Bell Locality: New Paper Clarifies Arguments

[ttn]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't BM ask us to reject relativity since wf collapse propagates FTL?

"wf collapse" plays no role whatsoever in bohm's theory. It doesn't even really happen; it's just something physicists are entitled to do for their own convenience under certain circumstances. Yes, Bohm's theory is explicitly nonlocal (as must be any theory agreeing with experiment) and thus suggests that relativity must be, in some sense, given up. But to understand what this nonlocality consists of in Bohm's theory, I guess you need to understand better how that theory actually works.

All the stuff about your "model" is just word salad... not even wrong, as they say. Sorry. But I don't see any point in discussing it further.

 

[straycat]

Consider a sheet of paper folded (almost) in half. A signal propagating through 3D at speed c can get from one side to the other in hardly any time at all. Observers who don't know about the 3rd dimension would assume that the effect had propagated the long way round, in the sheet of paper, which would of course require it to be superluminal.

You are assuming the existence of some sort of large-scale nontrivial topology to M, whereby a region "over here" is folded over and connected to some distant region "over there." I never stated my model works that way.

 

[RandallB]

There is a big difference between Bell and Einstein local,
Einstein locality = signals cannot propagate FTL

Bell nonlocality = collapse of the wf DOES propagate FTL,

Are you joking? Comparing Einstein vs. Bell Local by defining Bell Non-local??
Is this some kind of slight of hand with words or are you just fooling yourself?
You need to do much better than that. Like define Bell Local, not something it is not (Nno-L). Have you read Bell? He was not making an argument for a collapsing wave function.
Define “Bell Local” then compare that directly with your idea of Einstein Local.

Other than what they have not shown,
for you what exactly have the Bell tests shown if anything?

As to ‘background independence’ <> FTL. Not on point.
I’d recommend you Google Scholar it with ‘Smolin’ & ‘Perimeter’ to find his paper(s) and take some time with it before making random speculations about independence. It’s not that simple a concept.