Physics and Free will

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But if Bell's inequality violation were not clearly demonstrated, i.e. not violated ...

1) The "study" you link to concerns Aspect's 1983 thesis. Even were it to have accurately described either Bell's inequality or Aspect's study, it would still be meaningless. Note, for example, that the author concerns himself with photons. However:

"In the past few decades, seminal experiments have demonstrated that massive objects can be prepared in spatial superpositions of the order of its size. This has been realized with electrons [1], neutrons [2], atoms and dimers [3], small van der Waals clusters [4], fullerenes [5], and even with organic molecules containing up to 400 atoms [6]. These experiments are designed to observe the interference of matter waves after passing, in essence, through a Young’s double slit. The possibility of observing these quantum pheonomena with yet-larger objects is extremely challenging. This is due to the great quantum control and isolation from the environment that these experiments require."
Romero-Isart, O. (2011). Quantum superposition of massive objects and collapse models. Physical Review A, 84(5), 052121. (here's the arXiv version).

2) Aspect's 1983 thesis referenced in the link is his "Trois tests expérimentaux des inégalités de Bell par correlation de polarisation de photons" ["Three experimental tests of Bell's inequalities via correlation polarization of photons"]. It doesn't actually link to his published empirical studies, one of which is much more important than the other two. The author also uses this now 20+ year old paper to justify using an intro. quantum physics textbook in place of Bell's actual work.

3) In the paper, the author quote-mines the textbook to define Bell's inequality as follows: “we will hereafter take the definition given by professor SCARANI:
'This is the statement of the Bell theorem: if our hypothesis is correct, the average value of i s must be between −2 and +2. That’s all...' Then Bell’s theorem (or inequality) is mathematically transcribed to...” followed by their inequality based on a qualitative, simplified description of Bell's theorem:

were S "is the average value of si" which they define as

In reality, we have

where the average of the two spins is given by

4) In the "technical" appendix at the bottom of the paper, the reference is to Wikipedia's page on Bell's inequality. Over two decades of studies and reviews of studies on more and more demonstrations of different kinds of violations of Bell's inequality, and the only citations the author really uses are from an intro textbook and Wikipedia. This is in addition to the cavalier treatment of discrete summations and the wrong algebra vs. an expectation value given by an integral.

5) Here's the actual inequality:

6) Don't trust open access papers which fly in the face of thousands of studies and mountains of research with less than a dozen citations, two of which are Wikipedia.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Question: Nice thread by the way.

Thanks!

Would there be a frame of reference where we did something different than what we did from our reference?

No. In an ontological 4D spacetime (i.e., "real" rather than some mathematical convenience), everything is sort of "frozen". A sort of 3D analogue would be spatial extension: we can't be located in 3D space using a single set of coordinates (x, y, z). These coordinates define an infinitesimally small "point" in space, while we take up a certain amount of spatial region (we have "volume"). So the space we take up is actually lots of specific x, y, z coordinates (infinitely many, actually, but for simplicity let's just consider the space we "take up" as sets of "points" in 3D space). So there is no unique "point" in 3D space in which we exist, but rather many points extended in all directions in 3D space.

In 4D spacetime, this is still true but instead of just being "spread out" over space or "taking up" a certain amount of space at a particular time, we are "spread out" over space and time. Just like a bunch of x, y, z points in 3D space at a single moment in time t uniquely defined our position at that time, now a bunch of points x, y, z, t uniquely define our "position" in spacetime. This "position" is our entire existence.

The fact that different references frames "slice up" spacetime differently simply reflects different "positions".

If you and I were facing opposite directions, what I called "left" would be your "right". This doesn't change what is on either side, just our perspective. That's a grossly oversimplified analogy, but it gets at the basic idea.

 

[crossfire]

I'm only up to page 3 of this thread so far, so forgive me if this has already been addressed. (I have to write it now so I don't forget.)

Wouldn't the case for Alice be simultaneous lightening strikes, but with blue shifted lightening at the front and red-shifted lightening at the back?

