Schmelzer

The most common sense compatible interpretation is IMHO Caticha's entropic dynamics

Caticha, A. (2011). Entropic Dynamics, Time and Quantum Theory,  J. Phys. A44:225303, arxiv:1005.2357

There is a configuration space trajectory \(q(t)\in Q\) and there are some other, unspecified variables y.  I prefer to use as these variables simply the same configuration space, but of the external world.  Then, we have incomplete information about it if we know only how the state was prepared, thus, we know some probability distribution \(\rho(q,y)\).  Then we define for each \(q\in Q\) the resulting probability \(\rho(q) = \int \rho(q,y)dy\) and the entropy \(S(q) = -\int  \ln \rho(q,y) \rho(q,y)dy\).  

Then we have for \(\rho(q)\) a diffusion (Brownian motion) with parameter \(\hbar\) combined with a movement toward higher entropy, and a generalization of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the entropy.  This pair of equations gives, if one combines  \(\rho(q)\) and \(S(q)\) into some artificial complex function with the phase \(\ln \rho - S\) (modulo signs and so on) this gives the Schrödinger equation for that complex function.  This nice accident allows us to use the full power of the mathematics of quantum theory, but is otherwise of no fundamental importance.  Just a happy accident.  

On 2/16/2020 at 2:48 PM, Duda Jarek said:

There are generally two basic ways to solve physics models:

1) Asymmetric, e.g. Euler-Lagrange equation in CM, Schrödinger equation in QM
2) Symmetric, e.g. the least action principle in CM, Feynman path integrals in QM, Feynman diagrams in QFT.

The asymmetric ones 1) like Schrödinger equation usually satisfy assumptions used to derive Bell inequality, which is violated by physics - what is seen as contradiction of local realistic "hidden variables" models. Does it also concern the symmetric ones 2)?
We successfully use classical field theories like electromagnetism or general relativity, which assume existence of objective state of their field - how does this field differ from local realistic "hidden variables"?

The Schrödinger equation allows violations of the Bell inequalities.  Classical theories (EM, GR) don't allow them, indepedent of any CPT or whatever symmetry.  QFT allows violations of the BI.  The formulations used for QFT, CPT symmetry and so on, are irrelevant for this question.  

On 2/15/2020 at 5:07 PM, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

Stop bringing your pet theory into every discussion. You already have three threads open for this purpose. (And one to complain about the fact.) Please follow the rules. This is not your blog.

 

The Lorentz-Poincare interpretation of special relativity is not my pet theory, but was the only interpretation of SR from 1905-1909, until Minkowski proposed his spacetime interpretation in 1909.  

Before being banned forever for mentioning this triviality again, I would suggest the adminstration of the forum how to handle the original interpretation of SR, as proposed by Lorentz and Poincare, which is usually named "Lorentz ether", and those who follow the recommendations given by Bell in

Bell, J.S. (1976). How to teach special relativity. Progress in Scientific Culture 1(2), reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics

where he suggests to teach also this traditional approach to relativity because it gives the people better intuitions.  

Some forums decide to ban discussions of the Lorentz ether as anathema. In this forum, it was suggested that it is possible to discuss it, but in reality I was banned for doing it. I think banning people for doing things not explicitly forbidden is much worse than explicitly forbidding whatever theories of physics the admins don't like.  That's fine with me, I have, of course, my own opinion about the scientific value of such rules, but I accept the right of the administration of the forum to forbid whatever they don't like.  

But not to forbid it in the rules, but then banning people in reality, naming the Lorentz-Poincare interpretation a personal pet theory, ...   

Just to clarify how I see the actual situation:  There are threads for discussing my "pet theories", namely my generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity and my ether model of the SM. And there is the Lorentz ether, as the classical interpretation of SR, which is not my pet theory.  Therefore I think that I'm allowed to discuss it in every thread about relativity, if it gives some other perspective which may be interesting for some readers.  I do this following the recommendations made Bell, thus, I follow here an established mainstream scientist too, and I do not see any violation of the actually existing rules of the forum.   

So, please clarify the rules of this forum, regarding the discussion of the original interpretation of SR.  Is it anathema or legitimate part of established science?  

Oh, I see the date is Friday. the 13th.  So, the result of this posting is predictable - a ban forever.  So, good buy.  

43 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. So you think Newtonian gravity is completely wrong.

It is simply wrong.  The phrase "completely wrong" would be simply a quite meaningless amplification, the "not completely wrong" makes even less sense. 

Quote

Only observation can show you are wrong. That is how science proceeds.

Only observation - interpreted based on logic as well as the principles of scientific methodology.  This is how empirical science proceeds.  Logic and scientific methodology are not empirical science.  

Quote

People who have studied science know that "common sense " is pretty much the worst basis for deciding on the correctness of ideas. 

And I disagree with them.  

Quote

OK. You are unable to support your personal beliefs. That is not surprising, it is the nature of quasi-religious beliefs to be unsupported by evidence or facts.

No, I prefer to support them with arguments. To support something with references to authorities I leave to religious people.  I use references to refer to particular papers if I use a result of this paper, or to refer to some standard textsbooks if the issue is not that interesting for me.  For the important things, I rely on own arguments.

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

Stop bringing your pet theory into every discussion. You already have three threads open for this purpose. (And one to complain about the fact.) Please follow the rules. This is not your blog.

 

As now already usual, I have got another warning for "bringing my pet theory" into a discussion where nothing in my post has any relation to my pet theories.  These pet theories are, first, an ether theory of gravity, arxiv:gr-qc/0205035, and, second, an ether model for the SM arXiv:0908.0591.  

