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/first_year.html" indicating that the old man was right - experimental evidence showing that spacetime is smooth as Einstein predicted:
Does this have any 'implications' on the Euclidean simplices in RBW?

This result is consistent with what I would expect from our "nonseparable simplices." There's no reason to expect a difference in the computation of light speed when the relations between sources are always direct (no scattering). The conclusion given in the video assumes the dynamical perspective, i.e., there are massless particles moving through space between an emission event and a reception event. Of course, that assumption does not hold in RBW. We would say the computation of the "speed" is simply a ratio of space to time between events, i.e., there is no "thing" with a worldline connecting those events. One would expect an invariant speed to arise in a formalism where space, time and sources are being co-defined.

 

[RUTA]

I'm pretty sure that my worldview is quite naive, especially wrt, say, RUTA's. That's one reason why I'm so amenable to changing it.

And I am aware that my worldview is likely wrong, so I'm amenable to changing it as well

Well, expanding, evolving, contextual, and relative seems to me to rule out nondynamical blockworld and retrocausal views.

We don't contend the dynamical perspective is "wrong" at the classical level. On the contrary, our fundamental rule (self-consistency criterion) for building graphs is chosen precisely so that dynamical classical physics with its divergence-free stress-energy tensor follows necessarily as a statistical limit of the discrete, adynamical and relational fundamental level.

Ok, we seem to differ on the latter part of this. I don't think that SR and QM, properly understood, have caused any erosion to concepts of matter, time, space, simultaneity, causality, and determinism.

Most, at this point, believe quite the contrary. But, without the answer, who knows?

 

[moving-finger]

RBW = Superdeterminism = No free will ...?

I often find that people reject determinism, because it rules out free will.
But what makes you think that free will exists anyway, even if the world is not deterministic?
As a concept, free will is emotionally attractive, but totally incoherent.