 

[crossfire]

The point is that we can't really talk about "now", other than that "now" which some observer experiences that is utterly subjective to that observer. Distance here is very clearly defined: Minkowski "distance" (or the metric which serves as a geometric foundation for Minkowski space) isn't 0 nor is it equivalent with 4D Euclidean space. Moreover, the conceptual/semantic reference of the fourth dimension in spacetime is qualitatively different than both multidimensional spaces in general and any would-be 4th dimension in particular. Unlike the quantum systems residing in (the mathematical) Hilbert space, everything in relativity is described via a 1-to-1 correspondence from the 3D reality we experience to the 4D we cannot.

Well then, wouldn't a zero to one correspondence be a more appropriate descriptor?

 

[allfoak]

No. The question is whether spacetime & relativity and in particular the relativity of simultaneity entails something even stronger than fatalism. Fatalism (the philosophical cousin of determinism) holds that everything that will happen is fated to happen and there is no way anything else could happen. Serious consideration of relativity, I suggest (although it is not original to me but has been argued elsewhere in various forms, and with somewhat differing conclusions despite a basic coherence, by e.g., Putnam, Rietdijk, Weingard, Petkov, Maxwell, etc.) leads to the conclusion that there the lack of any ontological distinctions between space and time implies that there is actually no "time". There is therefore no real past, present or future apart from the subjective (relative) perception of a particular 3D world. An immediate consequence of this is the impossibility of classical causality as causes can precede effects (a more technical and nuanced paradox of this sort is opened by the doors of relativity in the form of closed-time like curves or CTCs). More importantly, if the difference between actions that I haven't done from my frame of reference are already completed in another's frame of reference (granted, that entity/observer would have to be far away and travelling in a particular "direction" in Minkowski space, or with great speed, or both), then can it really be asserted there is even the possibility for the illusion of free-will outside of internal mental states?

That is, in order for free will to exist there must be a way for that will to be exercised. There must be things that I haven't yet decided or done that I not only then decide/do, but am able to decide/do in some way that I could have decided/done differently than I did (i.e., my choices/actions aren't completely determined). However, if spacetime and relativity are taken seriously, it could be (and has been) argued that actions I have as yet not performed and decisions I have yet not decided are, in fact, already in the past for some other reference frame. Moreover, my existence as a 4D entity regardless of observers necessarily ensures that there can be no future anything, just the mistaken perception of it due to the limitations of a perception of a 3D reality. Basically, without any "now" (a rather widely adopted view and rather directly entailed by special relativity alone), then there isn't any absolute "present time" and it follows that both future and past are subjective. I have quite literally already done what, from my perspective "now", I will do "tomorrow" or in a years.

Wouldn't it be easier just to say that Time is an aspect of mind?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wouldn't the case for Alice be simultaneous lightening strikes, but with blue shifted lightening at the front and red-shifted lightening at the back?

One of the problems with this example (which is not mine but a standard "illustration") is that is it is flawed from the start and deliberately so. The point is that there is no simultaneous lightening strike nor is there any non-simultaneous lightening strike. Only from a "God's point of view" can we determine the time at which any event occurs. For Alice, the propagation of the light wave from the front of the car reaches her before that of the rear, and thus she (correctly perceives from her perspective) that lightening struck the front of the train car (carriage) first.

Well then, wouldn't a zero to one correspondence be a more appropriate descriptor?

I'm not sure I understand you. Could you elaborate?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wouldn't it be easier just to say that Time is an aspect of mind?

There are many responses which would be easy. However, I still hope that there is a reality such that we can correctly assert certain propositions are true, not just easier.

 

[crossfire]

One of the problems with this example (which is not mine but a standard "illustration") is that is it is flawed from the start and deliberately so. The point is that there is no simultaneous lightening strike nor is there any non-simultaneous lightening strike. Only from a "God's point of view" can we determine the time at which any event occurs. For Alice, the propagation of the light wave from the front of the car reaches her before that of the rear, and thus she (correctly perceives from her perspective) that lightening struck the front of the train car (carriage) first.

