The violation of Bell's inequality is an indirect observation of the preferred foliat

[ilja]

Snip.

The violation of Bell's inequality is an indirect observation of the preferred foliation

To clarify the meaning of "indirect observation": Different from a direct observation, in an indirect observation we do not really "see" the object in question. Instead, we have an observation such that all realistic explanations require the presense of the object in question.

But with this meaning of "indirect observation" the ATM becomes a consequence of Bell's theorem. A realistic explanation of the observed correlations is something which fits into the assumptions of realism (including realistic causality) as used by Bell. If we add Einstein causality, we can prove Bell's inequality, which is violated. Thus, we cannot add it, so that all realistic explanations have to violate Einstein causality.

The existence of a preferred foliation follows from this.

Once according to quantum theory a violation of Bell's inequality is possible for arbitrary pairs of space-like separated events A, B. Applied to such a pair of events, there are only two possible realistic explanations: One with a causal influence A->B, and the other with a causal influence B->A. Assuming that there exists a relation of causality between events which does not contain closed causal loops, and which provides an explanation for all possible BI-violating experiments, this notion of causality has to contain or A->B, or B->A for every pair A,B of events. And, of course, this notion of causality has to be consistent with standard causality inside the light cones.

Now we can define the event contemporary to A on some world-line B(t) as the point t_0 where A->B(t) for t>t_0 switches to B(t)->A for t<t_0. If there is some t_- with B(t_-)->A and some t_+ with A->B(t_+), such a t_0 should exist.

Of course, we cannot detect this preferred foliation by observation. All the construction does is to prove it's existence, given realism and loop-free causality. So, for solipsists and other positivists this existence proof is not sufficient. Which is something I do not really care about.

One may certainly question realism. The violation of Bell's inequality defines a conflict between the two ingredients used to prove it - realism and relativistic causality. So one may ask why I think it is realism which should be preserved.

This question needs some methodological considerations. We do not have a conflict between theories, but between principles. We usually cannot test principles separately (which is sometimes possible for theories). So what should be the rules for judging which principle has to be preferred in case of a conflict?

I propose here some criteria for deciding between principles and look what they tell us:

1.) Restrictive power: The equivalent of empirical content for principles. While principles do not have own empirical content, they restrict the theories which follow these principles in more or less restrictive ways. The more restrictive, the better. A principle without restrictive power can be simply ignored, similar to a theory without any empirical predictions.

Application: Einstein causality for observable effects only (allowing hidden real causal influences) is not in conflict with realism. Realistic Einstein causality has no additional restrictive power if realism is abandoned. It reduces to observable Einstein causality. Thus, the combination of realism with observable Einstein causality is clearly more restrictive than a rejection of realism.

The same logic holds for observable and realistic versions of Lorentz symmetry.

The only principle which is in conflict with realism but survives this argument is manifest Lorentz covariance. This principle remains more restrictive than Lorentz covariance for observables even if we reject realism.

2.) Generality: In case of conflict, the more general principle should be preferred.

Application: Realism is clearly the more general principle. We can consider it even as part of the scientific method: The methodological principle that one has to search for realistic explanation of observable correlations is equivalent to realism in Bell's sense - realism simply defines the meaning of "realistic explanation".

3.) Conflict with other principles: The more general principle may be questioned too, but only in case if it is in independent conflict with other principles too.

Application: It is not realism which is in conflict with other principles, but relativistic symmetry. In particular, it is in conflict with absolute time and contemporaneity, the Hamiltonian formalism, local integrable energy and momentum conservation, the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretation as well as physical collapse interpretations of QT.

4.) Compatibility with existing theories: One could argue that a principle is not viable if there exists a domain where no theory compatible with the principle exists, while theories compatible with the other principle exist. (This is the criterion most biased in favor of the mainstream, because it needs resources to work out theories.)

Application: Given the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretations, quantum theory is compatible with realism. Relativistic gravity too Snip.. Given my construction Snip. of fermionic field theory from canonical quantization, one can extend the pilot wave interpretation even to fermionic fields (for bosonic fields it is standard).

Relativistic QFT is in fact not completely manifestly Lorentz covariant. At least the canonical formalism certainly isn't. While this is usually not relevant, it becomes relevant because of the conclusions of point (1) that the principle which competes with realism is only manifest relativistic symmetry. Snip.

Thus, even this criterion fails to support relativity. Thus, a reasonable comparison of realism and relativity using neutral reasonable criteria for comparison of physical principles clearly prefers realism.

And, once we accept realism, we have to interpret the violation of Bell's inequality as an indirect observation of a preferred foliation.

[pzkpfw]

This thread will remain on the topic raised in the OP.

Previous ATM claims or threads by ilja will not be brought up - by anyone.

[forrest noble]

ilja,

Application: Given the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretations, quantum theory is compatible with realism. Relativistic gravity too Snip.. Given my construction Snip. of fermionic field theory from canonical quantization, one can extend the pilot wave interpretation even to fermionic fields (for bosonic fields it is standard).

