On your view, why does it matter what material the conductor is composed of, or what the cross sectional area of the conductor is? — wonderer1
Since there is no ether identified as the medium within which the waves exist, the only substance which this concept is grounded in is the body which the field is a property of. Establishing the correct relationship between body and field is problematic in current conceptualizations. If the ether which is logically required to support the real existence of waves, was identified such that its real properties could be tested, this would allow us to conceptualize independent existence of the waves, enabling us to properly conceive of the waves as prior in time to the body, and therefore the appearance of a body (particles, atoms, molecules, etc.) as property of the waves. But this implies a conception of the waves which would be completely distinct from the current "field". — Metaphysician Undercover
And if you believe there are two or more Alices, and ultimately there have to be as many as needed, are they the same? Or are they different? If the same, then how does that work? And if different then not the same, and thus not Alice.If you believe there is only one Alice — flannel jesus
Since there is no ether identified as the medium within which the waves exist, the only substance which this concept is grounded in is the body which the field is a property of. Establishing the correct relationship between body and field is problematic in current conceptualizations. If the ether which is logically required to support the real existence of waves, was identified such that its real properties could be tested, this would allow us to conceptualize independent existence of the waves, enabling us to properly conceive of the waves as prior in time to the body, and therefore the appearance of a body (particles, atoms, molecules, etc.) as property of the waves. But this implies a conception of the waves which would be completely distinct from the current "field". — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. I retract my amendment, my theory as originally stated stands: the virtual worlds collapse immediately.I hope that makes sense. — flannel jesus
When you combine Relativity with Copenhagen, you get this strange picture of causality. You can't objectively, universally say A caused B, because it's equally valid to say B caused A. THIS is what "spooky action at a distance" means. This is what's spooky about it. This is why Einstein couldn't stand QM when he first learned of it. — flannel jesus
I do think the usual idea of the fields is that the waves aren't distinct from the field, the waves are literally perturbations of the field. I don't know if there's any conception of quantum fields where the waves are somehow distinct from the field, never heard of that idea before. — flannel jesus
I find it strange, the way you seem to get hung up on words being used in ways you disapprove of. Analogies play an important role in the way humans communicate things with each other and the use of "wave" to convey somewhat analogical things about electromagnetic fields has been going on for longer than either of us have been alive. It looks to me like you are fighting a losing battle.
What do you see as a problem, with having a notion of "wave" that needs nothing more than space to propagate through? — wonderer1
The events at Alice's and Bob's detectors are not space-like separated. — tim wood
Being many light seconds apart is exactly an example of what it means to be space-like separated, no? They are... separated in space. — flannel jesus
Yet we know from observation, rainbows, and other refractions, that light must consist of waves, therefore there must be a substance there which is waving. — Metaphysician Undercover
I invite you to listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OduDEz77h9U&t=830s
You can speed it up to however fast you can listen. He makes the point that what Bell's theorem rules out is any strictly local theory (thus non-locality) At about 21:00. And that Bell's theorem in not about hidden variables(!) 24:00. The whole worth the listen — tim wood
are you eschewing a casual explanation altogether? If not, how does the casual narrative look? — flannel jesus
I'm by no means attempting to convince you to change your mind. I just think all this stuff is interesting to think about. — flannel jesus
No matter the frame of reference, the end result is the same, that Alice and Bob measure the opposite spin. — hypericin
there's some "thing" that goes to the future, finds out what value needs to obtain, and then comes back in time and takes that value. — flannel jesus
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but the Michelson–Morley experiment disproved that idea. — EricH
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.