John K Clark (
Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:27:00 -0800 (PST)


On Sat, 01 Feb 1997 Omega <> Wrote:

>>By "local" Einstein wanted a definition that could be of some use

>The definition of local in relativity theory IS and ONLY IS:
> s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + (ict)^2, x, y, z, and t all being real.
>All pairs of spacetime points that don't obey this equation have
>either a spacelike or a timelike separation and thus by definition
>are non-local.

So, according to you, Einstein said that things are non-local if the distance
between two points in space-time is not equal to the distance between two
points in spacetime. Now I understand why you think Cramer's theory is local,
but I don't understand why you think Einstein was a genius.

By the way, I've never heard of any concept in human knowledge that can be
expressed in ONE and ONLY ONE way.

>A locally causal temporally bidirectional microcausality would allow
>violation of Bell's inequality just fine.

I quote from "Schrodinger's Kittens" by John Gribbin Page 243:

"The tests of Bell's inequality explicitly shows that "microscopic"
causality is violated, regardless of what interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics you favor."

I certainly agree that Cramer's theory violates Bell's inequality, it is
perfectly consistent with all known experimental evidence because it is
non-local. In another post I gave you a precise definition of "local",
if you broaden it to such a ridiculous extant that even a particle "shaking
hands with the universe" is local then the concept of locality forfeits all
meaning and forfeits all usefulness.

>>Even if we someday find a better theory than Quantum Mechanics,
>>any successful theory must explain that experimental result.

>Nothing needs to be explained.

Nonsense. Science is about prediction, Bell proved that classical Physics,
or any other conceivable local theory, would predict a smaller correlation
between the properties of polarized photons or spinning electrons than
Quantum Mechanics does. Experimental results show that Quantum Mechanics
makes a much better prediction. Any theory that claims to be better than
Quantum Mechanics had damn well better make a prediction that is at least
as good.

>Again, it [Cramer's theory] only seems non-local when one assumes
>that micro-causality is unidirectional with respect to time.

If Cramer's theory only seems non-local then it is really local, if it is
local then it has been proven wrong, Cramer's theory has not been proven
wrong so Cramer's they can not be local.

- From "Quantum Reality" by Nick Herbert, page 227:

"Bell's Theorem is an important tool for reality research because it enables
folks who create imaginary worlds confidently to reject millions of
impossible worlds at a single glance. Bell's theory tells you right away:
If it's local, it's hokum."

- From "The Unconscious Quantum" by Victor J Stenger, page 111:

"What Bell had succeeded in proving was that realistic, local hidden
variables cannot provide a deterministic mechanism for Quantum Mechanics,
if Quantum Mechanics is to apply to individual measurements."

- From "The Cosmic Code" by Heinz R Pagels, page 165:

"There were only two physical interpretations of Bell's experiment- either
the world was nonobjective and did not exist in a definite state, or it was
nonlocal with instantaneous action at a distance. Take your pick of

I now quote from John Bell's original paper. After deriving his inequality he
says that if it is experimentally proven to be false, as it was 20 years
later, quantum mechanics or any successor theory must have certain qualities:

"In a theory in which parameters are added to Quantum Mechanics to determine
the results of individual measurements without changing the statistical
predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring
device can influence the reading of another instrument no matter how remote.
Moreover, the signal must propagate instantaneously."

If somebody says Cramer's theory is local they are libeling it, they are
saying it has been proven to be false, and that in untrue.

>Not only is Von Neumann's mistake not moot, it is IMO the biggest
>obstacle within existing theory blocking fundamental scientific
>progress into the nature of reality.

Boy, you really have it in for Von Neumann. The poor man made a mistake, even
the best of us do that from time to time. Everybody knows it was a mistake,
I don't see how it's blocking anything.
- ----------

On a completely different subject, I just found out that in the USA on PBS
they will broadcast a play about the life of Alan Turing tonight (Sunday).

John K Clark

Version: 2.6.i