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

[RUTA]

... wonders too ...

RBW = Superdeterminism = No free will ...?

I'm not sure how to answer this because I'm not sure what you mean by "deterministic." In the standard physics sense, I would say RBW is not deterministic because you calculate probabilities at the most fundamental level, just like in quantum physics.

 

[yoda jedi]

I’ve localized the problem – it’s "lost in translation" related... It’s the two words ontology and formalism, which messes up things for me. Please correct me if I’m wrong Ontology: the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.

Meaning that, this is the way we as human beings perceive the world around us. We see the laser beam, and the polarizer, and the measuring electronics, and the clock. Now, if our consciousness is in anyway "involved" in the outcome of EPR-Bell experiments, we’re going to have a darned hard time solving this enigma, by just using the reality as we perceive it.

..Wrong, Ontology deals with existence.
Existence of things independently of anything (for example "human beings") a noumenon.

things "as" they exist

...Being Qua Being...

 

[Maui]

I'm not sure how to answer this because I'm not sure what you mean by "deterministic." In the standard physics sense, I would say RBW is not deterministic because you calculate probabilities at the most fundamental level, just like in quantum physics.

If you are able to correctly calculate probabilities of outcomes, then it's obviously not the most fundamental level. I thought the most fundamental level in RBW was supposed to be, how would i say it, an underlying reality or HV's(or the "aim of science is what we can say about nature, not what nature is" approach)?

There is a pretty strong tension between GR and QM with regards to the notion of determinism and hence my interest in what RBW is saying about the issue. The worldlines in GR are set in stone, assuming some weak form of realism.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I'm not sure how to answer this because I'm not sure what you mean by "deterministic." In the standard physics sense, I would say RBW is not deterministic because you calculate probabilities at the most fundamental level, just like in quantum physics.

This is really good news! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism" is the gloomiest theory one could think of...


P.S. Besides gloomy, it’s also maybe 'dangerous' in the hands of Creationists... I googled: [superdeterminism "relational blockworld"], and found http://www.dontveter.com/notes/hm.html" , where you are mentioned by name, quoted when quoting another physicist, plus direct linking to "Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the Quantum Liar Paradox" in the only footnote...

Ouch! Donald R. Tveter has clearly got RBW wrong! It’s not OK to be a liar!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

..Wrong, Ontology deals with existence.
Existence of things independently of anything

Thanks YJ for clarifying. I think I got the picture. Philosophy can be a slightly 'tedious' matter... causing endless discussions. If I wanted to continue along this line, I could have stated:

– There seems to be some misunderstanding. RUTA has just explained that classical objects need interaction to be existent. Please define "independently" and "anything".​

But, for god sake! I’m not asking you this question!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

"Is the Moon there when nobody looks?"

I would answer this question by first clarifying the phrase "nobody looks." If by this you mean simply "it doesn't interact with anything," then the answer is no, the Moon is not "there" when it's not interacting with anything (nothing special about interacting with humans). The Moon is not anywhere in this case -- it doesn't exist because it is defined by interactions. No interactions, no Moon. [We prefer the word "relations" to "interactions," because the latter is too dynamical; in RBW the fundamental law deals with links on graphs, and not all links correspond to "interactions." But, speaking in terms of interactions is a helpful first step.]

This is very interesting, especially when exchanging "interactions" to "relations". This must mean we are not 'simply' talking photons here, right?

Then I have a 'tricky' question for you (I hope ): I know quantum gravity is still "under development", and maybe RBW will provide the complete solution. But anyway, we take it for granted that QM objects are influenced by gravity (and spacetime bends even light/photons). Now, I would then claim that every particle in the whole universe has "relation" to "something", whether it’s the 'normal' galaxy gravity (Black holes/Dark Matter), or the repulsive gravity from Dark Energy...

Right or wrong?

 

[RUTA]

If you are able to correctly calculate probabilities of outcomes, then it's obviously not the most fundamental level. I thought the most fundamental level in RBW was supposed to be, how would i say it, an underlying reality or HV's(or the "aim of science is what we can say about nature, not what nature is" approach)?

In RBW, one computes partition functions over graphs. The graphs are constructed per the fundamental, adynamical self-consistency criterion. I'm not sure why you're claiming this can't be the most fundamental level.

There is a pretty strong tension between GR and QM with regards to the notion of determinism and hence my interest in what RBW is saying about the issue. The worldlines in GR are set in stone, assuming some weak form of realism.

If you want to know what RBW says about GR, look at Regge calculus -- it's a discrete version of GR derived from a least action principle over graphs. In Regge calculus, the least action principle leads to a set of equations in the lengths of the graphical links. One can set up and solve these equations for vacuum solutions, i.e., there are links with no stress-energy. Generally, one considers Regge calculus to be a discrete approximation to GR.

RBW suggests the following corrections:

1. RBW is "non-separable," so we are exploring an approach to Regge calculus where all links must have stress-energy. This means you can have large simplices and we believe it might lead to different analyses for galactic spectra, thereby leading to different galactic velocity profiles.

2. The fundamental level is discrete, so GR is the continuous, separable approximation to this non-separable Regge calculus.

3. A link of non-separable Regge calculus is like that shown in Fig 3 of the arXiv paper -- it's an average value of many fundamental links like those shown in Fig 2.

If we're right about how to view gravity, then quantum gravity is (relatively) trivial. We've got several computations and empirical comparisons with GR to make before we can say whether this idea is reasonable, though

 

[RUTA]

This is very interesting, especially when exchanging "interactions" to "relations". This must mean we are not 'simply' talking photons here, right?

Right.

Then I have a 'tricky' question for you (I hope ): I know quantum gravity is still "under development", and maybe RBW will provide the complete solution. But anyway, we take it for granted that QM objects are influenced by gravity (and spacetime bends even light/photons). Now, I would then claim that every particle in the whole universe has "relation" to "something", whether it’s the 'normal' galaxy gravity (Black holes/Dark Matter), or the repulsive gravity from Dark Energy...

Right or wrong?

