**Henri Poincaré’s Relativity was a Relativity of “Local Time”: Henri defined the two concepts, Relativity and Local Time, making electromagnetism the core of mechanics.** However, the present Quantum Mechanics we have, *CIQ, the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum*, born after **Poincaré died, **is RELATIVE to the Hilbert Space it uses for a particular computation. That’s one Relativity too far. Because it is not clear which Hilbert Space we must choose: a number of related paradoxes arise, the *Schrodinger Cat*, *Wigner’s Friend*, etc.

In 1964, John Bell published an article called ‘** On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox**’ in which he showed that “LOCAL” hidden variable theories conflict with observation. Bell writes: ‘

*The paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics*

*could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables. These additional variables were to restore to the theory causality and locality**. In this note that idea will be formulated mathematically and shown to be incompatible with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty.*’ [1]

**The philosophical question is why should “causality” and “locality” both be saved? Couldn’t we just eliminate one of them? The obvious one to eliminate is locality.** The idea of nonlocality is all over human mythology. Non-causality, not so much [2]. Most physicists couldn’t bear to eliminate “locality” because their great guru, Albert Einstein, and his prolific, revered followers, had decreed that nothing whatsoever could go faster than light. Unfortunately for them, reality decided otherwise. So the relativistic lemmings decided to do away with reality. In their version, reality is whatever they decide it to be. The analogy with the core principle of the global plutocratic media and power take over is no happenstance [3].

Philosophically this is irritating, and I am irritated. Make no mistake: I know that accelerating a mass beyond the speed of light seems impossible, because of a well-known equation… And I found a deeper reason relating directly to the slowing down of accelerated clocks. I also know, and do not intend to indulge, in arguments where space itself is accelerating.

What irritates me is this: the speed of light is a LOCAL concept. “Spooky”

*ACTION-AT-A-DISTANCE, *** Spukhafte Fernwirkung, **to speak like Einstein, is NON-LOCAL.

How can one use a local concept (constancy of lightspeed; limitation from thereof) to disprove a non-local concept? One has to do what is known in mathematics as “integration”. All differential geometers know that this is rich in surprises…

In particular, if one is present with any curvature in space at a point, the speed of light will vary along loops originating at that point. That’s what having “curvature at that point” boils down to. So the speed of light is… relative. That’s the whole idea of “GENERAL” Relativity. When a fanatical believer of the consistency and constancy of the speed of light is tossed in a Black Hole by yours truly, as justly deserved, it will forever fade away slowly with the frozen expression of the dumbfounded [4]…

In any case the physically minded lemmings out there spurned nonlocality (defined as anything faster than light, supraluminal). Instead, they asserted locality, and were thus reduced to putting causality, and even reality, in doubt. Out of that sprung the multiworlds, multiverse, multiminds, multireality description of… reality. Most theoretical physicists, according to polls, are OK with reality being observer dependent.

This is obviously grotesque.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] John S Bell. “*On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox*”. In: Physics 1.3 (1964), p. 195.

***

[2] A well-known argument against “God” is to ask who, what, caused “God”? The Christian theologian answer is that God is the ultimate cause… That answer makes monotheism acausal, thus irrational… But the Greco-Roman instigators of Christianism saw that one coming, so they found an excellent answer: as the Gospel of John has it, the “Logos” itself (what you need to describe cause). Nowadays lemming Quantum physicists give another answer: logos is relative…

***

[3] The madness who has seized academic theoretical physicists communicated to the humanities, and from there to the streets… and the global plutocracy… This is how the Zeitgeist, l’esprit du temps, is created.

***

[4] Albert Einstein himself admitted, discreetly, that the speed of light varies in General Relativity… That’s the whole idea…

August 26, 2020 at 10:31 pm |

Needless to say, I disagree with the argument that you can show physics is non-local through mathematics. As an example, we often hear from those who don’t seem to understand that violations of Bell’s Inequality proves non-locality. The inequalities are mathematical relationships that apply to sets of measurements. Therefore if the relationship is violated, it follows that either the mathematics used in deriving it was wrong (and that does not happen) or the measurements are wrong in some way. You cannot use a mathematical relationship to prove/support something that is not explicitly present in the relationship.

LikeLike

August 27, 2020 at 5:18 am |

OK, Ian, thanks for the answer. This is an apparently simple subject which is actually horribly difficult. All kinds of people (including Einstein) made errors with it… Although Einstein (propped by Karl Popper, as far as myself and I know) discovered the subject.

I am not too sure I understand what you say., which seems to be a metamathematical argument. I love metamathematics. However, I have used advanced inequalities in advanced differential geometry involving nonlinear PDEs. Pretty standard there.

The relationship apply to sets of measurements. It “simply” say that, the measurements of spin of the proverbial Alice and Bob entangled photon streams are somewhat related under some circumstances. As the axes of polarization vary where Alice and Bob are measured, the correlations in polarizations between Alice and Bob vary. They are maximum at an angle of 22.5 degrees difference. Now that’s nowhere in classical mechanics.

I will try to work this out in greater depths. Official wisdom is that the correlations can’t be used to transmit messages because they are checked only a posteriori.

LikeLike

September 2, 2020 at 10:55 pm |

The inequalities are usually tested by having Bob and Alice align their polarizers in the same way. Actually, the maximum you talk about is 45 degrees, not 22.5 degrees, and it follows from the Malus Law which comes from cos^2φ + sin^2φ = 1, which is a statement of the law of conservation of energy, or of probability. In classical mechanics, particles cannot be polarized, but the results are always in accord with classical wave theory. Now, of course, since I follow a guidance/pilot wave interpretation, a polarized wave is perfectly obvious to me.

LikeLike

September 3, 2020 at 3:44 pm |

OK, 45 degrees, right.

I am still confused by your position. And what does the pilot wave say in this situation?

LikeLike