The thing I have introduced was, instead, the Lorentz ether interpretation, which is the classical, original interpretation of special relativity before Minkowski proposed his spacetime interpretation 1908, as explained in the posting itself.

It looks like in this sense even https://www.physicsforums.com/ is more moderate - they at least openly declare that the Lorentz ether is forbidden, here there is no such rule forbidding the Lorentz ether but it looks I will receive warnings until I get banned simply for discussing the original interpretation of SR.  

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Classical logic can be shown to be "wrong" in the same sense that Newtonian gravity or Euclidean geometry is. In other words, incomplete (as you will know, it is extremely rare for any scientific theory to be shown to be completely wrong; I can only think of two examples in the history of science.)  

No, classical logic has a different status. 

That it is incomplete does not make it wrong.  (That it is incomplete was obvious to me even as a child, it was, last but not least, clear that for most of what one needs in everyday life classical logic is not directly applicable because we do not have enough certain presuppositions to derive something nontrivial. The logic of plausible reasoning - the objective Bayesian interpretation of probability - has solved this problem for me.)  

Physical theories, if not "completely wrong" (which happens, often enough, too, essentially all the GUTs, strings, and supersymmetric theories are certain candidates for being completely wrong) usually survive only as approximations.   So, in a strong sense they are completely wrong: Even an acceptable approximation is wrong.  Strangely, many people like to weaken the meaning of wrong and claim that once something is, under some circumstances, acceptable as an approximation, it is fine, not wrong. I'm unable to understand why one would do such things. You seem to be one of them. So, I think "not completely wrong" means "sometimes useful as an approximation". 

Quote

If you are unwilling to change what you believe even when observation shows that you are wrong, then that is religion not science. (And that may explain why you are clinging to an old idea that has been abandoned by serious scientists. What next? Phlogiston?)

I have explained that this is not the case.  It cannot be observation that shows you are wrong, but observation in combination with interpretation. This interpretation always uses logic as well as scientific methodology.  You simply ignore this explanation and repeat a primitive simplification.  And you completely ignore the argument that all that is imaginable as a conflict between observation and the principle that observable correlations require causal explanations is that for some observed correlation no causal explanation is known - and that this would be simply an open scientific problem, no justification for a rejection of the principle. 

So, how an empirical falsification of the principle that observable correlations require causal explanation

Quote

Where is this principle documented? As it is so important, you must be able to provide a reference.

You think so?  This principle is straightforward common sense.  Searching for a reference where such elementary things are explained?   Sorry, I'm too lazy for this. Feel free to conclude that, given that I do not present a reference, the principle is my personal invention, and that the arguments I have provided to support its importance can be, without reference, ignored. If you really would like to read something about it, I would recommend to search for literature about Reichenbach's principle of common cause.  

11 hours ago, Strange said:

But what if observations show your invented principle to be wrong.

What if observations show the invented principles of classical logic to be wrong?   

This is simply not possible.  Observations by themselves show nothing.  Something has happened, I have seen a nice picture.  Fine.

Observations can show something only if evaluated appropriately, following the rules of logic as well as the rules of scientific methodology.  How can observations show that these principles are wrong? 

For the principle that observable correlations require causal explanations it is impossible even in principle, because all what is imaginable is that you have correlations but no causal explanation. But this is simply an open scientific problem.  And an open scientific problem is certainly not a sufficient reason to reject scientific methodology. 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Was SR developed with no basis in Newtonian physics? I don't think so.

????? Of course, the development of new theories is based on what has been reached by old theories. But they necessarily contain essentially new elements.  One cannot derive them based on old theories, they contradict them in some essential points. 

Quote

Unless there is a (mainstream) explanation of time dilation that does not use relativity, you can't use time dilation to explain relativity, because it's part of relativity.

I disagree.  If you present a new theory, you have to start with some axioms.  These axioms cannot be derived from old theories, at least some of them are in conflict with the old theories, contradict them.  What you use as axioms, is a free choice.  But the axioms of a theory may be, at best, plausible from the point of view of the old theories.  It is quite common in classical physics to define new theories by postulating a Lagrangian.  For a test particle on a fixed background of a metric theory of gravity, proper time can be used as the Lagrangian. Once one has defined that theory in this way, everything else can be derived from this.  So, the , and geodetic equations will be derived as Euler-Lagrange equations.  And a derivation is certainly also an explanation. 

Quote

Einstein was able to develop SR and then GR. You aren't Einstein and there's no shame in that, but that's the standard.

What's the point of this remark?  I was also able to develop new theories and to publish them.  They have big enough advantages compared with existing competitors, their only problem is that they are completely ignored by the mainstream.  Ignorance is not an argument, so I have no reason at all for shame even in comparison with Einstein. 

Quote

If two clocks make different measurements, how is that absolute time?

It is not, because, following Newton's definition, time measured with clocks is not absolute time, but apparent time. He writes in Principia Mathematica (1687)

Quote

And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which, it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common.

2. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: [Absolute time is to be contrasted with] relative, apparent, and common time, [which] is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.

Quote

And how does your description differ from SR? Where does the non-ad hoc Lorentz transformation come from, if not SR?

Nobody cares about where things come from.  Kepler's laws came from astrological considerations, this does not diminish their scientific value.  Mathematical methods can be used freely, without any copyright.  So, if you want to compute Doppler-shifted sound waves, you are free to use the Lorentz transformations with the speed of sound instead of c. 

Moreover, if we look at the history, we find that the Lorentz transformations go back to Lorentz 1895, thus, was developed before Einstein's 1905 paper, and therefore independently of SR. 