The way that I see it is that your interpretation is an interpretation of an interpretation. Am I wrong? Bell's Theorem is valid providing the structure of his logic was valid and that there are no unknown assumptions in his argument.

I do not understand how this is an ATM idea since there has always been a disparity between Einstein's contentions of causality and QM's contentions concerning non-causality or chance. Am I missing something?

[DrRocket]

Snip.

The violation of Bell's inequality is an indirect observation of the preferred foliation

To clarify the meaning of "indirect observation": Different from a direct observation, in an indirect observation we do not really "see" the object in question. Instead, we have an observation such that all realistic explanations require the presense of the object in question.

But with this meaning of "indirect observation" the ATM becomes a consequence of Bell's theorem. A realistic explanation of the observed correlations is something which fits into the assumptions of realism (including realistic causality) as used by Bell. If we add Einstein causality, we can prove Bell's inequality, which is violated. Thus, we cannot add it, so that all realistic explanations have to violate Einstein causality.

The existence of a preferred foliation follows from this.

Once according to quantum theory a violation of Bell's inequality is possible for arbitrary pairs of space-like separated events A, B. Applied to such a pair of events, there are only two possible realistic explanations: One with a causal influence A->B, and the other with a causal influence B->A. Assuming that there exists a relation of causality between events which does not contain closed causal loops, and which provides an explanation for all possible BI-violating experiments, this notion of causality has to contain or A->B, or B->A for every pair A,B of events. And, of course, this notion of causality has to be consistent with standard causality inside the light cones.

Now we can define the event contemporary to A on some world-line B(t) as the point t_0 where A->B(t) for t>t_0 switches to B(t)->A for t<t_0. If there is some t_- with B(t_-)->A and some t_+ with A->B(t_+), such a t_0 should exist.

Of course, we cannot detect this preferred foliation by observation. All the construction does is to prove it's existence, given realism and loop-free causality. So, for solipsists and other positivists this existence proof is not sufficient. Which is something I do not really care about.

One may certainly question realism. The violation of Bell's inequality defines a conflict between the two ingredients used to prove it - realism and relativistic causality. So one may ask why I think it is realism which should be preserved.

This question needs some methodological considerations. We do not have a conflict between theories, but between principles. We usually cannot test principles separately (which is sometimes possible for theories). So what should be the rules for judging which principle has to be preferred in case of a conflict?

I propose here some criteria for deciding between principles and look what they tell us:

1.) Restrictive power: The equivalent of empirical content for principles. While principles do not have own empirical content, they restrict the theories which follow these principles in more or less restrictive ways. The more restrictive, the better. A principle without restrictive power can be simply ignored, similar to a theory without any empirical predictions.

Application: Einstein causality for observable effects only (allowing hidden real causal influences) is not in conflict with realism. Realistic Einstein causality has no additional restrictive power if realism is abandoned. It reduces to observable Einstein causality. Thus, the combination of realism with observable Einstein causality is clearly more restrictive than a rejection of realism.

The same logic holds for observable and realistic versions of Lorentz symmetry.

The only principle which is in conflict with realism but survives this argument is manifest Lorentz covariance. This principle remains more restrictive than Lorentz covariance for observables even if we reject realism.

2.) Generality: In case of conflict, the more general principle should be preferred.

Application: Realism is clearly the more general principle. We can consider it even as part of the scientific method: The methodological principle that one has to search for realistic explanation of observable correlations is equivalent to realism in Bell's sense - realism simply defines the meaning of "realistic explanation".

3.) Conflict with other principles: The more general principle may be questioned too, but only in case if it is in independent conflict with other principles too.

Application: It is not realism which is in conflict with other principles, but relativistic symmetry. In particular, it is in conflict with absolute time and contemporaneity, the Hamiltonian formalism, local integrable energy and momentum conservation, the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretation as well as physical collapse interpretations of QT.

4.) Compatibility with existing theories: One could argue that a principle is not viable if there exists a domain where no theory compatible with the principle exists, while theories compatible with the other principle exist. (This is the criterion most biased in favor of the mainstream, because it needs resources to work out theories.)

Application: Given the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretations, quantum theory is compatible with realism. Relativistic gravity too Snip.. Given my construction Snip. of fermionic field theory from canonical quantization, one can extend the pilot wave interpretation even to fermionic fields (for bosonic fields it is standard).

Relativistic QFT is in fact not completely manifestly Lorentz covariant. At least the canonical formalism certainly isn't. While this is usually not relevant, it becomes relevant because of the conclusions of point (1) that the principle which competes with realism is only manifest relativistic symmetry. Snip.

Thus, even this criterion fails to support relativity. Thus, a reasonable comparison of realism and relativity using neutral reasonable criteria for comparison of physical principles clearly prefers realism.