That's the way we think about physics now -- in Newtonian gravity, every mass interacts with every other mass. In GR, it's essentially the same -- every object effects the spacetime in the immediate vicinity of its worldtube and that curved spacetime effects the spacetime in its immediate vicinity ... all the way to the worldtubes of every other object. RBW doesn't disagree, in fact because RBW is non-separable, this problem is a bit more relevant. But, we still assume the possibility of modeling systems in isolation from the rest of the universe -- an approximation that must hold if physics is to be possible.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

RBW doesn't disagree ... But, we still assume the possibility of modeling systems in isolation ...

Fascinating! But... generally in QM? Does gravity qualify as a "relation" and thus the Moon is there, as long as it has mass...??

 

[RUTA]

Fascinating! But... generally in QM? Does gravity qualify as a "relation" and thus the Moon is there, as long as it has mass...??

Certainly, gravity constitutes an "interaction"

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Certainly, gravity constitutes an "interaction"

Aha! Gotcha!

If you want to know what RBW says about GR, look at Regge calculus

I’d check out Regge calculus, and I think I’ve got a tiny "hint" what goes on in RBW. You’re using Regge calculus to produce a "Simplicial manifold" of 4D spacetime (called simplex?), right?

A 3-simplex

You break up this manifold into a "Simplicial complex" of a topological spacetime.

A simplicial 3-complex

Which is now 'open' for a "non-separable solution", right...??

I don’t understand "links" and "stress-energy"... is this a way to 'implement' gravity in RBW??

P.S. I’m a little 'surprised' how much of the vocabulary in Regge calculus is exactly the same as in my favorite (GNU GPL) program for 3D modeling and animation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)" ; vertices, edges, faces, triangulation and subdivision are fundamental in Blender... but maybe obvious since we are talking manifolds in both cases...

[PLAIN]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0b/Blender_2.54_beta_screenshot.png/700px-Blender_2.54_beta_screenshot.png

 

[RUTA]

This is very good! I'm sending it to colleagues!

P.S. Thanks for sending that link to the RBW reference in superdeterminism. I always thought RBW was a "God-like" idea and now I have the proof

 

[RUTA]

You’re using Regge calculus to produce a "Simplicial manifold" of 4D spacetime (called simplex?), right?

A 3-simplex

You break up this manifold into a "Simplicial complex" of a topological spacetime.

Which is now 'open' for a "non-separable solution", right...??

I don’t understand "links" and "stress-energy"... is this a way to 'implement' gravity in RBW??

Yes. Simplices are 4D extrapolations of the 3D tetrahedron (3-simplex) you pictured, like tetrahedra are 3D extrapolations of 2D triangles. So, the simplices are bounded by tetrahedra which are bounded by triangles which are bounded by links (the silver rods bounding the red triangles in your picture of the 3-simplex). Specifying the lengths of the links uniquely determines the geometry of the graph and Regge calculus provides the equations in those link lengths. You can get as good an approximation as you like to a smooth 4D manifold by letting the simplices be as small as necessary -- just like you can approximate the surface of Earth with small enough triangles. It turns out that the stress-energy tensor (the tensor on the RHS of Einstein's equations of GR representing the momentum flux, energy density and forces in spacetime) takes its values on the links in Regge calculus. In GR it's possible to solve EE's for the metric in empty spacetime, i.e., where the stress-energy tensor is zero. The counterpart to such solutions in Regge calculus would simply be links with no associated stress-energy.

The difference to Regge calculus that we're exploring is to assume all links must have stress-energy. That means we will (at times) need links that connect distant sources, e.g., sources in two different galaxies. That means our simplices can be very large, which means spacetime isn't a smooth manifold structure. Returning to our analogy of modeling Earth's 2D surface with triangles, imagine forming the surface with continguous triangles to form a nice 2D sphere. Now, make a triangle connecting Washington D.C. with Paris and Tokyo. So much for your smooth 2D sphere. Those "manifold-violating" triangles are what we mean by "non-separable."

 

[yoda jedi]

Thanks YJ for clarifying. I think I got the picture. Philosophy can be a slightly 'tedious' matter... causing endless discussions. If I wanted to continue along this line, I could have stated:

– There seems to be some misunderstanding. RUTA has just explained that classical objects need interaction to be existent.​

then is not an ontological entity (the moon).


consequently what produces gravity ?





-----------
read:

What is ultimately possible in physics depends on foundations and philosophy
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Lynds_What_is_ultimately_po.pdf

...You could say people didn’t really think the theory was true because they had rejected the idea of truth in science. Truth in science must mean correspondence to reality, or it means nothing.
...David Deutsch



pd: and sorry the term "existence" belongs to phylosophy​

 

[Maui]

then is not an ontological entity (the moon).


consequently what produces gravity ?

We don't know ontologically what the Moon is.

Moreover, the standard "spacetime curvature" answer also falls short when you take seriosly the implications of GR, because "spacetime curvature" is also just another worldline in a 4D block universe. It cannot be a ultimate explanation of anything, ontologically.

 

[yoda jedi]

We don't know ontologically what the Moon is.

Moreover, the standard "spacetime curvature" answer also falls short when you take seriosly the implications of GR, because "spacetime curvature" is also just another worldline in a 4D block universe. It cannot be a ultimate explanation of anything, ontologically.

and who said that ?

 

[Maui]

and who said that ?

Who said what?


Your question:

then is not an ontological entity (the moon).

consequently what produces gravity ?

relating to interactions bringing the Moon into existence, must be answered within the framework of a theory of quantum gravity. I was pointing out that there isn't a particularly satisfying ontological answer what produces gravity, as GR depicts a 4D block universe.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Yes.

Great!

Simplices are 4D extrapolations of the 3D tetrahedron (3-simplex) you pictured, like tetrahedra are 3D extrapolations of 2D triangles. So, the simplices are bounded by tetrahedra which are bounded by triangles which are bounded by links (the silver rods bounding the red triangles in your picture of the 3-simplex).

This is cool! I get this, no problem.

4D simplices –> 3D simplex –> 2D triangles –> 1D links

Specifying the lengths of the links uniquely determines the geometry of the graph and Regge calculus provides the equations in those link lengths. You can get as good an approximation as you like to a smooth 4D manifold by letting the simplices be as small as necessary -- just like you can approximate the surface of Earth with small enough triangles.