Hmm, perhaps some empirical evidence might settle the matter?

Well then, wouldn't a zero to one correspondence be a more appropriate descriptor?

I'm not sure I understand you. Could you elaborate?

Certainly. Short answer: a point is not a line. Longer answer: If we can't experience (read: empirically test) a relativistic "one to one" correspondence from 3D to 4D, then the "one to one" equivalence is not a true "equivalence."

You are trying to extend causality as we know it into 4D, then knocking it down. Classic straw man fallacy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Hmm, perhaps some empirical evidence might settle the matter?

It did. It settled the matter in that there is no such thing as simultaneity and thus whatever observations of events one perceives is necessarily a result of that particular reference frame. This was confirmed not only due to the incredible successes of SR and later TGR, but actual measurements of curvature of light at distances for which "classical" physics is inadequate.

Certainly. Short answer: a point is not a line.

The entirety of calculus and analysis is built upon the foundation that lines are essentially points; more precisely, that all "lines" (curved or no) are locally linear.

Longer answer: If we can't experience (read: empirically test) a relativistic "one to one" correspondence from 3D to 4D, then the "one to one" equivalence is not a true "equivalence."

True. In fact, there can be no equivalence relation from a 3D to a 4D space, even were it not that spacetime geometry differs from R3 (our perceived 3D reality). However, there exists a mapping from 4D to 3D; it just isn't one-to-one. More importantly, our perceived 3D cosmos, if treated as ontological, runs into logical and empirical contradictions which are resolved given a 4D cosmos. The problem isn't so much that we have a one-to-one map from 3D to 4D but that the 3D "reality" is (however counter-intuitively) wrong. Assuming a 3D reality results in paradoxes that are resolved given the 4D spacetime.

You are trying to extend causality as we know it into 4D, then knocking it down. Classic straw man fallacy.

I'm parroting the arguments of those who take seriously the inability for any 3D model/cosmos to be true or to be ontological given what we have discerned from both theoretical and empirical findings. One of the two most successful theories of all time simply does not allow for a 3D reality in which causality can continue to exist classically. This is due in no small way to the fact that there is no 3D reality any more than a 2D reality. When you read words from posts on this thread, they appear to be 2D. They are not. Likewise, relativistic physics is extraordinarily successful so long as we treat any 3D reality the same way: as a "fake" 2D projection granted a particular perspective.

 

[idav]

It did. It settled the matter in that there is no such thing as simultaneity and thus whatever observations of events one perceives is necessarily a result of that particular reference frame. This was confirmed not only due to the incredible successes of SR and later TGR, but actual measurements of curvature of light at distances for which "classical" physics is inadequate.



The entirety of calculus and analysis is built upon the foundation that lines are essentially points; more precisely, that all "lines" (curved or no) are locally linear.



True. In fact, there can be no equivalence relation from a 3D to a 4D space, even were it not that spacetime geometry differs from R3 (our perceived 3D reality). However, there exists a mapping from 4D to 3D; it just isn't one-to-one. More importantly, our perceived 3D cosmos, if treated as ontological, runs into logical and empirical contradictions which are resolved given a 4D cosmos. The problem isn't so much that we have a one-to-one map from 3D to 4D but that the 3D "reality" is (however counter-intuitively) wrong. Assuming a 3D reality results in paradoxes that are resolved given the 4D spacetime.


I'm parroting the arguments of those who take seriously the inability for any 3D model/cosmos to be true or to be ontological given what we have discerned from both theoretical and empirical findings. One of the two most successful theories of all time simply does not allow for a 3D reality in which causality can continue to exist classically. This is due in no small way to the fact that there is no 3D reality any more than a 2D reality. When you read words from posts on this thread, they appear to be 2D. They are not. Likewise, relativistic physics is extraordinarily successful so long as we treat any 3D reality the same way: as a "fake" 2D projection granted a particular perspective.

Awesome! :bow:

I don't know too many people that can think 4D.

I need more coffee.