And, once we accept realism, we have to interpret the violation of Bell's inequality as an indirect observation of a preferred foliation.

If there is a "preferred foliation" it must be a foliation of some specific manifold.

1) Please clearly state the manifold that is foliated.

2) Please clearly identify the nature of the foliation and what characteristics make it "preferred".

It would also be most useful if you would provide a definition of what you mean by "foliation" so as to make certain that it is either consistent with the mainstream mathematical definition or else to get us all on the same page.

[ilja]

ilja,
The way that I see it is that your interpretation is an interpretation of an interpretation. Am I wrong? Bell's Theorem is valid providing the structure of his logic was valid and that there are no unknown assumptions in his argument.

I do not understand how this is an ATM idea since there has always been a disparity between Einstein's contentions of causality and QM's contentions concerning non-causality or chance. Am I missing something?

I don't think it is an interpretation of an interpretation. It is an argument about which of the assumptions of Bell's theorem is false. There are two major candidates: Einstein causality and realism. The mainstream decision is to reject realism.

I agree that the alternative to reject Einstein causality and preserve realism is not that far away from the mainstream, but it is clearly a minority position.

Your point also shows a common error: To blame QM for non-causality or chance. The conflict is between Einstein causality and realism (realistic causality). Given pilot wave theory, nothing in QM requires non-causality or chance.

[ilja]

If there is a "preferred foliation" it must be a foliation of some specific manifold.

1) Please clearly state the manifold that is foliated.

I'm afraid I'm forbidden to do this, because this would refer to a particular theory discussed in earlier threads, while this ATM is about a conflict between physical principles which may or may not hold in very different theories. But simply R^4 seems sufficient.

2) Please clearly identify the nature of the foliation and what characteristics make it "preferred".

This also requires reference to a particular theory. But in this case, a general answer seems nonetheless possible: Whatever the realistic model, if it has some notion of causality, it has to describe what really happens: Or some causal influence A->B, or some causal influence B->A. Don't forget that realistic theories can contain unobservable objects, and that in particular a realistic theory is not obliged to give internal observers a possibility to observe which of the two alternatives is correct.

It would also be most useful if you would provide a definition of what you mean by "foliation" so as to make certain that it is either consistent with the mainstream mathematical definition or else to get us all on the same page.

It is the mainstream definition. A foliation simply defines a notion of contemporaneity on a manifold. [One can define a foliation] by an arbitrary time-like function T(x) on the manifold, but reparametrizations T'(x) = f(T(x)) do not change it.

Once I cannot prove with the methods I have used that the equal-time surfaces have to be flat, I cannot use the notion "frame" which implies that T is a linear function.

[DrRocket]

I'm afraid I'm forbidden to do this, because this would refer to a particular theory discussed in earlier threads, while this ATM is about a conflict between physical principles which may or may not hold in very different theories. But simply R^4 seems sufficient.

You realize, don't you that foliations of R^4 can be rather trivial.

This also requires reference to a particular theory. But in this case, a general answer seems nonetheless possible: Whatever the realistic model, if it has some notion of causality, it has to describe what really happens: Or some causal influence A->B, or some causal influence B->A. Don't forget that realistic theories can contain unobservable objects, and that in particular a realistic theory is not obliged to give internal observers a possibility to observe which of the two alternatives is correct.

This makes no sense.

It is the mainstream definition. A foliation simply defines a notion of contemporaneity on a manifold. It can be defined by an arbitrary time-like function T(x) on the manifold, but reparametrizations T'(x) = f(T(x)) do not change it.

Once I cannot prove with the methods I have used that the equal-time surfaces have to be flat, I cannot use the notion "frame" which implies that T is a linear function.

This is not quite the "mainstream definition" even for the case of a one-parameter foliation. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Foliation.html

Since a manifold has no apriori algebraic structure, it makes no sense talk about the linearity of a function defined on a manifold. So calling T linear is meaningless.

Perhaps before you start talking about a preferred foliation on a manifold you need to learn what a manifold is and what a foliation is.

You might want to read up on the subject of foliations of space-time.
http://www.math.uni-heidelberg.de/st.../Foliation.pdf

http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repos...cmp/1103900871

[ilja]

You realize, don't you that foliations of R^4 can be rather trivial.

Of course. In case you mean "rather nontrivial": I have not cared about the question if there are codimension 1 foliations of R^4 not defined by some time function T(x), but I know that four-dimensional differential topology is extremely nasty and would expect that such ugly things are possible.

Fortunately I do not have to care if there exist nontrivial foliations. In my construction, I construct a global order, so the foliation which we obtain is a trivial one.

This is not quite the "mainstream definition" even for the case of a one-parameter foliation. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Foliation.html

It is a particular case of such a foliation. The hyperplanes T(x) =const define a foliation for n=4, codimension c=1.

Since a manifold has no apriori algebraic structure, it makes no sense talk about the linearity of a function defined on a manifold. So calling T linear is meaningless.