I get this also.

It turns out that the stress-energy tensor (the tensor on the RHS of Einstein's equations of GR representing the momentum flux, energy density and forces in spacetime) takes its values on the links in Regge calculus. In GR it's possible to solve EE's for the metric in empty spacetime, i.e., where the stress-energy tensor is zero. The counterpart to such solutions in Regge calculus would simply be links with no associated stress-energy.

This is very cool! I think I have a glimpse now, on how gravity works in RBW!

The difference to Regge calculus that we're exploring is to assume all links must have stress-energy. That means we will (at times) need links that connect distant sources, e.g., sources in two different galaxies. That means our simplices can be very large, which means spacetime isn't a smooth manifold structure. Returning to our analogy of modeling Earth's 2D surface with triangles, imagine forming the surface with continguous triangles to form a nice 2D sphere. Now, make a triangle connecting Washington D.C. with Paris and Tokyo. So much for your smooth 2D sphere. Those "manifold-violating" triangles are what we mean by "non-separable."

I must be missing something crucial... because I tried the "Washington–Paris–Tokyo–Triangle", and it works just fine on my computer...!?

Or do you mean that; when creating the "higher resolution" of triangles to get a smooth 2D sphere, I’m now obligated to follow the new "zigzag" pattern between the cities...?


Another question:
There’s one thing that’s hard for me, and that is to visualize 4D. Can you do this?

I’ve shown this for some pros:

[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/8-cell-simple.gif[/URL]

And they say "yes it’s good" but it’s not real 4D...

Why is this so damned hard? I know we only have 3 dimensions to play with, but we can display and manipulate 3D on a 2D computer screen, right? So why can’t we display and manipulate 4D on a new 3D computer screen (that’s 'only' one dimension 'short')??

Where’s the problem? We just add time to the array and get [x, y, z, t] ...

(I know this is a stupid question , but I’m curious on your view, since you work a lot with 4D)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

This is very good! I'm sending it to colleagues!

Cool, just spread the world!

(Just wait till Sarah Palin get this news… she’s going to write a book and start a new ®evolution – "I caaaan see the world from my backyard!" )

P.S. Thanks for sending that link to the RBW reference in superdeterminism. I always thought RBW was a "God-like" idea and now I have the proof

On the Seventh Day Captain RUTA Created... RBW!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

pd: and sorry the term "existence" belongs to phylosophy

But, for god sake! I’m not asking you this question!

 

[yoda jedi]

Who said what?


Your question:




relating to interactions bringing the Moon into existence, must be answered within the framework of a theory of quantum gravity. I was pointing out that there isn't a particularly satisfying ontological answer what produces gravity, as GR depicts a 4D block universe.

sorry for you, not a question...

Originally Posted by DevilsAvocado
Thanks YJ for clarifying. I think I got the picture. Philosophy can be a slightly 'tedious' matter... causing endless discussions. If I wanted to continue along this line, I could have stated:

– There seems to be some misunderstanding. RUTA has just explained that classical objects need interaction to be existent.​

then is not an ontological entity (the moon).​

 

[yoda jedi]

Thanks YJ for clarifying. I think I got the picture. Philosophy can be a slightly 'tedious' matter... causing endless discussions. If I wanted to continue along this line, I could have stated:
There seems to be some misunderstanding. RUTA has just explained that classical objects need interaction to be existent. Please define "independently" and "anything".

But, for god sake! I’m not asking you this question!

of course you are not asking, you are asserting.




------------------
and

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

I’ve been tweaking my "CPU" to max, to see if anything comes out in the "Arithmetic Logic Unit". And the result is almost embarrassing ().

I’ve localized the problem – it’s "lost in translation" related... It’s the two words ontology and formalism, which messes up things for me.

Please correct me if I’m wrong:


Ontology: the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.

Meaning that, this is the way we as human beings perceive the world around us. We see the laser beam, and the polarizer, and the measuring electronics, and the clock. Now, if our consciousness is in anyway "involved" in the outcome of EPR-Bell experiments, we’re going to have a darned hard time solving this enigma, by just using the reality as we perceive it.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Philosophy can be a slightly 'tedious' matter... causing endless discussions.

...[/color]

 

[RUTA]

I must be missing something crucial... because I tried the "Washington–Paris–Tokyo–Triangle", and it works just fine on my computer...!?

Remember, all simplices are Euclidean. The triangle you drew is curved.

Another question:
There’s one thing that’s hard for me, and that is to visualize 4D. Can you do this?

I’ve shown this for some pros:

[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/8-cell-simple.gif[/URL]

And they say "yes it’s good" but it’s not real 4D...

Why is this so damned hard? I know we only have 3 dimensions to play with, but we can display and manipulate 3D on a 2D computer screen, right? So why can’t we display and manipulate 4D on a new 3D computer screen (that’s 'only' one dimension 'short')??

Where’s the problem? We just add time to the array and get [x, y, z, t] ...

(I know this is a stupid question , but I’m curious on your view, since you work a lot with 4D)

I can't visualize 4D, either -- I work with analogies and have to constantly check my calculations to make sure they produce valid physics.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Remember, all simplices are Euclidean. The triangle you drew is curved.

Ahhh thanks! This is getting real interesting! Let’s recapitulate:

The difference to Regge calculus that we're exploring is to assume all links must have stress-energy. That means we will (at times) need links that connect distant sources, e.g., sources in two different galaxies. That means our simplices can be very large, which means spacetime isn't a smooth manifold structure. Returning to our analogy of modeling Earth's 2D surface with triangles, imagine forming the surface with continguous triangles to form a nice 2D sphere. Now, make a triangle connecting Washington D.C. with Paris and Tokyo. So much for your smooth 2D sphere. Those "manifold-violating" triangles are what we mean by "non-separable."

If I understand this correct... the 'straight' Euclidean triangle RBW uses to connect different 'points' in 4D spacetime, does not (obviously) follow the smoothness of the "higher resolution" in a smooth 4D simplices manifold. It goes straight to the 'point' (vertices) = the shortest distance!

