Curious results from interferometer experiments

[Obvious Leo]

I have been looking for a long time.

Me too, mate.

However if I am to build a universe i think I still need a bit of space.

We all need our psychological comforts so make yourself a little compromise. Accept space when your eyes are open and deny it when they're shut. You don't need it then anyway.

hopefully my reality will emerge. Perhaps from Switzerland

I'm told that the best gear still comes from the Sandoz labs but I haven't subjected this opinion to empirical verification for decades.

Regards Leo

[Mechsmith]

Space and time are where we put the diamonds given by previous lovers

whom

having lived and loved and passed on

at "c".

left us the stars

Or to put it a little less obscurely today's reality is based on a history of past realities. A bit imperfect and there are quite a few pages missing but apparently there have been past realities. All of them filtered through an imperfect mechanism.

Best, M.

[Bohm2]

P.S. The non-existence of the Cartesian space as a physical entity was irrefutably proven well over a century ago by Michelson and Morley.

I'm not sure why you would make this claim. First of all, the concept of proofs in an empirical science like physics does not exist. Secondly, the Lorentz interpretation is fully consistent with all the evidence to date. The choice of interpretation (whether Einstein's or Minkowski's or Lorentz's) is one of philosophical taste:

The fact is that the only version of SR which is experimentally verifiable, as Geoffrey Builder points out, ‘‘is the theory that the spatial and temporal coordinates of events, measured in any one inertial reference system, are related to the spatial and temporal coordinates of the same events, as measured in any other inertial reference system, by the Lorentz transformations’’ (Builder 1971: 422). But this verifiable statement is underdeterminative with regard to the radically different physical interpretations of the Lorentz transformations given, respectively, by Einstein, Minkowski, and Lorentz.

http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/1 ... sequence=1

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/NPA/Do ... _NPA18.pdf

Moreover, a number of prominent physicists and philosophers (e.g. Bell, Popper, Bohm, Hiley, Maudlin, etc.) have suggested that the quantum non-locality confirmed in Aspect-type experiments can only be accommodated within something like a Neo-Newtonian concept of absolute space (e.g. Lorenz's interpretation) in order to avoid the possibility of causal anomalies.

I have a number of arguments which refute the existence of the 3D space but they all proceed from the premise that time PASSES, exactly as our every innermost instinct tells us it does.

Even accepting your presentist view of time (which, by the way, I also favour) a Lorentzian or Neo-Newtonian concept of space is fully compatible with a presentist view of time. In fact, consider this quote by Lorentz:

Lorentz, realizing that his aether compensatory interpretation is empirically equivalent to the Einstein-Minkowski interpretations, leaves it up to the individual to choose which he shall adopt. But Lorentz preferred the classical conceptions of time and space on metaphysically intuitive grounds, as he made clear in his 1922 lectures at Cal Tech:

"All our theories help us form pictures, or images, of the world around us, and we try to do this in such a way that the phenomena may be coordinated as well as possible, and that we may see clearly the way in which they are connected. Now in forming these images we can use the notions of space and time that have always been familiar to us, and which I, for my part, consider as perfectly clear and, moreover, as distinct from one another. My notion of time is so definite that I clearly distinguish in my picture what is simultaneous and what is not."

[Obvious Leo]

Bohm2. In a sense we've come full circle because this thread began in a discussion about how one should interpret QM. QM is based on the Minkowski spacetime which is a special case of the GR spacetime in the "flat" space. For the purposes of argument I'm happy to stick with this metaphorical notion of a "flat" space although GR tells us that such a thing cannot be. What meaning are we to attach to such notions as locality and non-locality in a hypothetical space which does not exist in the real world?

Regards Leo

[Bohm2]

In a sense we've come full circle because this thread began in a discussion about how one should interpret QM. QM is based on the Minkowski spacetime which is a special case of the GR spacetime in the "flat" space. For the purposes of argument I'm happy to stick with this metaphorical notion of a "flat" space although GR tells us that such a thing cannot be. What meaning are we to attach to such notions as locality and non-locality in a hypothetical space which does not exist in the real world?

