The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is reality really non-local?  (Read 1388 times)

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Is reality really non-local?
« on: 05/11/2015 01:31:27 »
This appears to be the way the evidence points. Any opinions?


 

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is reality really non-local?
« Reply #1 on: 06/11/2015 00:27:24 »
Nope, reality isn't non-local.
Non-local physical effects are independent of location... the effect "travels" infinitely fast. Or, in other words, all effects of the event happen simultaneously, everywhere.
If reality is non-local then special relativity must be entirely wrong because relativity excludes simultaneity. In other words, simultaneity is entirely relative. For any two events separated in space, three categories of observers exist: those where the events appear simultaneous, those where one precedes the other, and those where the other precedes the one. This is an unavoidable consequence of constancy of c.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is reality really non-local?
« Reply #2 on: 06/11/2015 01:36:26 »
Nope, reality isn't non-local.
Non-local physical effects are independent of location... the effect "travels" infinitely fast. Or, in other words, all effects of the event happen simultaneously, everywhere.
If reality is non-local then special relativity must be entirely wrong because relativity excludes simultaneity. In other words, simultaneity is entirely relative. For any two events separated in space, three categories of observers exist: those where the events appear simultaneous, those where one precedes the other, and those where the other precedes the one. This is an unavoidable consequence of constancy of c.

Well if relativity excludes simultaneity then the event cannot happen simultaneously everywhere. ALL events appear to the observer from the past light cone. Nothing non-locally that happens 'now' is available to this observer immediately. Simultaneity and non-local effects are therefore disconnected anyway and so do not violate relativity. Nothing ever remains in a constant position so that everything is switching frames constantly.That is just the nature of motion. Even if the new frame is exactly equivalent to the previous one it is still a different frame of reference. The laws of physics being equivalent in every inertial frame means that measurements must be equivalent in every such frame. If you then try to examine this via Lorentz transformations you are on a loser since the events have happened before the observation takes place. It doesn't help.
 

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is reality really non-local?
« Reply #3 on: 06/11/2015 23:02:49 »
Imagine two flash bulbs. If you're situated in the right location and/or moving correctly, the light flashes will arrive to you simultaneously.

Note, the determination of simultaneity in "action at a distance" experiments is done afterward... one thing is observed first and the other is observed later. Simultaneity is inferred.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is reality really non-local?
« Reply #4 on: 07/11/2015 00:35:35 »
It's always interesting to discuss these things. One person can't consider everything. There are things that can be missed or misinterpreted.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is reality really non-local?
« Reply #4 on: 07/11/2015 00:35:35 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums