[ExI] QT and SR

[John K Clark]

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>

> Someone  is misinterpreting this result when claiming that there
> was a cause in one place and an effect somewhere else, and this
> effect followed just as if it had traveled at least at a speed of 4
> orders of magnitude  faster than light.

Lee, apparently not only do you know more science than me you 
also know more than the scientists at the Group of Applied Physics 
at the University of Geneva which performed the experiment. You
also know more science than the editors of Nature that published
their results; not Spoon Bending Digest, Nature.

I quote from the August 14 2008 issue of Nature, page 861-864:

"Many Bell tests have been performed, and loopholes related to 
locality and detection have been closed in several independent 
experiments. It is still possible that a first event could influence a
second, but the speed of this hypothetical influence (Einstein's
'spooky action at a distance') would need to be defined in some 
universal privileged reference frame and be greater than the 
speed of light."

"Here we put stringent experimental bounds on the speed of all 
such hypothetical influences. [.] a lower bound for the speed of
the influence [has been found]. The speed of the influence would
have to exceed that of light by at least four orders of magnitude."

So the possibility that the Universe is local has not been
excluded experimentally, influences would have to move at 
infinite speed to prove that it's non local and all we know is it's 
better than four orders of magnitude faster than light.
But I'd put my money on non local.

You say that "every elementary textbook on Relativity Theory 
dismantles the notion of simultaneity or "instant changes" over 
space and time" and I am certain you are correct. But the thing
is, Nature is not elementary.

Me a few posts ago:

>> You really can instantly change something on the other 
>>side of the  universe, or at least do so better than 4 orders
>> of magnitude faster than  light.

You:

> do you or do you not retract having used the word "instantly"

I do not retract it, and I admitted it has never been proven 
experimentally, all we know for sure is something happened
better than 4 orders of magnitude faster than light. And if you 
want to reserve the word "change" for things you do to matter
or energy or information then feel free to use "influence"
or "correlation" or invent your own word.

The point is that something is moving in a very odd way and it
is fast as hell. You can't use it for transportation and you can't 
use it for communication but it's still something.

Me:

> Nor can it explain why charged particles effect [Lee insists
> "affect"] each other's motion at a distance, more 
>"action at a distance".

You:

> Fields supply the counter to that, as was well-understood 
> in the 19th  century.

An electric charge creates an electric field AT A DISTANCE.
Besides, a field is just a word, a word that describes what a
charged particle will do when it is at a particular distance from 
another electrical charge. Action at a distance, it's life, get over it.

And by the way, real men effect, wimps affect.

 John K Clark