Whether something like space exists in the "real" world (whatever that means) is beside the point. The fact is that violations of Bell's inequality in Aspect-type experiments suggest that (to use Bell's own words) "behind the scene something is going faster than light". This appears to be logically, ontologically and mathematically inconsistent with relativity. Adopting anti-realism (the denial that there is a way the world really is as distinct from our perceptions of it) is one way out but then it remains unclear why one should care about putting stock on the theory of relativity in the first place:

f there were nothing, according to the theory, that can be assigned to a particular region in space-time- then it becomes exceedingly difficult to understand exactly how space-time structure is supposed to play a physical role in the theory at all, and also exceedingly difficult to understand why we should give much weight to the theory of Relativity, given that we take whatever knowledge we have of space-time structure to be mediated by interactions with localized objects in space-time. Were we to become convinced that no such objects exists, we would have to revisit our grounds for putting stock in the theory of Relativity in the first place.

Non-Local Correlations in Quantum Theory: How the Trick Might Be Done
http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/1 ... sequence=1

What I'm describing is a non-linear computation which is continuously being executed on the Planck scale at the speed of light/time, a speed which is regulated by gravity, the cosmic metronome.

This model also appears incompatible with the non-locality suggested in Bell-type experiments. Note that Bell, himself, did offer a suggestion:

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.

The metaphysics of special relativity: three views
http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/1 ... sequence=1

Popper in writing about Aspect’s confirmation of Bell’s theorems suggests something similar:

...we have to give up Einstein’s interpretation of special relativity and return to Lorentz’s interpretation and with it to ...absolute space and time...The reason for this assertion is that the mere existence of an infinite velocity entails [the existence] of an absolute simultaneity and thereby of an absolute space. Whether or not an infinite velocity can be attained in the transmission of signals is irrelevant for this argument: the one inertial system for which Einsteinian simultaneity coincides with absolute simultaneity...would be the system at absolute rest – whether or not this system of absolute rest can be experimentally identified.

A radical rethinking of quantum gravity: rejecting Einstein’s relativity and unifying Bohmian QM with a Bell-neo-Lorentzian absolute time, space and gravity
http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/1 ... sequence=1

[Obvious Leo]

Whether something like space exists in the "real" world (whatever that means) is beside the point.

Bohr made it clear that deciding what was real or not real was not the task of physics and I agree with him. Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, de Broglie and Eddington all said something similar, as did Wheeler. The spacetime paradigm is useful for making predictions about the behaviour of matter and energy but because it does not refer to a physically real world it cannot be used to deduce conclusions about the causes of such behaviour, even in principle. Spacetime is, was and will always remain a non-mechanical model because it is observer-dependent and the observer is constrained by the finite speed of light. Even in principle we can only ever observe something after it's happened and never as it is happening. We see effects but never causes but anti-realism does NOT imply that such causes do not exist.

This notion is not difficult to grasp because to claim that the observer can only observe something which has already occurred is a simple statement of the bloody obvious. Thus the statement that the observer is observing an event which no longer exists is equally a simple statement of the bloody obvious. What ontological meaning are we to attach to an empty space purported to exist between the observer and a non-existent event? The Lorentz aether theory will not resolve this simplest of questions.

Regards Leo

[Bohm2]

Spacetime is, was and will always remain a non-mechanical model because it is observer-dependent and the observer is constrained by the finite speed of light.

But the speed of quantum connections that exist between entangled particles/systems has been experimentally measured and the velocity appears to be much greater than c:

Here we put stringent experimental bounds on the speed of all such hypothetical influences. We performed a Bell test over more than 24 hours between two villages separated by 18 km and approximately east–west oriented, with the source located precisely in the middle. We continuously observed two-photon interferences well above the Bell inequality threshold. Taking advantage of the Earth’s rotation, the configuration of our experiment allowed us to determine, for any hypothetically privileged frame, a lower bound for the speed of the influence. For example, if such a privileged reference frame exists and is such that the Earth’s speed in this frame is less than 10^-3 times that of the speed of light, then the speed of the influence would have to exceed that of light by at least four orders of magnitude.