My description differs from SR in its Minkowski time interpretation in quite obvious ways, it does not presuppose the existence of any spacetime, but is compatible with classical absolute space and absolute time, following Newton's definition of them.  The Lorentz transformation simply transforms one particular solution of some wave equations into other, Doppler-shifted ones.  This is a useful operation without any theory of relativity behind it. 

Quote

There is no aether in special relativity, so there can be no aether interpretation that one can count as being part of special relativity.

There is no ether in the Minkowski spacetime interpretation of special relativity. The key source for the Minkowski interpretation is "space and time", a talk held 21. Sept. 1908 and published 1909.  The original interpretation goes back to Lorentz and Poincare and is named today "Lorentz ether".    

11 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

The Standard Model is a QFT on a Minkowski spacetime background. I don’t see how it could be constructed without relativity.

That it is possible is an obvious consequence of the history:  One of the key parts of the SM, the EM field, has been constructed by Maxwell completely without relativity, based on an ether theory.  Nothing would have changed if, for whatever reason, Minkowski would not have invented his spacetime interpretation, and the Lorentz ether would have remained the standard interpretation of SR.  

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

But if you are trying to forestall any administrative action here, pointing out you've been banned elsewhere doesn't help your case.

I don't try. I simply explain the situation.  If the admins decide to ban me, such is life.  

Quote

Following the rules is not more of a burden for you than for anyone else.

Indeed. But this is only half of the problem. The other half is what the moderators think about it.  In another thread, where the Newtonian definition of time was discussed, and I have given an answer to your question ("You didn't answer my question. Is my coordinate time the same as yours?"), I have received the following reaction:  

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Please consider the members who actually want to learn mainstream physics. Please consider how confusing it is to them to have you bringing up your unsupported pet theory in a section clearly marked as a mainstream topic. The only place for speculation is in the Speculation section. This is why we have the rule you broke, and why you're being warned yet again for thread hijacking. 

We expect you to follow the rules you agreed to when you joined.

 

I care a lot about the members who actually want to learn mainstream physics. I follow in these question the recommendations given by Bell in this paper 

Bell, J.S. (1976). How to teach special relativity. Progress in Scientific Culture 1(2), reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics:

Quote

It is my impression that those with a more classical education, knowing something of the reasoning of Larmor, Lorentz, and Poincare, as well as that of Einstein, have stronger and sounder instincts. I will try to sketch here a simplified version of the Larmor-Lorentz-Poincare approach that some students might find helpful.

And I fully agree with Bell - it is better to teach students those interpretations which are more compatible with classical common sense.  Like the realistic and causal interpretations of QT as well as the Lorentz ether interpretation of special relativity.  Which is, BTW, the original interpretation, the spacetime interpretation was proposed only later by Minkowski. 

Whatever, my evil "pet theory" had not even been mentioned. I was not bringing up it, I simply answered a question of another moderator, who insisted on an answer. It did not help. 

This is, again, not about evil moderators handling me in an unjust way. It is simply an illustration of an obvious problem: Forum rules are far from certain because they cannot be certain, they always require interpretation. I have moderated forums too, so that I know such problems from the other side too.  And I also know about the role of agreement about the content. It is important that moderators feel morally obliged to follow only the rules and to be fair to opponents.  But it is really hard to follow these rules in reality. If one participates in forums where one is in conflict with the administration about the content, the burden of following the rules becomes automatically heavier.  This is simply a fact of life, no reason to whine about. 

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Maybe not say anything about it.

So that people have to think that I simply ignore their reasonable questions, maybe because I'm unable to answer them?

This is already close to the main problem:  People write all the time things which are plainly wrong.  Once the wrong claim is written in a given thread, discussing that wrong claim is on-topic.  So I think it is necessary to correct such wrong claims.  And in this case one is obliged to give some evidence that the claim is wrong.  The evidence has not yet been discussed in that thread, else the wrong claim would not have been made, so the evidence may be classified as off-topic. What to do?  Leave the wrong claims unquestioned?  Claim that they are wrong, without presenting any evidence?  (BTW, what to do if, which often happens, claims are made about the nonexistence of theories if my evil pet theory is a straightforward counterexample?)  

So my choice in such a situation is to correct the wrong claims, and, if it seems problematic to present the evidence, then to tell about this. But this requires to say something about it.

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You can't make things go quicker than they do. Be happy that you have your papers in arxiv where, one day, they might get picked by some competent person(s) with an interest in your subject, who may look to give a further critique. I'm no scientist but I do know people taking an interest can take decades. Just get on with your next bit of interest and enjoy continuing on your journey.

I have already accepted that it will take at least decades.  Last but not least, the first decade of complete ignorance is already over - the paper was published 2009:

Schmelzer, I.: A Condensed Matter Interpretation of SM Fermions and Gauge Fields, Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, 1, p. 73 – 107 (2009), arXiv:0908.0591; 

During the first years, I was surprised by the complete ignorance by the scientific community, and that the publication has changed nothing in the negative reactions in forums, despite the results reached in the paper. But I have essentially already accepted that it will be completely ignored forever.  Everything else would be an unexpected surprise. Such is life. Given the actual general developments in science, I think one can be happy if science simply survives the next decades and preserves what has been reached. 

2 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

That quantum entanglement is a correlation between measurement outcomes, not a causative action at time of measurement, is indeed the current consensus. 

Neither locality nor realism are laws of logic, they are features of a mathematical model. A model may lack these, yet still be a good and valid description of physical reality.

 

The extra constructs you propose - superluminality, ether, preferred frames etc - are neither necessary to explain quantum entanglement, nor is there any evidence that they correspond to anything in the real world. 

