From: Omega (omega@pacific.net)
Date: Sat Feb 01 1997 - 13:38:37 MST
John K Clark wrote:
> By "local" Einstein wanted a definition that could be of some use,
The definition of local in relativity theory IS and ONLY IS:
s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + (ict)^2, x, y, z, and t all being real.
All pairs of spacetime points that don't obey this equation have either
a spacelike or a timelike separation and thus by definition are non-local.
Granted that relativity allows the propagation of causality along timelike
paths, but that is because the world-lines of particles that have mass carry
the particles themselves on timelike vectors through 4-space thus producing
the more common-sense form of locality. A sense of locality that arises
because particles are essentially changing their spacetime location from our
human perspective.
None of this applies to photons and other particles that travel on light-like
vectors. For these particles, the definition of locality is the spacetime in-
terval described by the above formula (or some mathematically equivalent form).
> he mente
> there is no superluminal action at a distance, we now know from experimental
> evidence that there IS superluminal action at a distance, even if we can't
> use it to communicate in a superluminal way. It is an experimental fact that
> Bell's inequality IS violated, and it would NOT be violated if the world
> was locally causal.
This is FALSE. A locally causal temporally bidirectional microcausality would
allow violation of Bell's inequality just fine. This temporally bidirectional
microcausality is a standard feature of both Maxwell's equations and is a starting
requirement for all relativistically correct forms of QM even if the details
have yet to be fully worked through.
> Even if we someday find a better theory than Quantum
> Mechanics, any successful theory must explain that experimental result.
Nothing needs to be explained. It is a problem that springs solely from the
fact that our monkey brains have a default definition of locality that is
neither relativistically accurate nor takes into account the backward in time
principle of advanced-action where it should.
> If Cramer claims that his theory is local then he is also claiming that it
> is untrue, however I have never heard him say anything like that, instead he
> talks about everyday events "shaking hands with the universe", and as I said
> before, that's about as non-local as you can get.
Again, it only seems non-local when one assumes that micro-causality is
unidirectional with respect to time.
> >Again, this is a much deeper paradox in relativity than the twins
> >business, a paradox that QM patches up in a consistent manner.
>
>
> One reason we know that we still have a lot to learn is that the 2 giant
> pillars of modern Physics, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have
> little in common, until Hawking's work 30 years ago they had nothing in
> common. We still have a long way to go before we have a Quantum Theory of
> gravity, and gravity is General Relativity's strong point.
In this we are agreed, we do have a long way to go with this.
-- In the Ecstatic Service of Life -- Omega
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:07 MST