Testing spooky action at a distance
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3316v1.pdf

Moreover, if the non-local effects observed in Bell-type experiments propagate at any finite speed whatsoever, then the non-locality could be exploited for superluminal communication:

The new hidden influence inequality shows that the get-out won't work when it comes to quantum predictions. To derive their inequality, which sets up a measurement of entanglement between four particles, the researchers considered what behaviours are possible for four particles that are connected by influences that stay hidden and that travel at some arbitrary finite speed. Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions. The researchers showed that quantum predictions can lie outside this boundary, which means they are going against one of the assumptions. Outside the boundary, either the influences can't stay hidden, or they must have infinite speed.

Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142217.htm

Quantum non-locality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signalling
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vao ... s2460.html

The bottom line is that the quantum connections that exist between entangled particles/systems are not only much greater than c, but they could not remain hidden if the speed of these "private lines" was anything less than infinite velocity/instantaneous.

[Obvious Leo]

But the speed of quantum connections that exist between entangled particles/systems has been experimentally measured and the velocity appears to be much greater than c:

This observer effect vanishes if the space is regarded as illusory and merely a spatialisation of time. Nothing moves faster than c in a spaceless universe because the speed of light and the speed of time are one and the same thing and thus both mediated by gravity. This notion simply cannot be accommodated within QM because Minkowski spatialised time and gravity out of existence and therefore rendered the speed of time an invalid construct. However equating the speed of light with the speed of time offers the simplest of simple explanations for gravitational lensing and the apparent spatial expansion of the universe. So simple, in fact, that it simply cannot be false.

The bottom line is that the quantum connections that exist between entangled particles/systems are not only much greater than c, but they could not remain hidden if the speed of these "private lines" was anything less than infinite velocity/instantaneous.

I'm in furious agreement with you. Spacetime is unequivocally an action at a distance paradigm and all the mathematical dancing around the fact is merely an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. What astonishes me is that this has been well known for a century and yet physics remains steadfastly reluctant to embrace a truth which is staring them in the face. Neither QM nor GR are able to offer a coherent mechanism for observed effects without contradicting both each other and SR. All three of these models are therefore mutually exclusive and any attempt to enfold them within each other is a monstrous exercise in futility. Surely the time has long since passed for the Leibniz space to be revisited and for Poincare's approach to relativistic gravitational motion to receive a mathematical upgrade!!

Regards Leo

[Bohm2]

This observer effect vanishes if the space is regarded as illusory and merely a spatialisation of time. Nothing moves faster than c in a spaceless universe because the speed of light and the speed of time are one and the same thing and thus both mediated by gravity.

While I see some similarities between some of your arguments (as little as I understand them) and Barbour's (see link below), he reaches the opposite conclusion that time does not "really" exist. Moreover, I'm guessing Barbour would argue that the concept of speed of time is likely a meaningless term since speed/passage implies movement which in turn presupposes change in time and so appears circular.

In this view, gravity drives complexity, and complexity draws the bow on the arrow of time. To see this, you identify the earlier random state as the past. Until complexity arises, time simply doesn’t exist...That all changes as gravity begins to draw matter into clumps, according to Koslowski. "As structures start to form, and you have actual subsystems form that allow you to form physical rods and clocks." (Rods and clocks are the classic measurement tools.) "Then you see that these physical rods and clocks form so that time seems to move away from that point in the past," he says.

Is Gravity Time’s Archer?
http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/200

Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time
https://physics.aps.org/featured-articl ... 113.181101

Having said all of this, I still favour the view that time is more like a container that exists independently of the contents of the universe and where the concept of time could still be meaningfully applied without referring to any change. I also do not favour Kant's view of time since on Kant's view there cannot be time without minds (and hence not before minds). It just seems more sensible to me that minds appeared after the universe came into existence.

-- Updated April 5th, 2015, 11:20 pm to add the following --

Actually Barbour is a bit confusing. Have a listen to his Perimeter lecture, particularly on the exchange between Smolin and Barbour starting at about 75 minutes of the video. Smolin asks "rather than eliminate time haven't you found a universal time?" Barbour seems to agree with Smolin? So I don't understand why Barbour is often presented as an advocate of a timeless universe (e.g. his book "The end of time").

