True Background-Independent Particle Physics

[rogerl]

Are you discussing different things at once?

I honestly don't quite understand what you say.

Bell's theorem is said to rule out local realism. I personally keep locality and toss realism. I don't qute see what you mean this has to do with relativity.

Correlations in a prepared system is something completely different than causality.

What do You take to be the "spirit of relativity"? Let's not forget that relativity is a classical realist theory. IMHO, we need so translate the principles to a higher stantadard when we're talking about measurement theory.

/Fredrik

Why do you think Bell mentioned the following about the spirit of relativity seemingly violated by the non-locality inherent in EPR for example. Bell said (what is wrong in his reasoning?):

"I think it’s a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things. But I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare ´ thought that there was an aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether. . . . that is certainly the cheapest solution. Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant. . . . what is not sufficiently emphasized in textbooks, in my opinion, is that the pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincare ´, Larmor and Fitzgerald was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion through the aether – that is a perfectly coherent point of view. . . . The reason I want to go back to the idea of an aether here is because in these EPR experiments there is the suggestion that behind the scenes something is going faster than light. Now if all Lorentz frames are equivalent, that also means that things can go backward in time. . . . [this] introduces great problems, paradoxes of causality, and so on. And so it is precisely to avoid these that I want to say there is a real causal sequence which is defined in the aether. (‘‘John Bell,’’ interview with Davies and Brown)

 

[rogerl]

Why do you think Bell mentioned the following about the spirit of relativity seemingly violated by the non-locality inherent in EPR for example. Bell said (what is wrong in his reasoning?):

"I think it’s a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things. But I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare ´ thought that there was an aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether. . . . that is certainly the cheapest solution. Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant. . . . what is not sufficiently emphasized in textbooks, in my opinion, is that the pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincare ´, Larmor and Fitzgerald was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion through the aether – that is a perfectly coherent point of view. . . . The reason I want to go back to the idea of an aether here is because in these EPR experiments there is the suggestion that behind the scenes something is going faster than light. Now if all Lorentz frames are equivalent, that also means that things can go backward in time. . . . [this] introduces great problems, paradoxes of causality, and so on. And so it is precisely to avoid these that I want to say there is a real causal sequence which is defined in the aether. (‘‘John Bell,’’ interview with Davies and Brown)

I think a simple answer is that Bell is holding on to realism. By denying realism, there is nothing to be non-local about because reality doesn't exist.. at least according to the definition.

Anyway. In a C60 buckyball molecule sent from the emitter in a double slit experiment, it still interferes. In your opinion, what do you think happen to the C60 buckyball halfway? Do you believe it is still whole or disappear altogether? If still whole, how can it still interfere with itself (beside Many World Intepretation)? If disappear (and Copenhagen prefers this.. hence they reject realism), how can spacetime track the particle position which doesn't even exist? Any ideas especially this latter?

Before measurement of quantum object, position properties don't exist. So how do spacetime track something that doesn't exist??