 

[allfoak]

There are many responses which would be easy. However, I still hope that there is a reality such that we can correctly assert certain propositions are true, not just easier.

You are the one who said it not me.
I just simplified your words.
At least what i got from it was that time is an aspect of mind.

 

[idav]

You are the one who said it not me.
I just simplified your words.
At least what i got from it was that time is an aspect of mind.

Mind would be an emergent property coming from the system that is matter/energy and spacetime. I believe mind would be an aspect of matter in relation to spacetime, but I don't believe mind to be some other component of the universe, knowledge is integrated as part of the system.

 

[crossfire]

It did. It settled the matter in that there is no such thing as simultaneity and thus whatever observations of events one perceives is necessarily a result of that particular reference frame. This was confirmed not only due to the incredible successes of SR and later TGR, but actual measurements of curvature of light at distances for which "classical" physics is inadequate.

Within Alice's frame of reference, the distance between the front of the train and the back of the train are equal, no? Light from the front of the train and from the back of the train would take the same amount of time to reach Alice. The motion of the train would simply compress the light waves from the front (blue shift) and stretch out the light waves from the back (red shift) {According to my understanding of frames of reference, motion, and light.}

Was there any mention of red-shift, blue-shift, or lack thereof in either of your studies?

The entirety of calculus and analysis is built upon the foundation that lines are essentially points; more precisely, that all "lines" (curved or no) are locally linear.

A singularity is not a multiplicity.

True. In fact, there can be no equivalence relation from a 3D to a 4D space, even were it not that spacetime geometry differs from R3 (our perceived 3D reality). However, there exists a mapping from 4D to 3D; it just isn't one-to-one. More importantly, our perceived 3D cosmos, if treated as ontological, runs into logical and empirical contradictions which are resolved given a 4D cosmos. The problem isn't so much that we have a one-to-one map from 3D to 4D but that the 3D "reality" is (however counter-intuitively) wrong. Assuming a 3D reality results in paradoxes that are resolved given the 4D spacetime.

Resulting paradoxes can also be explained away by an omniscient, omnipresent deity. :drool:

(Speculation is fun!)

I'm parroting the arguments of those who take seriously the inability for any 3D model/cosmos to be true or to be ontological given what we have discerned from both theoretical and empirical findings. One of the two most successful theories of all time simply does not allow for a 3D reality in which causality can continue to exist classically. This is due in no small way to the fact that there is no 3D reality any more than a 2D reality. When you read words from posts on this thread, they appear to be 2D. They are not. Likewise, relativistic physics is extraordinarily successful so long as we treat any 3D reality the same way: as a "fake" 2D projection granted a particular perspective.

The fact remains that the argument in the OP is, by admission, a straw man argument. I can see using this as a tool to get someone to break out of the box of 3D thinking, (or any other particular frame of reference, for that matter.) It does not, however, destroy the need for a conceptual box/frame of reference. To say that there is no such thing as simultaneity might be more accurately stated as "there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity." (Without the absolute qualifier you are basically destroying your need for a frame of reference your argument is built upon--another straw man.)

 

[allfoak]

Mind would be an emergent property coming from the system that is matter/energy and spacetime. I believe mind would be an aspect of matter in relation to spacetime, but I don't believe mind to be some other component of the universe, knowledge is integrated as part of the system.

Another paradox.
That which mind emerges from, it also creates.

 

[idav]

Another paradox.
That which mind emerges from, it also creates.

Nothing was created.

 

[idav]

Within Alice's frame of reference, the distance between the front of the train and the back of the train are equal, no? Light from the front of the train and from the back of the train would take the same amount of time to reach Alice. The motion of the train would simply compress the light waves from the front (blue shift) and stretch out the light waves from the back (red shift) {According to my understanding of frames of reference, motion, and light.}

Was there any mention of red-shift, blue-shift, or lack thereof in either of your studies?


A singularity is not a multiplicity.




Resulting paradoxes can also be explained away by an omniscient, omnipresent deity. :drool:

(Speculation is fun!)




