Mordred

The hidden variable conjecture that Bell type experiments test for has little to do with symmetric or assymmetry. They are certainly involved but that isn't the issue. For example photons are symmetric while fermions are not. The Bell experiment can be performed using either fermions or bosons. The hidden information involves whether or not an entangled particle contains the spin information of its particle pair in such a manner that when the superposition wavefunction collapses via measurement with a detector alignment whether or not there is information exchange between the entangled particles. This would necessarily require instantaneous superluminal signaling. Bells test essentially shows us no hidden variables are involved so no superluminal signaling occurs. There is still contestation of this conclusion which quite frankly is good science. Virtual particles in Feymann diagrams are represented by the internal lines in essence the propogators. QFT doesn't particularly use the particle view such as in Bohm theory. In QFT all particles are field excitations. The pointlike attributes in wave particle duality can be explained by wavefunctions such as the DeBroglie and Compton wavelength.

That link describes the situation accurately with each methodology used. Excellent link.

Were considerably more relaxed than physicsforum. The rules are posted for our Speculation forum above and we do have lengthy threads that are not locked even though they are modelling outside of mainstream concordance physics. In your case your applying mathematical rigor which is one of the more lacking detail in other threads. In that sense I find your threads refreshing. Do I feel anything I can state will change any viewpoint you have. Likely not but that doesn't prevent an intelligent discussion.

Well quite frankly the view that the only causal interaction between particles A and B is that which occurs at the entanglement event itself. The superposition wavefunction state does not require or need to carry any hidden variables. The act of measurement does not cause any signaling between the two particles. No signaling occurs This quite frankly in my books makes far more logical sense than invoking hidden variables hidden reference frames of absolute time or any physics that relies more on metaphysical argument than with empirical evidence of being able to validate through detection. Quite frankly I never invoke any metaphysical based argument to make decisions of how physics works. The only thing that works for me is those models that can provide hard experimental data. Entanglement does not require hidden fields or variables to account for its measurements

Ok I have a question according to the above paper you have a Lorentz style eather that is non interacting with regular matter fields. This eather frame according to your paper allows for FTL. So how does it mediate entangled particles to allow supposed FTL signaling between entangled particles in violation of Einstein causality ? Without considering that a form of interaction ? Is there some arbitrary mediator boson as per regular matter fields ? Secondly what property of this eather allows FTL when massless non coupling particles propogate at c in regards to our observable matter and force fields ? Ie via {ct}.

So let me get this straight we have experimental evidence of time dilation at a distance of 1 metre apart. Yet you feel time is absolute. In all reference frames in Newtonian physics time is absolute. That is not true for reference frames under SR/GR. So how can you claim that Newton isn't wrong in regards to time ? More importantly why do you feel GR must be incorrect in regards to time with your knowledge of GR ? Which from your equation above and your last few posts seem to describe that the equivalence principle with regards to inertial mass and gravitational mass doesn't apply. Yes I do specify your equation

Oh then maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by a harmonic coordinate system as now your stating it as being fixed is static. That was the main details I was questioning you on yesterday. Hence specifying what a reference frame entails regardless if it inertial or non inertial. You still have to deal with the components and products of a vector using the metric. I won't bother getting into absolute time and an eather based theory under GR/SR. I'm positive you already know all the arguments. Quite frankly there is no need to even have a preferred fixed background if your coordinates for every reference frame is static to begin with. So far you haven't shown me any reason to deviate from how SR or GR handles spacetime. Then my primary field is cosmology with particle physics being secondary as I needed particle physics for my focus of research. So I have never had a need to delve into quantum interpretations for any practical purpose.

Well I for one do not see any advantage nor need to ever use harmonic coordinates. The last thing I ever want to employ is a harmonic metric tensor. Particularly since a coordinate system is an arbitrary choice I would never choose to use a coordinate with an inherent uncertainty in position. Yes you have uncertainty in position and momentum operators under QM however adding Uncertainty to a reference position doesn't appeal to me.

If I recall the guidance wave is [math]|\psi|^2 [/math] correct ? It's been awhile since I last looked into Bohmian mechanics. Lol I prefer QFT.

I see so time foliations under Bohm theory doesn't apply to GR. I'm sure you have seen relativistic Bohmian papers. The non relativistic obviously applies Galilean relativity under the Kronecker delta. One thing many of those same papers do state is no superluminal signaling is possible. Non locality also is in agreement with Bells type experiments.

Take too long to explain if you can't see the basic principles of symmetry breaking with regards to the Higgs field.