And this 'behavior' implements non-separability in RBW.

Correct?

EDIT: Does RBW allow you to go "straight thru the Earth", so to speak?

(If this is right, I’m going to check the RBW-flight-time between Washington–Paris–Tokyo! )

Question: Why do you use the "high resolution" smooth 4D simplices, if you never use these (sur)faces at all, in the calculations...?

I can't visualize 4D, either -- I work with analogies and have to constantly check my calculations to make sure they produce valid physics.

That’s kinda 'relief'...

Do you think it’s possible at all to construct a computer simulation of 4D spacetime? Or is it a guaranteed dead end, a la perpetuum mobile...

 

[RUTA]

If I understand this correct... the 'straight' Euclidean triangle RBW uses to connect different 'points' in 4D spacetime, does not (obviously) follow the smoothness of the "higher resolution" in a smooth 4D simplices manifold. It goes straight to the 'point' (vertices) = the shortest distance!

It's not the "shortest distance," it's the only distance, i.e., there is no background spacetime in which one would look for geodesics.

And this 'behavior' implements non-separability in RBW.

Correct?

Correct.

EDIT: Does RBW allow you to go "straight thru the Earth", so to speak?

Again, there is no "background spacetime," e.g., your surface of Earth, there are only the links. But, yes, allowing your Earth surface to be the GR solution for a continuous, separable distribution of interacting sources, the 3-simplex (triangle) connecting Paris, Tokyo and D.C. would go through the interior of Earth.

Question: Why do you use the "high resolution" smooth 4D simplices, if you never use these (sur)faces at all, in the calculations...?

The "high resolution" spacetime would be valid if there was a continuum of sources throughout space that only interacted with nearest neighbors, e.g., FRW cosmologies. GR is the continuous, separable approximation to non-separable Regge calculus. To recover the current view, simply get rid of any reference to "separability," since physics is assumed to be separable.

Do you think it’s possible at all to construct a computer simulation of 4D spacetime? Or is it a guaranteed dead end, a la perpetuum mobile...

I can't imagine what it would mean to trick the mental 3D Cartesian theater into constructing a 4D image. But, that's simply a statement of ignorance

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Many many thanks RUTA, for taking your time explaining these things for a numbskull like me.

Again, there is no "background spacetime," e.g., your surface of Earth, there are only the links. But, yes, allowing your Earth surface to be the GR solution for a continuous, separable distribution of interacting sources, the 3-simplex (triangle) connecting Paris, Tokyo and D.C. would go through the interior of Earth.

The 3-simplex triangle stuff now makes sense to me, but I’m still lost when it comes to the non-separability. You won’t believe it, but I tried even this 'solution'!

Sure, we can 'win' a couple of km in this case, but it won’t give us the non-separability required for the 'magic' in EPR-Bell, right?

So the real "non-separability-magic" must be in the "break up" (projection) to a 4D simplices manifold, right?

But how is this achieved...? You talk about the length of the links... and they represent a "topological distance", right? So, how is this achieved?

Are you allowed to "rearrange" the vertices in RBW, so they get closer and "overlap", and this is the way you achieve the non-separability?? (sorry for asking these stupid questions)

(Thanks for explaining "high resolution", I get that now.)

I can't imagine what it would mean to trick the mental 3D Cartesian theater into constructing a 4D image. But, that's simply a statement of ignorance

Well, if there’s any ignorance in this thread, I am the proud owner of this valuable property!

You are right as always. The mental 3D Cartesian theater is by evolution "burnt-in" in our neurons and is not only a result of the "external 3D reality". We fool ourselves to see what seems "logical", even if it’s totally nuts. Just check out this Crazy Nuts Illusion!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="480" height="385">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/laty3vXKRek&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/laty3vXKRek&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="480" height="385"></embed>
</object>

But what happens if we take the hypercube (or tesseract):

And use this as an "idea" for a new 4D coordinate system, consisting of (x, y, z, t) ...? (Please feel free to laugh ):

Would that work mathematically? Or do we have to rewrite everything all the way back to good old Euclid of Alexandria!?

(You don’t have to answer... I think I know the "distorted" answer of this question... )

 

[RUTA]

Many many thanks RUTA, for taking your time explaining these things for a numbskull like me.


The 3-simplex triangle stuff now makes sense to me, but I’m still lost when it comes to the non-separability. You won’t believe it, but I tried even this 'solution'!

Sure, we can 'win' a couple of km in this case, but it won’t give us the non-separability required for the 'magic' in EPR-Bell, right?

So the real "non-separability-magic" must be in the "break up" (projection) to a 4D simplices manifold, right?

But how is this achieved...? You talk about the length of the links... and they represent a "topological distance", right? So, how is this achieved?

DA, I'm glad you persist in trying to understand non-separability in RBW -- our leitmotif. The picture you have of the two triangles on/in the sphere is excellent and illustrates nicely how we propose general relativity must be modified. I will steal it for my presentation next month

As for how this non-separability resolves the mystery of entanglement, one needs to replace the ontology of "matter in spacetime" with that of spacetimematter, i.e., move from an object-oriented ontology (O3) to a relational ontology (ontic structural realism, OSR). Let me try to explain what that means.

Imagine three objects at rest with respect to each other ... a ball, a cup and a pencil, say. Now, in O3, if one wants to remove one of these items, e.g., the ball, one has only to "grab and move it" or "erase it from the picture," leaving the other two items intact. In OSR, the items are not what "exist" so if you want to remove the ball, you have to remove all the relations that give rise to the ball, which means you've also removed part of the pencil and part of the cup. Thus, if there are only two items, getting rid of one item entails getting rid of the other item totally, too. This is easily seen in the metaphor of the face-vase illusion.

http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/Facevase.php"

Suppose that the faces are the fundamental entities in O3 and the vase is the fundamental entity in OSR. That is, in O3, the faces are black objects placed on a white background while in OSR the vase is a very large collection of white links on a black background. Now, in O3, one can erase either face leaving the other intact, but in OSR if one removes all the white links to eliminate one face, the other face disappears entirely, too. See the difference?