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos ... relativity

[Obvious Leo]

I also do not favour Kant's view of time since on Kant's view there cannot be time without minds (and hence not before minds). It just seems more sensible to me that minds appeared after the universe came into existence.

Agreed. Kant took a basically good idea beyond the bounds of reason when he denied the ontological validity of time and causation. As Harbal said elsewhere solipsism is a filthy habit. In a spaceless model time, change and causation are entirely synonymous constructs which require no separate definitions but all are as real as real can be.


Barbour is on the right track when he says that gravity drives the evolution of complexity but then he misses the point that Newton's definition of determinism was therefore wrong because evolution is a non-linear process. He also misses the elephant in the room of GR because if time does not "really exist" then gravity doesn't "really exist" either. Having said that I have a lot of respect for Barbour as a thinker.

Regards Leo

[Jklint]

How would Smolin's universal time equate to Barbour's no time? Why would he make this inference and what is universal time in this context? It's certainly not likely he was referring to UT as a time standard relating to planet earth.

[Bohm2]

How would Smolin's universal time equate to Barbour's no time? Why would he make this inference and what is universal time in this context? It's certainly not likely he was referring to UT as a time standard relating to planet earth.

Although Smolin is sympathetic to Barbour's shape dynamics model, he and Barbour appear to have opposite views on time, to the best of my understanding. Smolin believes that there is, in fact, a preferred frame of reference or "preferred" global time. I'm sympathetic to this view for reasons pointed in the above posts. Barbour denies not only the passage of time, but the existence of an external dimension of time. I personally find this hard to swallow. The exchange with Smolin during the question period only reinforces my view since Barbour appears to agree with Smolin that in fact, "rather than eliminate time haven't you found a universal time?"

[Jklint]

How would Smolin's universal time equate to Barbour's no time? Why would he make this inference and what is universal time in this context? It's certainly not likely he was referring to UT as a time standard relating to planet earth.

Although Smolin is sympathetic to Barbour's shape dynamics model, he and Barbour appear to have opposite views on time, to the best of my understanding. Smolin believes that there is, in fact, a preferred frame of reference or "preferred" global time. I'm sympathetic to this view for reasons pointed in the above posts. Barbour denies not only the passage of time, but the existence of an external dimension of time. I personally find this hard to swallow. The exchange with Smolin during the question period only reinforces my view since Barbour appears to agree with Smolin that in fact, "rather than eliminate time haven't you found a universal time?"

It would seem to an ignoramus like me that many other things have to be understood first before time becomes better explained. There is nothing we measure which is more illusive. Whereas almost everything else can be reduced to waves, particles, forces of one kind or another, what is time since it seems to be none of these. Almost anything that one can say of time may be true only to that extent. Virtually everyone including the most brilliant have their theories but we still don't have a clue as to what it is. When it comes to time we're in the same position as Newton when asked what causes gravity. The irony it seems to me is that we measure time the way he "measured" gravity based on its effects without in the least knowing anything about the cause. I still think the nature of time will be better understood as a derivative of things which must be understood first. Metaphorically one doesn't discuss the soul as if it never had a body.

[Obvious Leo]

When it comes to time we're in the same position as Newton when asked what causes gravity.

We at least know from GR that time and gravity are two different ways of expressing the same thing so we're slightly further forward than Newton was. Since we still don't have a causal mechanism for gravity would this not be a logical place to start?

[Atreyu]

Having said all of this, I still favour the view that time is more like a container that exists independently of the contents of the universe and where the concept of time could still be meaningfully applied without referring to any change. I also do not favour Kant's view of time since on Kant's view there cannot be time without minds (and hence not before minds). It just seems more sensible to me that minds appeared after the universe came into existence.

Nothing can exist independently of the Universe by definition.

I myself favor Kant's view of time because it's logically consistent. Either we are subjective creatures or we are not. And my opinion is that the Universe could not have come into existence without a Mind. Or rather, that the Universe always existed and always will, and "Mind" or "Thought" has always been an integral part of it.