On 12/27/2013 7:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually exist. When it is
recognized that space emerges from events rather than being a fixed background to them
these questions disappear.
E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite spin relationship of the two particles is fixed
when they are created by the particle property conservation law, but the absolutely
crucial point is that that when it is created that relationship is only in the mutual
frame of the two particles which is not yet connected to the frame of the observer. It
is only when the frame of the particles and the observer are aligned by a common
dimensional event (the measurement of the spin of one particle by the observer) that
both frames become aligned and thus the spin of the second particle becomes apparent in
the observer's frame.
The problem is that "when" and "become" refer to a time dimension and, when the
measurements are spacelike, there is no canonical ordering to the measurement events.
The exact spin relationship between the particles existed since their creation.
That's a hidden variable which violation of Bell's inequality rules out unless the
relationship is spacelike (i.e. FTL).
It had to since their creation determined it. However that frame was independent of that
of the observer until a single common event connected the two frames at which time every
dimensional relationship of both frames became aligned. It is basically how two
independent spaces must be completely ignorant of each other until connected by a common
dimensional event at which point all dimensionality of both become automatically aligned
in a single dimensionality.
Thus there is NO need for faster than light transmission, and your "As a previously
mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox
that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds." is
certainly not true (more accurately does not apply) in this model.
Second, the cat is always either alive or dead in its own frame. But that frame is
unknowable by some external observer until it becomes observable via a common event
between that frame and that observer's frame (the measurement of whether it is alive or
dead).
We can't assume some single universal dimensional frame. All dimensional frames arise
independently of each other and unaligned with each other (because there is no common
fixed pre-existing standard frame of reference, there are only individual independent
frames emerging from connected networks of dimensional events) until they are connected
and then dimensionally aligned by some shared event.
So there's a global time coordinate, but no global space coordinates?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
