Brent, No, the oppositely aligned spins is NOT a hidden variable and there is no FTL. Reread my post....
Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:20:03 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > 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.