In the context of SR, it is not meaningless. The context of SR is implicit if the notion "frame" is used. Of course, the general argument remains valid for a curved background too, and in this case I simply have no notion of "frame", and therefore also not of a "preferred frame", so I have to use the more general notion of a foliation anyway.

For the purpose of this discussion we need only foliations defined by a global function T(x), and can restrict ourself even to a Minkowski background. Anyway, even in this case the surfaces of contemporaneity may be not flat, so I have to talk about foliations instead of frames.

Perhaps before you start talking about a preferred foliation on a manifold you need to learn what a manifold is and what a foliation is.

LOL. I have not seen any necessity to introduce foliations in full generality. Foliations generated by a function T(x) are sufficient for our purpose, that's why I have mentioned only them. Last but not least, this is not an examination in differential topology (where I would have given a different answer) but a posting in a public forum, intended to give information about my proposals to a reader who might not know what I'm talking about if I say "foliation".

Whatever the realistic model, if it has some notion of causality, it has to describe what really happens: Or some causal influence A->B, or some causal influence B->A. Don't forget that realistic theories can contain unobservable objects, and that in particular a realistic theory is not obliged to give internal observers a possibility to observe which of the two alternatives is correct.

This makes no sense.

Rather unspecific. What makes no sense? If we observe a violation of Bell's inequality between events A and B, this may be explained by a causal influence A->B, but also by a causal influence B->A. We cannot tell, from observation, which of the two explanations is the correct one. But one of them has to be true. Because the third explanation for correlations, a common cause C->A, C->B, is excluded by the violation of Bell's inequality.

A realistic theory is one which tells us which of the two explanations is the correct one. Else, it is not a complete realistic theory.

It has to tell it for all pairs of events A,B, such that a violation of Bell's inequality is possible between them. Which, in case quantum theory is correct, means all pairs A,B.

[macaw]

Snip.

The violation of Bell's inequality is an indirect observation of the preferred foliation

To clarify the meaning of "indirect observation": Different from a direct observation, in an indirect observation we do not really "see" the object in question. Instead, we have an observation such that all realistic explanations require the presense of the object in question.

Q1: So, is this "preferred" foliation as unobservable as the "preferred" frame of LET?

Q2: If the answer to Q1 is "no", can you suggest any experiment that would detect your "preferred" foliation or is it to remain forever undetectable like the "aether" of old?

[DrRocket]

Of course. In case you mean "rather nontrivial": I have not cared about the question if there are codimension 1 foliations of R^4 not defined by some time function T(x), but I know that four-dimensional differential topology is extremely nasty and would expect that such ugly things are possible.

Fortunately I do not have to care if there exist nontrivial foliations. In my construction, I construct a global order, so the foliation which we obtain is a trivial one.



It is a particular case of such a foliation. The hyperplanes T(x) =const define a foliation for n=4, codimension c=1.



In the context of SR, it is not meaningless. The context of SR is implicit if the notion "frame" is used. Of course, the general argument remains valid for a curved background too, and in this case I simply have no notion of "frame", and therefore also not of a "preferred frame", so I have to use the more general notion of a foliation anyway.

For the purpose of this discussion we need only foliations defined by a global function T(x), and can restrict ourself even to a Minkowski background. Anyway, even in this case the surfaces of contemporaneity may be not flat, so I have to talk about foliations instead of frames.



LOL. I have not seen any necessity to introduce foliations in full generality. Foliations generated by a function T(x) are sufficient for our purpose, that's why I have mentioned only them. Last but not least, this is not an examination in differential topology (where I would have given a different answer) but a posting in a public forum, intended to give information about my proposals to a reader who might not know what I'm talking about if I say "foliation".



Rather unspecific. What makes no sense? If we observe a violation of Bell's inequality between events A and B, this may be explained by a causal influence A->B, but also by a causal influence B->A. We cannot tell, from observation, which of the two explanations is the correct one. But one of them has to be true. Because the third explanation for correlations, a common cause C->A, C->B, is excluded by the violation of Bell's inequality.

A realistic theory is one which tells us which of the two explanations is the correct one. Else, it is not a complete realistic theory.

It has to tell it for all pairs of events A,B, such that a violation of Bell's inequality is possible between them. Which, in case quantum theory is correct, means all pairs A,B.

If you are dealing with SR rather than GR, then there is a global set of coordinates, a global notion of time and of course there is a preferred foliation -- the obvious spatial slices for fixed time just as you suggest. So what ?

If you are dealing with GR then you need the full machinery of differential geometry. Moreover, if you are dealing with GR and quantum mechanics simultaneously, then you definitely need to be more specific about how you are doing this.

The existence of a one-parameter family of space-like hypersurfaces foliating space-time is a non-trivial thing. It is not at all clear aprior that a function T(x) such as that on which you rely exists. It does exist, but this is a fairly deep theorem of Geroch. And it does not hold for arbitrary spacetimes without further qualification.