The fact remains that the argument in the OP is, by admission, a straw man argument. I can see using this as a tool to get someone to break out of the box of 3D thinking, (or any other particular frame of reference, for that matter.) It does not, however, destroy the need for a conceptual box/frame of reference. To say that there is no such thing as simultaneity might be more accurately stated as "there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity." (Without the absolute qualifier you are basically destroying your need for a frame of reference your argument is built upon--another straw man.)

There is a correspondance because it is all relative. As we increase the energy we will slowly shift to the other realm. Since all of it is 4D, we are just in a wrong frame of reference, thinking there is no connection but there is, it has been proven.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are the one who said it not me.

What, exactly, did I say and how did you understand/interpret it?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Within Alice's frame of reference, the distance between the front of the train and the back of the train are equal, no?

Yes. And the same for Bob (who also perceives Alice as in the middle of the front and back of the train car).

Light from the front of the train and from the back of the train would take the same amount of time to reach Alice.

The speed of light is constant. Everything else obeys the additive property of velocity. If I throw a baseball from a train traveling 80 kilometers per hour, the absolute minimum velocity of such of a throw is 80 kilometers per hour.

Likewise, if two light waves propagate in my direction, but I travel towards one and away from the other, then I will perceive one happening prior to another.

The motion of the train would simply compress the light waves from the front

It will have no effect on the spectrum. Rather, it will simply mean that the light itself reaches the person travelling towards one propagation and away from another at different times.

According to my understanding of frames of reference, motion, and light.

Given your use of spectrum when none applies, I'm curious as to what this understanding is: am I misunderstanding you or you me? (or both?)

Was there any mention of red-shift, blue-shift, or lack thereof in either of your studies?

Nothing whatsoever. Wavelength or frequency are irrelevant here.

The fact remains that the argument in the OP is, by admission, a straw man argument.

I don't know about "by admission". It is true that I didn't develop the argument; rather, it is a view championed by a large number of physicists if not a majority.

I can see using this as a tool to get someone to break out of the box of 3D thinking, (or any other particular frame of reference, for that matter.)

There is really no equivalence between frames of reference and conceptualizing reality as 3D vs. 4D.

To say that there is no such thing as simultaneity might be more accurately stated as "there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity."

Actually, it is what follows from the proof of the non-existence of absolute uniform motion. That's a bit more complicated though.

Without the absolute qualifier you are basically destroying your need for a frame of reference

Reference frames are required in Newtonian physics. The radical change required thanks to relativity is due to the geometry of spacetime.

 

[crossfire]

Yes. And the same for Bob (who also perceives Alice as in the middle of the front and back of the train car).


The speed of light is constant. Everything else obeys the additive property of velocity. If I throw a baseball from a train traveling 80 kilometers per hour, the absolute minimum velocity of such of a throw is 80 kilometers per hour.

Likewise, if two light waves propagate in my direction, but I travel towards one and away from the other, then I will perceive one happening prior to another.


It will have no effect on the spectrum. Rather, it will simply mean that the light itself reaches the person travelling towards one propagation and away from another at different times.



Given your use of spectrum when none applies, I'm curious as to what this understanding is: am I misunderstanding you or you me? (or both?)

In Diagram 2, the blue point represents the observer, and the arrow represents the observer's velocity vector. When the observer is stationary, the x,y-grid appears yellow and the y-axis appears as a black vertical line. Increasing the observer's velocity to the right shifts the colors and the aberration of light distorts the grid. When the observer looks forward (right on the grid), points appear green, blue, and violet (blueshift) and grid lines appear farther apart. If the observer looks backward (left on the grid), then points appear red (redshift) and lines appear closer together. The grid has not changed, but its appearance for the observer has.

Relativistic Doppler effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In Diagram 2, the blue point represents the observer, and the arrow represents the observer's velocity vector.

Velocity implies vector. You can't have velocity without a vector.

When the observer is stationary, the x,y-grid appears yellow and the y-axis appears as a black vertical line.

Both special and general relativity require that there be no such thing as stationary. There is only stationary relative to another reference frame.