 

No.  There are many people who think so, but it is far from being consensus. 

Quote

I am unsure what you mean by this term. I take it as the current consensus amongst physicists that GR is only an effective field theory, so in all likelihood there is a more fundamental model there, the classical limit of which will turn out to be standard GR (hence quantum gravity being such an active field of research). That more fundamental model is obviously not guaranteed to exhibit the same fundamental symmetries, or bear any resemblance to the notion of “spacetime” at all. Few researchers in the field would disagree with this, I think.

Fundamental relativity is the assumption that relativistic symmetry is not simply an approximation, but really fundamental. 

The LQG people, in particular Rovelli, emphasize the central role of background independence in their approach. Background independence is the established attempt to formalize diff invariance as having a physical meaning, despite Kretschmann's objection. String theory I do not take seriously, whatever they think.  Beyond these two there is essentially nothing.  

If it would be accepted that relativistic symmetry is only an approximation, it would be fine. I have yet to find people ready to accept this together with the consequences. Namely, it follows almost automatically that the classical objections against the Lorentz ether are worth nothing - some approximate symmetry may be useful in some computations, but has no fundamental significance at all. 

Quote

So you are essentially disputing the validity of GR as a model.

No. Kretschmann's objection was essentially accepted by Einstein.  GR remained nonetheless unchanged and unquestioned.  The question has more metaphysical character. 

Quote

Neither locality nor realism are laws of logic, they are features of a mathematical model. A model may lack these, yet still be a good and valid description of physical reality.

I have never claimed that Einstein causality is a law of logic. My claim is about realism, and not realism in general (philosophers have invented hundreds of variants of it) but of the particular formula used in Bell's proof which is usually interpreted as following from realism.  I have shown that it follows from the Bayesian interpretation of probability, which is an interpretation of the rules of probability as rules of consistent thinking in a situation of uncertainty. (The logic of plausible reasoning.) In other words, for a consistent model one can simply construct that space \(\Lambda\) which is usually interpreted as some set of hidden variables. The construction for the case of quantum theory is there too.  It has been found earlier by Kochen and Specker and is not really complicate. 

Of course, there may be useful physical theories without realism and causality.  They may be, indeed, useful.  But they are incomplete.  (But to name a theory which is not realistic a valid description of physical reality becomes funny. The rejection of realism means that theory refuses to describe reality.)  

Just now, Markus Hanke said:

The causal explanation is the initial interaction of the particles, when the entanglement relationship is first created. At this point, a correlation between measurement outcomes is established. That’s really all there is to it.

If this is all, one can easily prove Bell's inequality.  If both measure the same direction, they get 100% correlation.  If the preparation is the common cause, and no interaction happens later, it follows that the results have been predefined.  This holds for all directions.  But for predefined results, Bell's inequality holds. 

50 minutes ago, Strange said:

You know what to do if you don't like it: concentrate on getting on getting your papers published in proper peer reviewed journals instead of wasting your time trying to convince random members of an internet forum.

The theories have been published in proper peer-reviewed journals.

This does not help at all, they have been (and predictably will be) simply ignored.  The funny thing is that the standard argument against cranks is "publish your theory in a peer-reviewed journal, then ...".  But in reality nothing changes.  My ether theories have been published, but nothing has changed. (In fact, in the old days of sci.physics.research I had more and qualitatively better communications with mainstream physicists.)  

33 minutes ago, Strange said:

It might surprise you to know that you can do both. 

Which is what I have done.

Quote

One of those is that you cannot ignore observational evidence (therefore "no observation can force me to give up this principle" is an anti-scientific stance).

Once the principle is a methodological principle (correlations require causal explanations), the stance is not anti-scientific.  And I don't ignore any observational evidence.  I work until I find an explanation of the observations which is compatible with the principles of scientific methodology. 

8 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Standard quantum physics explains entanglement very well, without the need for hypothetical constructs such as superluminality. Also, as you know, correlation does not imply causation.

No. Quantum theory allows you to compute the numbers without giving any explanation for them.  Note also that what is required is causal explanation.  

Of course, correlation does not imply causation. This is what makes the search for causal explanations a serious scientific problem.  And Reichenbach's common cause principle defines precisely what counts as a causal explanation and what does not count.  

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

The gravitational field? From...GR?

Or from other metric theories of gravity.  

Quote

More of this alleged "forbidden here" nonsense? You're smart. You can read the rules and understand them, so you can see that this is BS.

I have had enough negative experience showing me that relying on rules in forums gives nothing. Last but not least, rules are necessarily vague, and have to be interpreted, and if an admin interprets them differently than I do, I'm the loser. But, ok, in future I will write, instead of "forbidden here" something like "I'm afraid it may be forbidden here".  

Quote

For your position to be true, it would have to mean there is no mainstream physics upon which you could base an explanation, in which case, time would have to be a foreign concept, and clearly it is not. Time is included in Newtonian physics.

In Newtonian physics time runs at a constant rate, in quantum theory there is not even a time measurement operator, and the time parameter is absolute, so based on Newtonian physics I cannot explain it.  Relativity you have excluded explicitly.  I don't know any more fundamental theory than GR which is not speculation, and even if you would accept string theory or LQG as such theories, I would certainly not use them, given my own opinion about their scientific value. The "speculation" which I would agree to use would be based on my own pet theory.  So, your request remains problematic.  