Now let's take that understanding to a QM experiment. In O3, there are quantum entities moving through an experimental set up causing detector clicks. In our version of OSR, there are only relations (represented by graphical links formally) making up the experimental equipment (classical world). There are no quantum entities in addition to the experimental equipment. When one does a QM experiment per OSR, one is discovering the nature of the relations giving rise to the experimental equipment.

Now, in O3, one wants to know the dynamics of the entities, i.e., their worldtubes in spacetime, and of course this leads to the understanding that quantum entities are mysterious because they don't seem to obey a clear dynamics. Thus, there seems to be a difference between the quantum realm and the classical realm, even though we suppose the classical is composed of the quantum.

By contrast, in OSR, one isn't searching for the dynamics of matter in spacetime, but rather one is looking for a rule dictating how links are used to build the graphs that model spacetimematter. Classical dynamics follows statistically from this fundamental, adynamical rule for the composition of those graphs. Thus, the only dynamical realm is that of classical physics, i.e., there are no "quantum dynamics."

So, when one does a QM experiment, one can find evidence for the fundamental, adynamical composition of the experimental equipment and, since fundamental physics is not dynamical, QM outcomes can defy dynamical explanation. Since what most people mean by "explanation" is "dynamical story," QM phenomenon can "defy explanation," i.e., "be mysterious."

Notice, in OSR, the QM outcomes do not defy explanation at all. They are explained probabilistically via the fundamental, relational decomposition of the experimental equipment. The reason the fundamental explanation is probabilistic is that the equipment is classical and we don't know exactly how it's composed. But, we do know that it's not "turtles all the way down," i.e., classical reality is not simply composed of smaller and smaller classical entities/substances that leave nice trajectories in the detectors of high energy particle physics experiments. All entities with worldlines (like those in particle physics detectors) are classical (QM doesn't disagree per the uncertainty relation), so why would anyone suppose the classical realm is composed of "elementary particles?" No, the worldlines in particle physics detectors are made from hundreds of detector events and "pictures of atoms" are made from millions of interactions/relations per second. Contrast that with the mysterious correlations of EPRB between pairs of detector clicks and you realize the enormous difference of statistical scale between a "true" QM experiment, i.e., an experiment investigating the fundamental realm, and those experiments purporting to show O3 evidence of "atoms" and "fundamental particles."

I'll stop here and let you respond.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

(Sorry for the delay. My PC turned out not to be non-separable, it "fell apart" the other day... ;)

This is great! I think it’s time for me to declare a small: Eureka!

DA, I'm glad you persist in trying to understand non-separability in RBW -- our leitmotif. The picture you have of the two triangles on/in the sphere is excellent and illustrates nicely how we propose general relativity must be modified. I will steal it for my presentation next month

Thanks RUTA! You’re not kidding about the picture!:shy:? ... If not, here’s a bigger (1024x768) "Christmas Present" for next month:

http://i52.tinypic.com/6ppzba.png

As for how this non-separability resolves the mystery of entanglement, one needs to replace the ontology of "matter in spacetime" with that of spacetimematter, i.e., move from an object-oriented ontology (O3) to a relational ontology (ontic structural realism, OSR). Let me try to explain what that means.

Imagine three objects at rest with respect to each other ... a ball, a cup and a pencil, say. Now, in O3, if one wants to remove one of these items, e.g., the ball, one has only to "grab and move it" or "erase it from the picture," leaving the other two items intact. In OSR, the items are not what "exist" so if you want to remove the ball, you have to remove all the relations that give rise to the ball, which means you've also removed part of the pencil and part of the cup. Thus, if there are only two items, getting rid of one item entails getting rid of the other item totally, too. This is easily seen in the metaphor of the face-vase illusion.

http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/Facevase.php

Suppose that the faces are the fundamental entities in O3 and the vase is the fundamental entity in OSR. That is, in O3, the faces are black objects placed on a white background while in OSR the vase is a very large collection of white links on a black background. Now, in O3, one can erase either face leaving the other intact, but in OSR if one removes all the white links to eliminate one face, the other face disappears entirely, too. See the difference?

YES! YES! YES!

This really cool! You turn the world inside out; as a photographic film you are looking at the negative, or as tin soldiers you are looking at mould, not the figures.

This is the way we see the "normal" 3D world around us:

The twin sisters Quanta & Relativiana

And when we flatten the picture to 2D, and "fill out" the space between the objects, the 'Holy Grail' of RBW/OSR emerges out of spacetime!

The 'Holy Grail' of RBW/OSR

Now let's take that understanding to a QM experiment. In O3, there are quantum entities moving through an experimental set up causing detector clicks. In our version of OSR, there are only relations (represented by graphical links formally) making up the experimental equipment (classical world). There are no quantum entities in addition to the experimental equipment. When one does a QM experiment per OSR, one is discovering the nature of the relations giving rise to the experimental equipment.

Now, in O3, one wants to know the dynamics of the entities, i.e., their worldtubes in spacetime, and of course this leads to the understanding that quantum entities are mysterious because they don't seem to obey a clear dynamics. Thus, there seems to be a difference between the quantum realm and the classical realm, even though we suppose the classical is composed of the quantum.

I think this is cool with me as well. Suppose in a (maybe not so) far future, the virtual professor Canton Zeislinger manages to perform an EPR-Bell experiment on the tip of the noses of the twin sisters Quanta & Relativiana. From the RBW/OSR-perspective it would look like this:

The Canton Zeislinger EPR-Bell experiment

We see only the meshes of the faces, but there’s really only the 'Holy Grail' of RBW/OSR, and the "shared" links, that makes Quanta & Relativiana "exist".

(Guessing somewhat) The spacetimematerial is not the twin sisters "Quanta & Relativiana", but the links in the 'Holy Grail' of RBW/OSR, right?

By contrast, in OSR, one isn't searching for the dynamics of matter in spacetime, but rather one is looking for a rule dictating how links are used to build the graphs that model spacetimematter. Classical dynamics follows statistically from this fundamental, adynamical rule for the composition of those graphs. Thus, the only dynamical realm is that of classical physics, i.e., there are no "quantum dynamics."