So, precisely what are your hypotheses, and how does your preferred foliation arise ? What specifically is that foliation and how does it relate to quantum mechanics. How do you integrate general relativity into quantum mechanics ?

[ilja]

If you are dealing with SR rather than GR, then there is a global set of coordinates, a global notion of time and of course there is a preferred foliation -- the obvious spatial slices for fixed time just as you suggest. So what ?

There is certainly no preferred frame in SR in it's standard Minkowski interpretation. There is one only in the Lorentz ether interpretation of it. So I have to prove it's existence, which is a nontrivial issue: It requires the violation of Bell's inequality and the assumption of realism.

The point is that the proof of existence I give does not allow to show that the resulting foliation is a flat one.

If you are dealing with GR then you need the full machinery of differential geometry. Moreover, if you are dealing with GR and quantum mechanics simultaneously, then you definitely need to be more specific about how you are doing this.

I have no problem with using the full machinery of differential geometry. Simply it is not necessary: My construction gives a global ordering of the events of the manifold.

So, precisely what are your hypotheses, and how does your preferred foliation arise ?

My assumption is that for arbitrary pairs of events A,B, one can find a violation of Bell's inequality.

Then, that we have a realistic theory, with a notion of causality between events A->B which is (a priori) without closed causal loops, or, in other words, A->B is a partial order.

The violation of Bell's inequality proves, for a realistic theory, that or A->B or B->A, thus, the order is really an order (not only a partial order).

I'm aware of the subtlety that or I have to use -> like a >= relation, which would allow closed causal loops for equal time, or like > relation, which leaves some points A,B without causal connection. Its a problem of measure 0 and therefore not relevant in a physics discussion. To cover it one has to replace some of the previous claims by others containing nasty phrases like " ... so that every environment of A contains some A' such that ...". I hope you forgive me and believe that, if necessary, I would be able to do this.

Then, the foliation is constructed using this order: For each event A, the hypersurface of the foliation containing it is defined by the intersection of the closure of the future cone (all events B with A->B) and the closure of the past cone (all events B with B->A).

What specifically is that foliation and how does it relate to quantum mechanics. How do you integrate general relativity into quantum mechanics ?

This foliation is physically preferred because of its connection with the notion of causality. I do not have to make specific assumptions about the theory of gravity used - the argument works in any theory with the property that one can observe, for every pair of events A,B, a violation of Bell's inequality.

Whatever the related quantum theory, it seems plausible that this property holds.

One can imagine theories where it doesn't hold, for example because for events too far away from each other no past causal contact for preparation was possible. (Say simply disconnected manifolds.) For which types of manifolds one can extend the proof to theories where Bell's inequality may be violated only for sufficiently close events A,B is a possibly interesting question, but no claim about this is part of my ATM.

[macaw]

There is certainly no preferred frame in SR in it's standard Minkowski interpretation.

Good, you are starting to admit this.

There is one only in the Lorentz ether interpretation of it.

True, in LET there is one. LET was abandoned about 100 years ago due to:

-the inability to detect the "preferred" frame
-the SR superiority in terms of simplicity and symmetry

So I have to prove it's existence,

The problem with your theory is that you can't. You would need experimental confirmation that you don't have.

BTW, it's "its existence" :-)

[DrRocket]

There is certainly no preferred frame in SR in it's standard Minkowski interpretation. There is one only in the Lorentz ether interpretation of it. So I have to prove it's existence, which is a nontrivial issue: It requires the violation of Bell's inequality and the assumption of realism.

The point is that the proof of existence I give does not allow to show that the resulting foliation is a flat one.



I have no problem with using the full machinery of differential geometry. Simply it is not necessary: My construction gives a global ordering of the events of the manifold.

A preferred reference frame in SR and a preferred foliation given a reference frame are two entirely different things.

In any case, perhaps it is time to stop the confusing prose and simply present the mathematics. Feel free to use any necessary mathematical machinery, but plan on justifying its application.

[ilja]

There is certainly no preferred frame in SR in it's standard Minkowski interpretation.

Good, you are starting to admit this.

LOL, you simply don't know the difference between a preferred frame and a background. Hint: The background in GR is Minkowski spacetime.

LET was abandoned about 100 years ago due to:

-the inability to detect the "preferred" frame
-the SR superiority in terms of simplicity and symmetry

At that time (before the observation of the violation of Bell's inequality)
not unreasonable.

So I have to prove it's existence

The problem with your theory is that you can't. You would need experimental confirmation that you don't have.

I can, I only have to assume realism and loop-free causality. As I have done here.

[ilja]

A preferred reference frame in SR and a preferred foliation given a reference frame are two entirely different things.

given a reference frame? What are you talking about?

That a preferred frame and a preferred foliation are in general different things is clear. (But of course a preferred frame defines with it's time function a preferred foliation.)