But, ok, one thing I can try.  I take the SM of particle physics.  I ignore relativity, as required.  The SM consists of field equations, they make sense without relativity too. Last but not least, the Maxwell equations have made sense long before 1905 too. Then, I know that if you have a wave equation, you can construct for each solution also a Doppler-shifted solution.  This construction uses simply the Lorentz transformation with the speed of that particular wave equation.  It works for sound waves too, if you use the speed of sound in the Lorentz transformation, it gives you the Doppler-shifted sound waves. So, I can use Lorentz transformations without invoking relativity simply because I have some wave equations. Now, take a solution of the SM which describes a material clock at rest which measures 1 second.  All the SM equations are wave equations with the same c, so this trick can be applied to construct a Doppler-shifted solution.  This gives a solution for a material clock of the same construction moving with some velocity and measuring the same 1 second. Looking now what is measured in terms of absolute time, one can easily see that it is a different amount of absolute time which is measured by the two clocks as 1 second. 

Quote

Really? Special relativity isn't based on c being invariant, and relative time being a consequence of that? 

Really.  In the Lorentz ether interpretation of special relativity time is absolute, only clock time is relative.  It is the Minkowski spacetime interpretation where time itself becomes relative. The thing named proper time (badly translated "Eigenzeit") is relative in both interpretations, but this is only clock time, apparent time, not absolute time. "Time is what the clock shows" is already interpretation, not physics. 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Well I have seen quite a few threads on the subject in SF. Furthermore they tend to be quite length ones, with no one ending up banned unless they become abusive.

You, too, have had lots of space here to put your case.

The remark was a general one, about scientific forums. Here an open letter I have written to https://www.physicsforums.com/ in protest against a violation of their own rules, which resulted in banning me. Here is what an admin wrote recently here:

"Well, then, this will be put in speculations and you will limit your discussion of this subject to this thread, and this thread alone."

So my "some move them into subforums for cranks" holds here too, and "this thread alone" is not much space.  So,  I have to care here all the time if answering honestly a particular question would violate such restrictions and get me banned here too.  Which is quite difficult, because many questions of laymen have simple answers in the Lorentz ether interpretation. (This is not questioning this decision, I fully acknowledge the right of the administration to impose whatever rules they like, it is simply a description of the situation.)

3 hours ago, swansont said:

1. Did the OP do that?

2. Where do g_uv and gamma-dot come from?

Explain why time runs at a different rate - without invoking relativity.

(1) no, but he suggested something very close, namely "Would a better explanation for the novice be to say things fall because they are seeking out the place where time runs the slowest?".

That's the wrong sign, but the idea is a quite reasonable one, so I tell him that this can, indeed, be done, the equations for the test particle can be derived from such a maximum principle. 

(2) \(g_{\mu\nu}\) is the gravitational field, and \(\dot{\gamma}\) is the velocity of the clock.  

(3) Incorrect question.  Explanation always requires a base, some more fundamental things which do not require further explanation. Some more fundamental theory which explains GR would be speculation, thus, forbidden here. (BTW, relativity also does not explain why time runs at a different rate.)

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You didn't answer my question. 

Is my coordinate time the same as yours?

In the context of GR, probably not, because GR does not fix a time coordinate as preferred.  In a theory with preferred absolute time, if you choose absolute time as the time coordinate, yes, but in principle even in such a theory you are allowed to use other time coordinates.  

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

That style of citation make it look like it is a published paper. Maybe just provide the link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.04334, it's a bit less pretentious.

You are not doing science then.

I prefer to give also the title, so that people know at least something about the paper.  

I'm doing science.  That's why I don't give up principles of scientific methodology.  That correlations require causal explanations is such a principle.  If you think you can do science without any principles, your choice. Without some basics like logic, you will end nowhere.  

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Ok I have a question according to the above paper you have a Lorentz style eather that is non interacting with regular matter fields. This eather frame according to your paper allows for FTL. So how does it mediate entangled particles to allow supposed FTL signaling between entangled particles in violation of Einstein causality ? Without considering that a form of interaction ? Is there some arbitrary mediator boson as per regular matter fields ? Secondly what property of this eather allows FTL when massless non coupling particles propogate at c in regards to our observable matter and force fields ? Ie via {ct}.

No. There is absolute space and absolute time, as described by the preferred coordinates.  Then there is an ether.  Density, velocity and stress tensor of the ether are described by the gravitational field, all other properties of the ether described by matter fields. So, all the degrees of freedom of the ether interact with each other.  

The frame of absolute space and time is simply what is used to write down the equations of quantum theory.  And these equations describe, in a very explicit way, FTL causation (not signalling). You know, from the Schroedinger equation follows a continuity equation for \(\rho(q)=|\psi(q)|^2\), and the velocity in this continuity equation, which defines how the probability distribution changes in time, depends on the whole actual configuration, in the whole universe.

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

These aren’t basic principles of science, they are basic attributes of classicality only. There is no good reason to believe they are scale-independent.

That the only formula we need from realism to prove Bell's inequality is part of the logic of plausible reasoning (the objective Bayesian interpretation of probability) I have shown in  Schmelzer, I. (2017). EPR-Bell realism as a part of logic, arxiv:1712.04334.  That without Reichenbach's principle of common cause we we have to give up key methodological principles which distinguish science from astrology I have already argued.   Correlations require explanation, and no observation can force me to give up this principle because this is part of the scientific method. 

58 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

My assumption is only that interactions between particles are adequately described by the framework of QFT. This trivially preserves causality, but not necessarily locality and/or realism.

That means, you talk only about signal causality.  

Quote

It is the current scientific consensus.

No. 

Quote

In what sense then are they preferred? What mathematical definition of “preferred” are you using? Can you formalise this for us?

They are preferred by the interpretation of the theory.  Formally, it is the same preference as for the Cartesian coordinates and absolute time in pre-relativistic physics.