So, when one does a QM experiment, one can find evidence for the fundamental, adynamical composition of the experimental equipment and, since fundamental physics is not dynamical, QM outcomes can defy dynamical explanation. Since what most people mean by "explanation" is "dynamical story," QM phenomenon can "defy explanation," i.e., "be mysterious."

Now we’ve come to the reason I didn’t shout "EUREKA!" in capitals, in the beginning of this post...

I have a lot of questions:

1) What "stuff" make up the links? Is it wavefunctions? Or is it "space"? Or is it 'just' an abstract mathematical function?

2) Is the "action time" for the links nil? I.e. is any (property) 'change' instantaneous?

3) In the "nose-tip-experiment" above, professor Canton Zeislinger managed to entangle one atom on the tip of the nose, on both Quanta & Relativiana. Why don’t we see this "linked behavior" on other atoms of Quanta & Relativiana (that are not entangled)?

4) I’ve learned the all simplices are Euclidean, i.e. the links are straight. This is the real nature of spacetime(matter) in RBW. But is this really 'compatible' with "reality", i.e. the pictures our CCD cameras takes of the curved spacetime?

Gravitational lensing in Abell 1689​

Notice, in OSR, the QM outcomes do not defy explanation at all. They are explained probabilistically via the fundamental, relational decomposition of the experimental equipment. The reason the fundamental explanation is probabilistic is that the equipment is classical and we don't know exactly how it's composed. But, we do know that it's not "turtles all the way down," i.e., classical reality is not simply composed of smaller and smaller classical entities/substances that leave nice trajectories in the detectors of high energy particle physics experiments. All entities with worldlines (like those in particle physics detectors) are classical (QM doesn't disagree per the uncertainty relation), so why would anyone suppose the classical realm is composed of "elementary particles?" No, the worldlines in particle physics detectors are made from hundreds of detector events and "pictures of atoms" are made from millions of interactions/relations per second. Contrast that with the mysterious correlations of EPRB between pairs of detector clicks and you realize the enormous difference of statistical scale between a "true" QM experiment, i.e., an experiment investigating the fundamental realm, and those experiments purporting to show O3 evidence of "atoms" and "fundamental particles."

This is clear to me now... yet it’s somewhat 'strange'...

Imagine you had a "tap" of single photons, which you could control to 99.9%. Now when taking a picture of individual Gold atoms, thru scanning tunneling microscope, you could measure the amount of single photons needed to make the Gold atoms "real" (exposed), right?

But, all this is just a factor of the sensitivity of the camera in use!? Right?

Individual Gold atoms

So, in fact the camera is deciding if the Gold atoms are "real" or not...

(= I CAN make Gold with my 100 bucks digital camera?? )

... I’m looking for that "threshold" between QM & Classic that I know isn’t there ...

 

[RUTA]

Thanks RUTA! You’re not kidding about the picture!:shy:?

I already put it into my PowerPoint presentation

YES! YES! YES!

This really cool! You turn the world inside out; as a photographic film you are looking at the negative, or as tin soldiers you are looking at mould, not the figures.

This is the way we see the "normal" 3D world around us:

The twin sisters Quanta & Relativiana

And when we flatten the picture to 2D, and "fill out" the space between the objects, the 'Holy Grail' of RBW/OSR emerges out of spacetime!

The 'Holy Grail' of RBW/OSR

I'm stealing these two pictures, too. I like your names for the faces

I think this is cool with me as well. Suppose in a (maybe not so) far future, the virtual professor Canton Zeislinger manages to perform an EPR-Bell experiment on the tip of the noses of the twin sisters Quanta & Relativiana. From the RBW/OSR-perspective it would look like this:

The Canton Zeislinger EPR-Bell experiment

We see only the meshes of the faces, but there’s really only the 'Holy Grail' of RBW/OSR, and the "shared" links, that makes Quanta & Relativiana "exist".

Close. If I'm to "see" what you have for the mesh faces, I'd need relations to co-define that part of the faces and my eyes. To keep it simple (just the two faces in 2D), there are no "mesh faces."

(Guessing somewhat) The spacetimematerial is not the twin sisters "Quanta & Relativiana", but the links in the 'Holy Grail' of RBW/OSR, right?

Exactly.

1) What "stuff" make up the links? Is it wavefunctions? Or is it "space"? Or is it 'just' an abstract mathematical function?

"Stuff," in the traditional sense, is made from links (specifically, space, time and matter are all co-constructed from links). You're trying to figure out what the links are made of, but they're fundamental, so there is no "reductive" composition for them.

2) Is the "action time" for the links nil? I.e. is any (property) 'change' instantaneous?

Links can be space-like, time-like or null. The field values are the metric and you integrate over all possible field values from -infinity to infinity.

3) In the "nose-tip-experiment" above, professor Canton Zeislinger managed to entangle one atom on the tip of the nose, on both Quanta & Relativiana. Why don’t we see this "linked behavior" on other atoms of Quanta & Relativiana (that are not entangled)?

You only see "linked behavior." All phenomena are the result of relations, although it takes careful experimental techniques to reveal the relational structure responsible for your normal, classical perceptions.

4) I’ve learned the all simplices are Euclidean, i.e. the links are straight. This is the real nature of spacetime(matter) in RBW. But is this really 'compatible' with "reality", i.e. the pictures our CCD cameras takes of the curved spacetime?

There is no background spacetime setting that "houses" the matter imaged in this picture, i.e., there is no "unique," "universal" spacetime geometry in which matter (sources) resides. Recall the picture of the sphere you posted earlier. One leg of the curved triangle would be a valid path for some'thing' moving from one corner (source) to another while one leg of the Euclidean triangle would be a relation in the co-definition of those two corner sources. Thus, our spacetimematter does not yield a "single" spacetime in which all sources reside. That's one difference between our view and GR, i.e., GR only gives the sphere of your picture.

This is clear to me now... yet it’s somewhat 'strange'...

Imagine you had a "tap" of single photons, which you could control to 99.9%. Now when taking a picture of individual Gold atoms, thru scanning tunneling microscope, you could measure the amount of single photons needed to make the Gold atoms "real" (exposed), right?