See Chronology of the universe in particular the Very early universe in particular " These phase transitions in the universe's fundamental forces are believed to be caused by a phenomenon of quantum fields called "symmetry breaking". In everyday terms, as the universe cools, it becomes possible for the quantum fields that create the forces and particles around us, to settle at lower energy levels and with higher levels of stability. In doing so, they completely shift how they interact. Forces and interactions arise due to these fields, so the universe can behave very differently above and below a phase transition. For example, in a later epoch, a side effect of one phase transition is that suddenly, many particles that had no mass at all acquire a mass (they begin to interact differently with the Higgs field), and a single force begins to manifest as two separate forces." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe I know you won't understand the related mathematics not unless your familiar with the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics for Bosons and Fermions.

The process is called thermal equilibrium when dealing as to the when particles symmetry break ie drop out of thermal equibrium. For example the Higgs boson could not drop out of equilibrium unless the universe black body temperature drops below a certain temperature. They decouple from equilibrium with the temperature in relation to the total energy/mass of the particle. ( Obviously the Boson family applies to when the fields decouple) Another Higgs decoupling would require different mass value Higgs bosons than the SM model Higgs bosons.

No in Bohmian mechanics the field generates the superluminal interference but that doesn't violate GR. You still have the correlations to the initial entanglement process. You should easily understand what I have getting at if you understand reference frames as per GR and under GR there are non inertial as well as inertial reference frames.

Nope the universe wouldn't cool down enough in either of our lifetimes.

I wouldn't call 18.75 billion years ago roughly as recent were talking a change that occurred roughly [math]10^{-32}[/math] after the BB for electroweak symmetry breaking.

No it is viable for the Higgs field to be in a lower state however there is no supportive evidence that it is going to occur now or in the future. That would be where new physics research comes into play in something as of yet undiscovered such as another symmetry breaking leading to a new family of particles I don't think your grasping one essential detail there is more than one type of vacuum. You need to be more specific as to which vacuum your discussing.

Well the Higgs field as far as we know is in a true vacuum state for the Higgs field. However where you are sitting wouldn't be a true vacuum. Let's assume your at 1 atmosphere of pressure is there a vacuum ? The vacuum is subject to how you define it. Under classical definition you and I are not in a true vacuum. Under certain QFT treatments how one defines a true vacuum depends on the fields being examined.

Ok fair enough this is actually where the English lanquage gets confusing with certain models. An absolute true vacuum is one devoid of all particles including those due to quantum fluctuations. The zero point energy states that this state is impossible as quantum fluctuations always occur. Now with False vacuum inflation or the Higgs field the true vacuum is the lowest possible state which will always be of a positive energy density. It's not a true vacuum but rather the lowest possible vacuum state depending on what fields are used to describe that particular vacuum.

Ah. Well I stated vaccum collapse isn't accurate. Not in the circumstances your describing. You have to understand a vacuum describes an energy state with associations to pressure. For example the electroweak symmetry breaking resulted in a phase transition from the false vacuum to true vacuum. The false vaccuum describes a higher potential. This is one of the more likely causes of inflation. Now ask yourself this question if the fine structure does change then some other of the following relations must also change. [math]\alpha=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon^2}\frac{e^2}{\hbar c}[/math] Where [math]\epsilon [/math] is the electric constant or permittability of free space. e is the electric charge, c is the speed of light. So if the fine structure changes then another constant must have also changed.

What is vacuum colloque theory ?

The funny part is that Bohmian mechanics does not allow for superluminal action or causation. That is prohibited by the theory. However you still have to produce a test that shows an absolute frame. (As per one of your referenced papers) which is also your own...

Sigh your obviously not getting what a reference frame entails. Let me know when you do. Ok let's try this I want a mapping of the Bohmian configuration space to some reference point. Obviously mapping configuration space to a Euclid space is trivial but your reference by the above equation isn't a space I don't know why I would need to explain what a reference frame entails in basic kinematics

So post those equations simply stating I have the equations isn't sufficient. Tell me define a defined point on an error bar probability function that is fluctuating in time. The issue isn't Bohmian trajectories it's the preferred hidden reference.

Yeah simple physics definitions. How do you use a hidden quantity as a reference? How can you use a hidden frame as a reference ? Try looking up lab frame or centre of mass frame as viable references. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference How do you fix a unique quantity in a hidden oscillating field to allow orientations. How does that equation you post count as a reference frame under the physics definition above ? Let me ask you simple question if I wish to orient the polarity of particle A to a reference point would I not be better off using a macro coordinate such as the detector itself. Rather than some hidden reference ?