They identify absolute space and time. 

Quote

I’ll be blunt with you - your very rejection of what you consider “dogma” appears to have become dogma itself for you. The paragraph I quoted the above from really lets that shine through very strongly. At least that’s the vibe I’m picking up. Physics should not become a partisan issue - it is not about metaphysical notions of “right” or “wrong”, but about what model works best in describing aspects of the universe as we see them. Sometimes models are “right” in some circumstances, but “wrong” in others. It’s an epistemological endeavour, not an ontological one. The map isn’t the territory, but it does need to accurately represent the relevant aspects of the terrain, on the relevant scales. Quantum theory / QFT actually does this rather well.

I have no problem at all with physicists following the "shut up and calculate" prescription.  They have given a lot, in particular the SM.  But this does not make more fundamental research meaningless.  Those who do fundamental research have to make metaphysical choices, simply because the principles they choose are their guidelines toward a more fundamental theory.  The difference between me and the relativist fundamentalists is quite obvious:  I have no problem at all with other scientists, say, Rovelli, trying out other ways, namely assuming that relativistic symmetry, background freedom, are fundamental insights to be preserved in quantum gravity.  Instead, their behavior is different, my proposals are handled like anathema.  Some forums completely forbid to discuss the Lorentz ether, some move them into subforums for cranks, one permanently risks to be banned, arxiv rejects even some published papers, and so on. Reasonable, scientific arguments against my theories are almost absent.

Quote

As for the specific example of entanglement, since no exchange of information is necessary at the time of measurement, causality never even comes into it at all. By letting go of either realism or locality (or both), we eliminate the very need to exchange information, and hence no artificial notions of superluminality, preferred frames etc are necessary in the first place. Causality is trivially preserved, since the measurement always happens after entanglement has been created, and the outcome of measurements is compared following the usual rules of SR, which again trivially preserve causality.

 You use here, again, the very weak notion of signal causality. You cannot use the BI violations to send signals, and think that after this everything is fine with causality.  But causality is about something different - it is about the necessity to find causal explanations for observed correlations.  Without such necessity, we could continue to believe astrology.  The problem of astrology (beyond the difficult to prove point that the claimed correlations do not exist too) is that they do not even look for causal explanations.  But the notion of causality which requires to look for causal explanations of observed correlations is what you have to give up - it is Reichenbach's principle of common cause.

Quote

The problems only emerge if one demands that notions which appear fundamental in the classical domain (such as locality and realism) must be scale-independent, i.e. necessarily apply on all scales. Why should that be necessarily true? 

There are laws or rules of thinking.  We cannot rationally think without accepting and following them.  The laws of logic.  Can you accept that the laws of logic are something different from hypotheses of particular physical theories? Realism as well as causality have a similar character.  Essentially, without realism even the laws of logic become unnecessary, in poetry one lives nicely violating them.  And causality is what distinguishes astrology from science.  Necessities of thought, presuppositions of the scientific method itself - these are things which are not open to empirical falsification because we have to presuppose them to start the evaluation of what we observe.  

Quote

Again, it isn’t about what is right or what is wrong, but about what model best fits the universe we observe. To that end, there is no problem whatsoever in setting aside notions of realism and locality, of absolute time and space, if the resulting model is in good agreement with available data.

Once both are in good agreement with the available data, this is not at all the question.  They are on equal foot in this question. 

Quote

To make a long story short - not only is it no problem for me personally to set aside locality and/or realism, but I think it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if the resulting model describes very well what it is supposed to describe, while at the same time respecting other principles of physics, such as diffeomorphism invariance. To me, introducing preferred frames and space-like world lines creates many more problems than it solves.

I have yet to see any problem created by a preferred frame.  Regarding diff invariance, it is anyway quite dubious as a physical principle. Here, one can start with 

Kretschmann, E. (1917). Über den physikalischen Sinn der Relativitätspostulate, A. Einsteins neue und seine ursprüngliche Relativitätstheorie, Ann. Phys. 53, 575-614

where the point is made that every physical theory can be presented in a covariant form.  Rovelli and Anderson IIRC have tried to replace this with the concept of background independence, but this formalization has been criticized too.  Whatever, background independence may be a nice principle, but it is incompatible with quantum theory, which is a decisive argument against it. 

Quote

Don’t get me wrong here - investigating the implications of such things as preferred frames and space-like separations is quite a valid endeavour, but it doesn’t seem to add any value to physics as it stands. It just creates unnecessary problems and complications. Now, if you could put forward a model that preserves locality and realism without the need to add superluminality and preferred frames...that would indeed be something!

Sorry, I'm not a perpetuum mobile constructor, I accept simple theorems like Bell's theorem.  You have yet to present any problems and complications. 

On 1/18/2020 at 7:56 PM, swansont said:

No, probably not. You would be using an effect of GR to explain GR. Not to mention implying a causal connection that doesn’t exist.

What one uses as an effect and what as an explanation depends on the choices of axioms. 

It is quite usual to define theories postulating a Lagrangian.  Proper time defines a nice Lagrangian for the movement of test particles on a fixed GR background.  That means, if you define the maximum principle that \(\tau= \int \sqrt{g_{\mu\nu}(x,t)\dot{\gamma}^\mu\dot{\gamma}^\nu}dt\) has to be maximal, you can derive the geodetic equation for the test particle.  

The usual visualizations of curvature using curved surfaces in a higher dimensional flat space has, indeed, the disadvantage of suggesting the existence of such a higher dimensional space. 