But, all this is just a factor of the sensitivity of the camera in use!? Right?

Individual Gold atoms

So, in fact the camera is deciding if the Gold atoms are "real" or not...

(= I CAN make Gold with my 100 bucks digital camera?? )

... I’m looking for that "threshold" between QM & Classic that I know isn’t there ...

Remember, you have to think in terms of relations co-defining the camera and atoms in the picture, so your camera isn't creating the atoms, you're establishing relations that co-create part of the camera and the atoms. [Other parts of the camera are co-defined with you, the ceiling, the floor, etc.]

 

[WhoWee]

I clearly need better equipment.

 

[ThomasT]

Not to get too far off topic, but I've always thought of 4D spacetime as being a mathematical convenience, and that the physical fact of the matter is that we live in a 3D universe wrt ponderable objects with the 4th 'dimension' being the various changing positions, ie., the movement, of those ponderable objects, which dimension (the 4th) we generally refer to as 'time'.

Regarding the OP of the thread, I've come to the, not too startling, conclusion that neither EPW nor RBW enhances our knowledge of the physical world. In fact, they're both at odds with what I would consider to be an acknowledged observational fact essential to a true understanding of our universe -- ie., we're part of an expanding evolving universe.

But I still really like EPW's observation that the similarity between the EPRB and SEPRB setups isn't just a superficial one. If one thinks it through, and without assuming retrocausality or a block universe or other such creations, then from that, not superficial, similarity the assumption of AAD or FTL seems quite unwarranted if not downright silly.

This is not to diminish the talent and work involved in EPR and RBW. These are works of gifted people. But, imho, they're works of art, not science. EPR and RBW have refuted a fictitious creation (AAD) with fictitious, albeit ingenious, arguments.

 

[RUTA]

Glad to see you join in the discussion, ThomasT. What constitutes “science” is a matter of semantics, but most would agree that Zeilinger, Aspect, Shimony, Horne, Clauser, Aharanov, etc. are doing science. The science they are doing revolves around discussions such as those in this thread. For example, Zeilinger’s book, “Dance of the Photons: From Einstein to Quantum Teleportation,” uses the Mermin device to explain Bell inequalities. There is an entire book devoted to experimental techniques motivated by foundational issues, “The Quantum Challenge: Modern Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,” Greenstein & Zajonc, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1997. And in speaking with Aharanov and Vaidman, I had the distinct impression that their experimental proposals were motivated by QM interpretations. Anyway, discussions such as those in thread are germane to the work done in the foundations community, whether or not you choose to call that work “science” or believe that it contributes to "our knowledge of the physical world" is a matter of opinion. Those of us working in foundations, not surprisingly, believe it's science with extraordinary implications for physics and, therefore, greatly "enhances our knowledge of the physical world"

 

[DevilsAvocado]

(RUTA was faster, but what the heck... ;)

@ThomasT: Not to diminish your talented writings, but – Did you get too much popcorn & beer once again...??

Albert Einstein (Nobel Prize in Physics 1921), John Bell (originator of Bell's Theorem, one of the most important theorems in quantum physics), Alain Aspect (2010 Wolf Prize in physics), Anton Zeilinger (2010 Wolf Prize in physics), plus thousands of PhD Professors of Physics (including RUTA) were/are working on "fictitious art"...?

Who are you to make statements like this...?

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I can recall, you told me to "show some respect" to the totally secret and completely anonymous "scientist" billschnieder, right?

How about walking the walk and talking the talk?

In contrast to many bewildered amateurs, making dogmatic statements about this and that, RUTA is a genuine scientist, spending enormous amounts of time trying gain new knowledge about the physical world – without preconceptions.

I don’t know how many times I have declared this: RUTA and colleagues working on RBW, does not refute EPR-Bell or Spooky Action at a Distance, they are developing a theory for the flip side of the coin: non-separability.

And I can guarantee you that as soon as there is any sustainable argument (beyond bewildered amateurs making gross statements) that they are on the wrong track, RUTA and colleagues will of course start working on something else.

Anything else would just be pure amateurish madness and dogmatic preconceptions.


@RUTA: Thanks for your reply. I must digest this for some time (together with all food ). I’ll be back ASAP.

Merry Christmas to you, and everyone in this thread, and Physics Forums!

[PLAIN]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2e/Christmas_cake.jpg/500px-Christmas_cake.jpg

 

[Maui]

Regarding the OP of the thread, I've come to the, not too startling, conclusion that neither EPW nor RBW enhances our knowledge of the physical world. In fact, they're both at odds with what I would consider to be an acknowledged observational fact essential to a true understanding of our universe -- ie., we're part of an expanding evolving universe.

Have you considered the possibility that your worldview might be a bit naive? That the true understanding of our universe might be pointing to an expanding, evolving BUT contextual and relative universe?

This is not to diminish the talent and work involved in EPR and RBW. These are works of gifted people. But, imho, they're works of art, not science. EPR and RBW have refuted a fictitious creation (AAD) with fictitious, albeit ingenious, arguments.

Here I agree(though for a slightly different reason). It's a work of art to design a workable model of the universe after the extraordinary errosion that SR and QM caused to the concepts of matter, time, space, simultaneity, causality and determinism.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Here I agree(though for a slightly different reason). It's a work of art to design a workable model of the universe after the extraordinary errosion that SR and QM caused to the concepts of matter, time, space, simultaneity, causality and determinism.

Good point!

 

[ThomasT]

Glad to see you join in the discussion, ThomasT.

Uh, oh. Here it comes. The somewhat embarrassing (for me) rebuttal. I've had some, err, second thoughts since I wrote what I wrote. I'll respond to your comments point by point. But first I want to say, and I think you already know this, that I've greatly benefitted from all of your comments. I have the confidence to present my naive views to you because you are one of the few physicists who actually seems to reply to them as honestly and clearly, and kindly, as you can. That is, you aren't condescending and I think that that's a characteristic of truly knowledgeable and wise people. (So, thanks for that.) And your replies are mostly quite clear to me, even if certain aspects of your RBW construction aren't.

