- #1

- 621

- 20

## Main Question or Discussion Point

Could it be that the transformations keeping the wave equation invariant have other solutions than the usual Lorentz ones ?

- I
- Thread starter jk22
- Start date

- #1

- 621

- 20

Could it be that the transformations keeping the wave equation invariant have other solutions than the usual Lorentz ones ?

- #2

- 27,878

- 7,748

AFAIK the mathematical equivalence of "keep the wave equation invariant" and "Lorentz transformation" has been proven, so I would say no.Could it be that the transformations keeping the wave equation invariant have other solutions than the usual Lorentz ones ?

What does this have to do with Bell's Theorem?

- #3

- 621

- 20

- #4

- 27,878

- 7,748

What conclusion are you talking about? Bell doesn't talk about the wave equation at all in this paper.

- #5

- 105

- 21

What contradiction?

Last edited:

- #6

king vitamin

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 475

- 226

$$

[A(x,t),B(x',t')] = 0, \qquad (x - x')^2 > (t - t')^2.

$$

This does

$$

\langle A(x,t)B(x',t')\rangle \neq 0

$$

even for ##(x - x')^2 > (t - t')^2##. These are the correlations which Bell's theorem concerns itself with.

The reason this protects causality is that the vanishing of the commutator immediately implies that the

- #7

- 621

- 20

1) Bell's inequality violation implies there cannot be a common cause in the past light cone

2) Leggett-Garg inequality violation implies nonlocality cannot explain quantum correlations

Hence there should be more elements of physical reality in the Lorentz transformations ?

- #8

Nugatory

Mentor

- 12,547

- 5,061

Now we have to ask you what the Lorentz transformations have to do with past light cones?Hence there should be more elements of physical reality in the Lorentz transformations ?

- #9

- 621

- 20

In fact with the speed of light moving entities are not possible neither (as observers at least ?).

The latter point could indicate that there lacks something in the derivation ?

- #10

Nugatory

Mentor

- 12,547

- 5,061

The infinities and complex numbers that appear when we set ##v\ge c## in the Lorentz transformations do not indicate any problem with the derivation. They’re just telling us that it is not possible to construct two coordinate systems that: are inertial (the coordinate acceleration of an object not subject to proper acceleration is zero); the coordinate speed of light is the same in both; and the relative speed between their spatial origins is greater than or equal to ##c##.

- #11

Ibix

Science Advisor

- 5,863

- 4,400

The second postulate of SR says that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames. Thus an inertial reference frame (the mathematical formalisation of what we mean by "an observer") moving at the speed of light is self-contradictory - light would have to be both stationary and moving at 3×10The latter point could indicate that there lacks something in the derivation ?

Things are perfectly free to move at the speed of light (as long as they're massless, it turns out). They just can't have reference frames attached to them.

- #12

- 11,776

- 4,744

What you're really trying to say, I imagine, is: why does the failure of Bell's theorem not cast doubt on SR, and in particular ##c## as the maximum speed at which information can be transmitted, and with that the validity of the Lorentz Transformation?

In fact with the speed of light moving entities are not possible neither (as observers at least ?).

The latter point could indicate that there lacks something in the derivation ?

- #13

- 621

- 20

- #14

- 27,878

- 7,748

I have no idea what you mean by this. Nor do I see what it has to do with the thread topic.

Since no well-defined question has been asked, this thread is closed.

- Replies
- 23

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 931

- Last Post

- Replies
- 220

- Views
- 13K

- Replies
- 20

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 21

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 428

- Views
- 45K

- Replies
- 137

- Views
- 18K

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 3K