No, the oppositely aligned spins is NOT a hidden variable and there is no 
FTL. Reread my post....


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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to