Surprise! Dr. John Bell Liked the Ether!

During a radio interview on BBC Radio 3 in the mid 1980s', John Bell, the
theoretical physicist made famous for his now famous 'Bells Theorem', made
some rather eye opening statements when discussing his theorem and Alain
Aspect's experimental results. To say Bell liked a deterministic universe
seems to put it mildly - he called it super deterministic. Bell's inequality
seems to be rooted in two assumptions, namely that there is an objective
reality, and the concept of locality. Aspects' experiments seem to mean one
of these has to go, but Bell, surprisingly favored going to the pre-einstein
views of Larmor, Poincare, Fitzgerald, and Lorentz - that LR is not
inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether, and
Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations are not detected because the
experimental devices are affected by them in exactly the right amount to
null the result of the detection is a "perfectly coherent point of view."

Einstein Relativity was adopted more because of the philosophy - that what
is unobserved does not exist - and because Einstein had found a theory that
was simpler when the Aether was left out. This speaks volumes - it suggests
that because the Aether became non-PC for the times, the philosopher
scientists of the day seized upon the first theory that worked without
Aether in it - if Joe Blow the trashman had been there first with a theory
he had come upon between trash runs, we would be today referring to
Joeblowian Relativity. Einstein was just in the right place in the right
time. Bell comes very close to saying the results of Alain Aspect's
experimental results *demand* an Aether theory.

It is too bad Bell died before he could read my web site. His question would
have been answered. I'll have more to say on this later when I discuss the
resolution to the paradox of Unitarianism in QM, and how it is a non-issue.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

John Bell liking aether doesn't make it so....
Einstein liking actualities doesn't make them so...

Quoting John Wheeler from "STEPHEN HAWKING'S A BRIEF HISTORY OF
TIME, A READER'S COMPANION", "I had worked with the other great man
in the quantum debate, Niels Bohr, in Copenhagen. And I know no
greater debate in the last hundreds of years than the debate between
Bohr and Einstein, no greater debate between two greater men, or one
that extended over a longer period of time--twenty-eight years--at a
higher level of colleagueship. To put it in brief: Does the world
exist out there independent of us, as Einstein thought; or, as Bohr
thought, is there some sense in which we, through our choice of
observing equipment, have something to do with what comes about..."

Einstein refused to believe in a reality that precluded cause and
effect. "God does not play dice with the universe." he declared. He
especially objected to the theory's insistence that particles,
forces, and events seemed to come into existence only when a
measurement or observation was made.

For more than half a century physicists and philosophers debated
whether the quantum theory really was a complete and accurate
description of reality. Then in 1964, physicist John Bell proposed a
brilliant method to resolve the issue. "Bell's Theorem," says the
eminent physicist Henry Stapps, "is the most profound discovery of
science." By the early 1980's a number of elegant experiments
applying Bell's Theorem have proved that quantum theory, which
speaks in terms of probabilities rather than actualities, is indeed
a complete explanation of reality... God DOES play dice with the
universe!

Empirical results of observation and experiment... that's what makes
something so!

More--

Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00hb

There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.

Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.

Anton Zeilinger from the Institute of Experimental
Physics at the University of Vienna reviews the
book in the May issue of Physics World; email

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
| John Bell liking aether doesn't make it so....
| Einstein liking actualities doesn't make them so...

Read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet". You might learn
something. Especially read the Forward by Bjorken.

FrediFizzx

FrediFizzx wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
| John Bell liking aether doesn't make it so....
| Einstein liking actualities doesn't make them so...

Read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet". You might learn
something. Especially read the Forward by Bjorken.

FrediFizzx

Interesting
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...070945-8907940

Sam Wormley wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
| John Bell liking aether doesn't make it so....
| Einstein liking actualities doesn't make them so...

Read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet". You might learn
something. Especially read the Forward by Bjorken.

FrediFizzx

Interesting
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...070945-8907940

"The book spends 25% of its space for bosonic fluids and
75% for fermionic ones. It is assumed that the reader
is a *master* of both classical and quantum field theory.
But if he[/she] is[,] the book is enjoyable".

Sam Wormley wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
| John Bell liking aether doesn't make it so....
| Einstein liking actualities doesn't make them so...

Read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet". You might learn
something. Especially read the Forward by Bjorken.

FrediFizzx

Interesting
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...070945-8907940

"The book spends 25% of its space for bosonic fluids and
75% for fermionic ones. It is assumed that the reader
is a *master* of both classical and quantum field theory.
But if he[/she] is[,] the book is enjoyable".

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
|
| "Sam Wormley" wrote in message
| ...
| | John Bell liking aether doesn't make it so....
| | Einstein liking actualities doesn't make them so...
|
| Read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet". You might learn
| something. Especially read the Forward by Bjorken.
|
| FrediFizzx
|
| Interesting
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...070945-8907940

http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/16

http://boojum.hut.fi/personnel/THEORY/volovik.html

You can download a PDF of the book from the last link.

FrediFizzx

FrediFizzx wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
|
| "Sam Wormley" wrote in message
| ...
| | John Bell liking aether doesn't make it so....
| | Einstein liking actualities doesn't make them so...
|
| Read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet". You might learn
| something. Especially read the Forward by Bjorken.
|
| FrediFizzx
|
| Interesting
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...070945-8907940

http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/16

http://boojum.hut.fi/personnel/THEORY/volovik.html

You can download a PDF of the book from the last link.

FrediFizzx

That was a lot cheaper than the $108 Amazon.com was charging!
Thanks. Nice Forward.

FrediFizzx wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
|
| "Sam Wormley" wrote in message
| ...
| | John Bell liking aether doesn't make it so....
| | Einstein liking actualities doesn't make them so...
|
| Read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet". You might learn
| something. Especially read the Forward by Bjorken.
|
| FrediFizzx
|
| Interesting
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...070945-8907940

http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/16

http://boojum.hut.fi/personnel/THEORY/volovik.html

You can download a PDF of the book from the last link.

FrediFizzx

That was a lot cheaper than the $108 Amazon.com was charging!
Thanks. Nice Forward.

"FrediFizzx" wrote in message
...
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
|
| "Sam Wormley" wrote in message
| ...
| | John Bell liking aether doesn't make it so....
| | Einstein liking actualities doesn't make them so...
|
| Read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet". You might learn
| something. Especially read the Forward by Bjorken.
|
| FrediFizzx
|
| Interesting
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...070945-8907940

http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/16

http://boojum.hut.fi/personnel/THEORY/volovik.html

You can download a PDF of the book from the last link.

FrediFizzx

Very interesting! I cite from the conclusion:

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The
electromagnetic and gravitational felds, as well as the felds transferring
the weak and the strong interactions, all represent di®erent types of
collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

But it's a thick book...

Harald