In any case, perhaps it is time to stop the confusing prose and simply present the mathematics. Feel free to use any necessary mathematical machinery, but plan on justifying its application.

Which mathematics do you miss? Those of Bell's theorem?

Ok, short and in pure latex:
We assume realism, thus, that in the correct theory exists some space L of
beables, or states of reality, with some probability measure rho(l) on it which
is independent of the decisions of the experimenters a,b, so that for every
function f(A,B) of the measurement results the expectation value is defined
by
E(f|a,b) = int f(A(a,b,l),B(a,b,l) d rho(l).

The output A of the measurement and the input a of the experimenter are assumed to be located at the same spacetime event A. If the theory forbids causal connections A->B, then B(a,b,l) = B(b,l). If it does not allow B->A,
then A(a,b,l) = A(a,l). If we assume above, then
E(f|a,b) = int f(A(a,l),B(b,l) d rho(l).

In this case, for E(a,b) = E(AB|a,b) Bell's inequalities follow. See Bell's original proof.

They are violated. Thus, one of the assumptions has to be false.

I assume all of them except the two that A->B or B->A are forbidden. With these assumptions, it follows that A->B xor B->A. (Above would lead to
a closed loop, thus, the xor.

At which other place do you miss some math?

[macaw]

LOL, you simply don't know the difference between a preferred frame and a background. Hint: The background in GR is Minkowski spacetime.

But the discussion is about SR, so you are not answering the challenge.

At that time (before the observation of the violation of Bell's inequality)
not unreasonable.

In other words, there is no experimental proof of your theory. Nothing "at that time", nothing at "this time".

I can, I only have to assume realism and loop-free causality. As I have done here.

In other words, nothing, no experimental proof.

[ilja]

I can, I only have to assume realism and loop-free causality. As I have done here.

In other words, nothing, no experimental proof.

There are no such animals as "experimental proofs" without theoretical assumptions.

[macaw]

There are no such animals as "experimental proofs" without theoretical assumptions.

You made your "theoretical assumptions". Unfortunately for your theories, they don't translate into any experiments.
As such, there is no physics in your papers, just speculations.

[ilja]

Q1: So, is this "preferred" foliation as unobservable as the "preferred" frame of LET?

Formulated as if the preferred frame in LET would be unobservable. But the argument given here argues that the violation of Bell's inequality is an indirect
(even if not direct) observation of a preferred foliation.

Assuming that you, of course, do not accept this notion of indirect observation, the answer is yes.

Q2: If the answer to Q1 is "no", can you suggest any experiment that would detect your "preferred" foliation or is it to remain forever undetectable like the "aether" of old?

First, I suggest in this ATM that the observed violation of Bell's inequality, if interpreted correctly, has to be accepted as an indirect observation of the preferred frame. Indirect observation as defined in my first posting here. (Given that the argument presupposes some knowledge of scientific methodology, and assumes Popper's methodology as accepted as the base, while your position is positivistic, I do not expect much from a discussion about this with you.)

Second, the alternative is a false one, because there is a third possibility. Even if I cannot suggest an experiment doable now, it certainly does not follow that it is to remain undetectable forever.

[ilja]

You made your "theoretical assumptions". Unfortunately for your theories, they don't translate into any experiments.
As such, there is no physics in your papers, just speculations.

It does not make much sense to argue about basics of scientific methodology in a thread which assumes as given Popper's methodology.

If you are interested, we can start a thread discussing Popper's method vs. positivism. This would be off-topic here, not only in this thread, but also in ATM in general, because I consider Popper's method to be the mainstream method, and positivism as dead as possible for a philosophical theory. You may probably think otherwise, so I think none of us thinks about his scientific philosophy as being ATM. So I don't know where to start such a discussion.

[macaw]

Formulated as if the preferred frame in LET would be unobservable. But the argument given here argues that the violation of Bell's inequality is an indirect (even if not direct) observation of a preferred foliation.

Assuming that you, of course, do not accept this notion of indirect observation, the answer is yes.

The standard notion in science is that unobservable quantities are as good as the "invisible elf" that lives in Vanrijn's garden.

First, I suggest in this ATM that the observed violation of Bell's inequality, if interpreted correctly, has to be accepted as an indirect observation of the preferred frame.

The standard interpretation is that violations of Bell's inequality are interpreted as evidence against local realism.

Q4: What makes you think that "indirect observation" is an allowable proof in physics?

Indirect observation as defined in my first posting here. (Given that the argument presupposes some knowledge of scientific methodology, and assumes Popper's methodology as accepted as the base, while your position is positivistic, I do not expect much from a discussion about this with you.)

Q5: Is this because you have not been able to answer the challenges posed to your theory?

Second, the alternative is a false one, because there is a third possibility. Even if I cannot suggest an experiment doable now, it certainly does not follow that it is to remain undetectable forever.