By the way, in the last two sentences of my last paragraph in post #82 that should be "EPW and RBW", not "EPR and RBW".

What constitutes “science” is a matter of semantics, but most would agree that Zeilinger, Aspect, Shimony, Horne, Clauser, Aharanov, etc. are doing science.

Ok, here's the semantics. I refer to the experiments as the science. I think of the interpretations of the science, involving assumption and inference, as well as more or less novel creations such as RBW involving aspects of scientifically verified models, as most appropriately referred to as philosophy of the science.

The science they are doing revolves around discussions such as those in this thread. For example, Zeilinger’s book, “Dance of the Photons: From Einstein to Quantum Teleportation,” uses the Mermin device to explain Bell inequalities. There is an entire book devoted to experimental techniques motivated by foundational issues, “The Quantum Challenge: Modern Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,” Greenstein & Zajonc, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1997.

Reading Greenstein & Zajonc's book (1st edition), Jim Baggott's "The Meaning of Quantum Theory", and David Albert's "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" during the late 90's prompted me to get and read Bohm's 1950 text "Quantum Theory" and then Bruno Rossi's "Optics", and Rodney Loudon's "The Quantum Theory of Light". This is the basis of my 'education' wrt this stuff (of course I've read, and intermittently misunderstood various parts of many papers relating to the discussion), most of which I've no doubt forgotten -- but it nonetheless has been the basis for my current, and admittedly naive, 'worldview'. I'll check out Zeilinger's book. Thanks for the reference.

And in speaking with Aharanov and Vaidman, I had the distinct impression that their experimental proposals were motivated by QM interpretations. Anyway, discussions such as those in thread are germane to the work done in the foundations community, whether or not you choose to call that work “science” or believe that it contributes to "our knowledge of the physical world" is a matter of opinion.

Of course, and also of course my opinion is, admittedly, necessarily a more naive one than yours or any of the researchers you've mentioned. And this is why I am always having second thoughts about any particular way I might have of interpreting data or formulating a general approach to understanding, or 'worldview'.

Those of us working in foundations, not surprisingly, believe it's science with extraordinary implications for physics and, therefore, greatly "enhances our knowledge of the physical world".

And you might well be on the correct path. In any case, I would suppose that there are more people than you might think, lots of people, a lot like me, who follow this stuff.

I really liked much of your reasoning in the intro to your main RBW paper. I think you and your co-writers should do a popsci (but not overly pop -- in fact, maybe not essentially pop at all, but just in ordinary language with minimal mathematical notation) book on your stuff. I honestly think that it would be a worthwhile contribution to the field. What do you think?

I've read Price's book "Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point", or, at least what I consider to be the essential parts of it. I don't like his philosophy of time, at least what I understand it to be. So, I entered into reading his EPW paper with some trepidation. At first I thought he might be on to something. But then, as I read on, it was the same old stuff. Your questions/criticisms were most appropriate, I think.

Maybe it's just the case that I still don't fully comprehend what your theory/interpretation is saying. This lingering doubt is partly the source of my 'second thoughts' regarding my current world view.

Anyway, thanks and best regards. And ... write the book!

 

[ThomasT]

@ThomasT: Not to diminish your talented writings, but – Did you get too much popcorn & beer once again...??

It's the holidays, what do you think?

Albert Einstein (Nobel Prize in Physics 1921), John Bell (originator of Bell's Theorem, one of the most important theorems in quantum physics), Alain Aspect (2010 Wolf Prize in physics), Anton Zeilinger (2010 Wolf Prize in physics), plus thousands of PhD Professors of Physics (including RUTA) were/are working on "fictitious art"...?

I made a typographical error in the last two sentences of the last paragraph. EPR should be EPW. Anyway, that's right. Strictly speaking EPR (and EPW and RBW) isn't science. It's philosophy. The science part of science involves generating data. The philosophy part is how you interpret the results, or in constructing new and sometimes quite novel theories, or in interpreting the formalism.

Who are you to make statements like this...?

I was asking myself that a moment ago. Just a coincidence? Or has AAD asserted itself once again into our, otherwise, locally causal world?

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I can recall, you told me to "show some respect" to the totally secret and completely anonymous "scientist" billschnieder, right?

He is, or, to be precise, was a scientist.

How about walking the walk and talking the talk?

Well, I would if it weren't for the beer and the popcorn.

In contrast to many bewildered amateurs, making dogmatic statements about this and that, RUTA is a genuine scientist, spending enormous amounts of time trying gain new knowledge about the physical world – without preconceptions.

No preconceptions? You must know him much better than I can pretend to.

I don’t know how many times I have declared this: RUTA and colleagues working on RBW, does not refute EPR-Bell or Spooky Action at a Distance, they are developing a theory for the flip side of the coin: non-separability.

I don't know how many times you've declared it either. I don't like their version of nonseparability. Get over it.

And I can guarantee you that as soon as there is any sustainable argument (beyond bewildered amateurs making gross statements) that they are on the wrong track, RUTA and colleagues will of course start working on something else.

Well, as I mentioned in my latest post to him, I hope they write a book on their views. It's all quite interesting. Much food for thought.

Anything else would just be pure amateurish madness and dogmatic preconceptions.

Ok now take it easy on those Swedish hotdogs. By the way, I love your informative posts and appreciate the time and work involved in presenting the stuff you do. I've definitely benefitted from it. So, keep it up, and, by the way, nice to talk to you and happy holidays.

 

[ThomasT]

Have you considered the possibility that your worldview might be a bit naive?

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.

That the true understanding of our universe might be pointing to an expanding, evolving BUT contextual and relative universe?

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

Here I agree(though for a slightly different reason). It's a work of art to design a workable model of the universe after the extraordinary errosion that SR and QM caused to the concepts of matter, time, space, simultaneity, causality and determinism.

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.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

It's the holidays, what do you think?

Hehe, I just knew it! It’s those darned popcorns messing up things and ruffling a few 'innocent' feathers!

It’s cool, happy holidays and have a Swedish hotdog = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashed_potato" !

 

[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.