Test particles seek the path where time runs the fastest way.  So, in the twin experiment, the twin which simply follows his own geodesic trajectory - the one who remains at home - is the older one.  Similarly, if you travel from point A to B which is opposite of the Sun, going the direct way would leave you most of the time in a region where time runs slower.  So, it is better to stay away from these inner regions.  But going too far away too fast is not a good idea too, because fast motion slows time too.  So, it appears optimal to move around the Sun following a Keplerian orbit (almost). This approach is valid. 

Ther other question is how to visualize curvature without external dimensions.  There are nice ways to do this. One can measure distances with usual metallic rulers, which expand with temperature.  Then, if you have homogeneous temperature in flat Eucliean space, you will not see anything strange, Euclidean geometry works fine, no curvature.  But if the temperature is inhomogeneous, the metric defined by the measurements with temperature-dependent rulers will give a metric with non-trivial curvature.  Say, if the center of a circle is hotter, the radius measurement will be distorted distorted because the  ruler expands. Measuring u and r will be influenced by this effect differently, and you will measure \(u>2\pi r\).  

Another nice analogy are crystal deformations. If the lattice is regular but deformed by external pressure, you can describe this by a tensor field with described the deformation.  It is a symmetric tensor, in fact simply the difference between the original Euclidean metric and the deformed metric. As long as the original regular lattice remains valid, the curvature of this metric is zero.  But there may be defects in the lattice. For a lattice with such defects, there is already no way to deform it into a stress-free state.  And this can be computed by computing the curvature tensor of the deformed metric. 

On 2/3/2019 at 4:20 PM, RedShiftam said:

Can somebody share an a articles or something related with this topic. I want to understand well the main problem (the root and the details) and why it is so difficult.

The first problem: Quantum theory is incompatible with fundamental relativistic symmetry.  

In quantum theory, you have a configuration q of the system you consider, and the main object is the wave function \(\psi(q)\).  It changes in absolute time \(\psi(q,t)\). The configuration is something global.  For N particles, it consists of the 3N coordinates of these particles. So, this gives a wave function \(\psi(x_1,y_1,z_1, ...,x_N, y_N, z_N, t)\)  There is no natural way to define a Lorentz transformation.  (For special-relativistic field theory, there have been found ways to circumvent this, but an essential part of this is the decision simply not to talk about everything which does not follow relativistic symmetry.  All the conceptual problems, especially those related with the violation of the Bell inequalities, remain problematic in this theory too, but one simply does not argue about it, creating (surprisingly quite successful) that there are no problems with this. 

In GR, this becomes much worse. One cannot really write down a reasonable quantum theory without specifying some time coordinate. In the naive hope, one would like to be able to show that this can be done in a way that does not depend on the choice of the time coordinate.  This fails, and the resulting problem is named "problem of time in QG".

The second problem is that GR is not renormalizable.  This was thought, initially, as being fatal, but today we know that it is not a big problem at all, if one accepts that it is an effective field theory, that means, a theory which is only a large distance approximation of some yet unknown different theory.  Unfortunately, for those who like the spacetime interpretation, this is hard to accept.  To replace GR below some critical distance (say, Planck length) by some different theory without any infinities (this is called regularization) leads to theories which violate relativistic symmetry.  Of course, it would be quite natural to assume that a more fundamental theory has a different symmetry than its large distance approximation.  But for most proponents of fundamental relativity this is simply unacceptable.   

2 hours ago, MigL said:

From Schmelzer's paper...

I. Schmelzer, A Generalization of the Lorentz Ether to Gravity with General-Relativistic Limit, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242, resp. arxiv:gr-qc/0205035.

"Does relativistic gravity provide arguments against the existence of a preferred frame? Our answer is negative. We define a viable theory of gravity with preferred frame. In this theory, the EEP holds exactly, and the Einstein equations of GR limit are obtained in a natural limit. Despite some remarkable differences (stable “frozen stars” instead of black holes, a “big bounce” instead of the big bang, exclusion of nontrivial topologies and closed causal loops, and a preference for a flat universe) the theory is viable."

Might be mathematically consistent, but doesn't model reality, as it does not fit observational evidence.

Given that the theory forbidden for discussion here has now been introduced by somebody else, I will answer here, and leave it to the admins (if they find it necessary) to split this part of the discussion and move it to some other place.

Present the evidence.  Have we already observed some wormholes or some causal loops?  Have we any empirical evidence against the Einstein equations of GR, which the theory gives as an approximation?

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

So let me get this straight we have experimental evidence of time dilation at a distance of 1 metre apart. Yet you feel time is absolute.

I do not "feel", but I have a theory which contains absolute time. This is in no conflict with GR time dilation because GR time dilation is simply clock time dilation.  Clocks are influenced by the gravitational field, and my theory makes the same empirical predictions about that clock time dilation.  Absolute time is, in that theory, defined by equations but not measurable with clocks. 

Quote

In all reference frames in Newtonian physics time is absolute. That is not true for reference frames under SR/GR. So how can you claim that Newton isn't wrong in regards to time ?

In fact, you are free to use other coordinates in Newtonian physics as well.  It makes not much sense, that's all.  My theory distinguishes clock time (time as measured with clocks) and absolute time. The formula for clock time \(\tau = \int \sqrt{g_{\mu\nu}(x,t) \frac{d \gamma^\mu}{dt}\frac{d \gamma^\nu}{dt}} dt\) is the same as in GR. And, don't forget, Newton has distinguished two notions of time, absolute time and apparent time, the same two notions of time I distinguish too, and, BTW, are distinguished even in GR (coordinate time vs. proper time). Once Newton already claims that apparent time does not have to 

Quote

More importantly why do you feel GR must be incorrect in regards to time with your knowledge of GR ?