And therein lies the weakness of your theory. To progress from the stage of conjecture to theory (you do not have a theory yet), you must show falsifiability. You haven't done that in any of your posts.
Sorry, my alternative re your conjecture,is true.

[ilja]

The standard notion in science is that unobservable quantities are as good as the "invisible elf" that lives in Vanrijn's garden.

In your opinion. Do you want to open a discussion about the scientific
method elsewhere or do you want to continue to post your off-topic
opinion here?

The standard interpretation is that violations of Bell's inequality are interpreted as evidence against local realism.

And I have to add only that from the two principles - Einstein causality (badly named "locality") and realism - it is Einstein causality which has
to be given up.

Q4: What makes you think that "indirect observation" is an allowable proof in physics?

Knowledge about scientific methodology. Direct observation is an inconsistent notion, one can show that every observation, or, more accurate, every description of an experiment in human language,
already requires some theoretical background.

An example of an indirect observation are the jets, considered to be
indirect observations of quarks.

Q5: Is this because you have not been able to answer the challenges posed to your theory?

Certainly not. I have written my website where I defend this interpretation long before I have started posting here.

And therein lies the weakness of your theory. To progress from the stage of conjecture to theory (you do not have a theory yet), you must show falsifiability. You haven't done that in any of your posts.
Sorry, my alternative re your conjecture,is true.

Sorry, but I'm not allowed to answer this. And you are not allowed to post this. Read the second posting here, by the mod. I do not like to report other people, but if you don't stop, I have no choice to do this, because I don't want to have my threads closed a second time. So, next time you mention my theory here I have to report this.

I have already suggested you to start a discussion somewhere else.

[macaw]

In your opinion. Do you want to open a discussion about the scientific
method elsewhere or do you want to continue to post your off-topic
opinion here?

Not really. I expect you to answer the question, so please do so. Personal attacks don't constitute valid answers.

And I have to add only that from the two principles - Einstein causality (badly named "locality") and realism - it is Einstein causality which has
to be given up.

It isn't "Einstein" causality, it is causality period. Either way, there is no connection with any "preferred" foliation. So, would you please answer the question without dodging?

Knowledge about scientific methodology. Direct observation is an inconsistent notion,

This is incorrect since it is in direct disagreement with how experimental confirmation/ experimental falsification works. Either way, it does not justify your stance on "indirect observation". So, once again, what "direct" experimental justification is there for your claim that the observed violations of Bell inequality are proofs of the presence of a "preferred" foliation?

An example of an indirect observation are the jets, considered to be
indirect observations of quarks.

Q6: Can you elaborate on this statement?

Certainly not. I have written my website where I defend this interpretation long before I have started posting here.

The fact that you repeat the same stance here as there doesn't really answer the question posed.

Sorry, but I'm not allowed to answer this.

Sure you are, so please stop dodging and answer the question.
This is not about your old theory from the closed threads, it is about your new conjecture presented in this very thread.

And you are not allowed to post this.

Of course I am , it is germaine to your new claims, about the new conjecture made in this thread, so please answer the question.

[ilja]

In your opinion. Do you want to open a discussion about the scientific
method elsewhere or do you want to continue to post your off-topic
opinion here?

Not really. I expect you to answer the question, so please do so. Personal attacks don't constitute valid answers.

I do not plan to answer off-topic questions here. Let's discuss scientific methodology, where I defend Sir Popper, who is mainstream, somewhere else.

And I have to add only that from the two principles - Einstein causality (badly named "locality") and realism - it is Einstein causality which has to be given up.

It isn't "Einstein" causality, it is causality period.

Causality in a preferred frame is different from Einstein causality, and it is not in conflict with realism. With realism + causality in a preferred frame you cannot prove Bell's inequality, with realism + Einstein causality you can.

Knowledge about scientific methodology. Direct observation is an inconsistent notion,

This is incorrect since it is in direct disagreement with how experimental confirmation/ experimental falsification works.

This is, again, an argument about scientific methodology where my position is not ATM, so we have to move somewhere else to discuss it.

Either way, it does not justify your stance on "indirect observation". So, once again, what "direct" experimental justification is there for your claim that the observed violations of Bell inequality are proofs of the presence of a "preferred" foliation?

This already becomes funny. You start to ask for experimental evidence for an interpretation of experimental evidence.

An example of an indirect observation are the jets, considered to be indirect observations of quarks.

Q6: Can you elaborate on this statement?

Quarks have been proposed as hypothetical unobservable particles. This has
been used by positivists like you to reject them over a long time. Today they are considered to be "observed". But the observations are quite indirect: Some scatterings of protons suggesting that they are not point particles, and
the jets - if particles are scattered with high energy, the particles created as the result tend to fly away in jets or groups in two, three or four bundles (jets). These are in agreement with the image that at first there are some quarks or gluons flying away separately some short time, and then generating lots of other particles, and in agreement with predictions of QED about how many of these jets have to appear with which probabilities and which other characteristics.

But, of course, looking at the picture of some jet nobody can tell which is the color of the quark which has caused the left jet in the picture. Thus, it is at best an indirect observation of quarks.

And you are not allowed to post this.

Of course I am , it is germaine to your new claims, about the new conjecture made in this thread, so please answer the question.

Then reformulate it adequately. And reread my challenge, which does not propose any particular theory, but is an argument in favour of a whole class of theories, namely realistic theories.

[macaw]

This already becomes funny. You start to ask for experimental evidence for an interpretation of experimental evidence.

Because, despite repeated requests, you haven't provided any.
I have formulated the requests many different ways and you have never provided a valid proof of experimental existence.

Quarks have been proposed as hypothetical unobservable particles. This has
been used by positivists like you to reject them over a long time. Today they are considered to be "observed". But the observations are quite indirect:

True. Nevertheless, the indirect experiments using hadrons produce measurable quantities, whereas your have failed so far to suggest even one experiment in support of your conjecture. All you have done is to repeat the conjecture in the tite of your OP.

I hope that you realize that all experiments involving violations of Bell's inequality happen in what is virtually flat spacetime (our labs in the very weak gravitational field of Earth), so there is no way of interpreting them (even indirectly) as "proof" of the existence of any "preferred" foliation since....all the foliations are identical.

Then reformulate it adequately. And reread my challenge, which does not propose any particular theory,

...because, as I explained to you, absent any method of falsification, you don't have a theory, you have an unprovable conjecture.

[captain swoop]

A form of 'Just So' story.

[Geo Kaplan]

But the observations are quite indirect:

Well, this gets back to an epistemological question, then. One could argue that all observations are indirect, for we have to interpret them through our sensory and cognitive systems, yes? So -- and this is a direct question for you -- how do you quantify the level of directness of an observation? And how is this related to the validity of the observation?

[ilja]

Because, despite repeated requests, you haven't provided any.

This thread is about the interpretation of a well-defined experiment, which has a well-defined result - the violation of Bell's inequality.

Your previous requests about my first ATM we are not allowed to discuss here.

True. Nevertheless, the indirect experiments using hadrons produce measurable quantities, whereas your have failed so far to suggest even one experiment in support of your conjecture. All you have done is to repeat the conjecture in the tite of your OP.

Do you want particular citations for experiments testing Bell's inequalities and showing violations of Bell's inequality? The violations obtained in these experiments are, of course, measurable quantities.

I hope that you realize that all experiments involving violations of Bell's inequality happen in what is virtually flat spacetime (our labs in the very weak gravitational field of Earth), so there is no way of interpreting them (even indirectly) as "proof" of the existence of any "preferred" foliation since....all the foliations are identical.

Any of them could be the preferred one - the experiment does not allow to decide which. But no two of them can be equally true. The explanation given assuming that one particular foliation is compatible with causality (so that there is no causal influence from future to past) would contradict the assumption that any other is compatible with the same causal explanation.

... because, as I explained to you, absent any method of falsification, you don't have a theory, you have an unprovable conjecture.

Sorry, enough is enough, I have to report you for repeatedly mentioning my theory from the first ATM, which is off-topic here, so that I cannot answer without the risk of the thread becoming closed again.

[ilja]

Well, this gets back to an epistemological question, then. One could argue that all observations are indirect, for we have to interpret them through our sensory and cognitive systems, yes?

Correct. Most of the argumentation in this ATM is about epistemology/methodology.

So -- and this is a direct question for you -- how do you quantify the level of directness of an observation? And how is this related to the validity of the observation?

Unfortunately I have no good idea how to quantify the notion of "indirect observation". One vague idea is how much information about the observed object we receive through the observation: An observation which would allow to identify the preferred frame among the others would be, in this sense, less indirect as the violation of Bell's inequality. The jets do not allow to tell what was the color of the particle which has originated the jet, so this is quite indirect too.

But this does not mean that an indirect observation is in any way invalid.

This would be, instead, the opinion of positivist opponents, who often reject indirect observations.

[macaw]

Any of them could be the preferred one

You realize how absurd this desperate attempt to save your OP sounds?

- the experiment does not allow to decide which. But no two of them can be equally true.

...and this way we arrive to the collapse of your conjecture. There is no "preferred" foliation emerging from the experiments testing Bell's inequality violation. All the foliations are identical. The above is the closest that you'll ever come to admitting that your conjecture has been disproven.

Sorry, enough is enough, I have to report you for repeatedly mentioning my theory from the first ATM, which is off-topic here, so that I cannot answer without the risk of the thread becoming closed again.

Report all you want, the sentence was in reference to your current conjecture from your current thread. It is not my fault that all your conjectures have in common the same weakness: lack of any possible experimental falsification. Your latest one is the most fascinating, you admitted that all foliations are identical, yet you claim that you can have a preferred one.