I would have to reject basic principles of science, realism as well as causality, given the violation of the Bell inequalities.  This alternative is unacceptable for me, given that there is a simple viable alternative which preserves realism as well as classical causality.  

Quote

Which from your equation above and your last few posts seem to describe that the equivalence principle with regards to inertial mass and gravitational mass doesn't apply.

The Einstein equivalence principle is a proven theorem in my theory.  It follows from translational symmetry, the Noether theorem, and the action equals reaction principle. 

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Oh then maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by a harmonic coordinate system as now your stating it as being fixed is static.  That was the main details I was questioning you on yesterday. Hence specifying what a reference frame entails regardless if it inertial or non inertial. You still have to deal with the components and products of a vector using the metric.

I still don't see the point of your question.  The preferred coordinates are also coordinates, the formulas to be used for arbitrary coordinates remain valid for the preferred coordinates too.  So, what's the problem to deal with vector or tensor components?

Quote

I won't bother getting into absolute time and an eather based theory under GR/SR. I'm positive you already know all the arguments.

In fact I have not heard much arguments. The usual way to handle such approaches in science forums is to ban them instead of discussing them. Criticizing GR using an ether approach is anathema, not handled in a rational way.  

Quote

Quite frankly there is no need to even have a preferred fixed background if your coordinates for every reference frame is static to begin with.

Except that those who quantize gravity without a fixed preferred background have failed almost a century to combine these two rather simple theories. Instead, quantizing gravity in an ether approach is standard condensed matter theory.  

Quote

So far you haven't shown me any reason to deviate from how SR or GR handles spacetime. Then my primary field is cosmology with particle physics being secondary as I needed particle physics for my focus of research.

A main argument is the violation of Bell's inequality. In fact, it is a decisive one. Those who reject the simple and straightforward solution of a preferred frame, where causal influences faster than light are allowed without endangering causality and realism, and are ready to give up all the fundamental principles of science (realism, causality, logic of plausible reasoning) to save fundamental(ist) relativistic symmetry seem unreachable by any further scientific arguments. Yes, there are people who are ready to reject realism and causality to preserve their dogma, given that the only way to preserve realism and causality would be to give up the dogma. 

To hope that such people can be reached by scientific arguments seems naive. I have given up this hope. 

Quote

So I have never had a need to delve into quantum interpretations for any practical purpose.

The important point of the realist and causal interpretations is that they explicitly prove the existence of interpretations which preserve realism and causality.  Even if this requires a preferred frame.  So, it shows that to blame quantum strangeness as a justification for giving up realism and causality is unjustified.  The only justification for giving up realism and causality is the dogma of fundamental relativity.  

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Is my coordinate time the same as your coordinate time? Does my physics work just as well as yours?

In GR, the physical predictions do not depend on the choice of coordinates, thus, the physical predictions will be the same, even if you choose another coordinate time. 

Quote

Since we know Newtonian time is wrong, what's the point of invoking it? And I was hoping for an actual experiment, not a thought experiment (which is not actual evidence)

We don't know this. We know that the Newtonian theory of gravity is wrong. We don't know that the Newtonian definitions for time are wrong.  

We talk here about GR, and interpretations of the GR equations which differ from the spacetime interpretation.  If one talks about different interpretations, even thought experiments distinguishing them cannot be expected.  Even less actual experiments.  To discuss alternative theories of gravity, which could provide differences in actual experiments, would be forbidden here as speculation. 

Quote

Not here in this thread, but nothing is preventing you from opening a thread in speculations (or putting this in an existing thread of yours in speculations, as appropriate) so this is hardly an excuse.

I do not need excuses.  Take a look at these threads.  If you miss something, ask where it is not forbidden to answer. 

On 11/13/2019 at 7:07 PM, swansont said:

No, I disagree. If you do this, you have to invent a new notion of time, and you need new physics to go along with it.  

Given that new physics would be speculation, I'm forbidden to present them here. Fortunately, nothing new is necessary here. I can take good old Newton's definitions.  He already distinguished absolute time which flows independent of any human action and apparent time, the result of the attempts of humans to measure time. Technically, absolute time survives in GR as coordinate time - if there would be some absolute time, it would be defined by some time coordinate as the corresponding coordinate time. But GR has no equations for absolute time, and it does not appear in the spacetime interpretation.  

Quote

What is the reference for this happening?

Standard twin experiment.  Use two identical clocks moving from a common starting event to a common end event on different trajectories.  The result will be that the clocks show different time.  In an interpretation based on the Newtonian concept of time, this would not be possible for absolute time, only for apparent time, and would prove the existence of some distortion of the clocks. 

Quote

I think if you expect different answers you need a different model. What I am not getting is why you think there is a different interpretation to be had here.

I think having different interpretations for the same equations is always useful.  It helps very much to distinguish what follows from experiments and observation (these things would be the same in different interpretations) from metaphysical assumptions (which can be different in different interpretations).   

Quote

Yeah, actually it does say it's a curved four-dimensional spacetime, and not a physical distortion of a device (see the equivalence principle). And if you think it's a physical effect you would need to explain kinematic dilation. The burden of proof here is yours.

No problem.  Except that I'm not allowed to deliver such things here. 

Except, I hope, for the simple formula \(\tau = \int \sqrt{g_{\mu\nu}(x,t) \frac{d\gamma^\mu}{dt}\frac{d\gamma^\nu}{dt}} dt\)  which quite explicitly described that (and how) the gravitational field (described by \(g_{\mu\nu}(x,t)\))  distorts the time measurement for a clock moving along the trajectory \(\gamma^\mu(t)\).