- #1
jk22
- 729
- 24
Could it be that the transformations keeping the wave equation invariant have other solutions than the usual Lorentz ones ?
jk22 said:Could it be that the transformations keeping the wave equation invariant have other solutions than the usual Lorentz ones ?
jk22 said:It is the conclusion of John Bell to this contradiction in his original paper On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.
What contradiction?jk22 said:It is the conclusion of John Bell to this contradiction in his original paper On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.
Now we have to ask you what the Lorentz transformations have to do with past light cones?jk22 said:Hence there should be more elements of physical reality in the Lorentz transformations ?
The second postulate of SR says that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames. Thus an inertial reference frame (the mathematical formalisation of what we mean by "an observer") moving at the speed of light is self-contradictory - light would have to be both stationary and moving at 3×108m/s. It's not a problem with the derivation that won't let you describe observers moving at the speed of light - it's a fundamental tenet of the theory!jk22 said:The latter point could indicate that there lacks something in the derivation ?
jk22 said:For example Since the Lorentz' gamma factor is : ##\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}## nothing can move faster than light, at least when avoiding imaginary numbers.
In fact with the speed of light moving entities are not possible neither (as observers at least ?).
The latter point could indicate that there lacks something in the derivation ?
jk22 said:My question is wether the gamma factor were not a cross section of an infinite peak but that in a section a bit apart from this in another dimension there were in fact no singularity ?
Bell's theorem, also known as Bell's inequality, is a mathematical proof that states that no local hidden variable theory can reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
Bell's theorem does not directly relate to Lorentz transformations. However, it has been used to rule out certain local hidden variable theories that attempt to explain the results of experiments involving Lorentz transformations.
No, Bell's theorem does not disprove the validity of Lorentz transformations. It only rules out certain theories that attempt to explain the results of experiments involving Lorentz transformations.
Yes, there are other theories such as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics that can explain the results of experiments involving Lorentz transformations.
Bell's theorem challenges our classical understanding of causality and locality, and suggests that quantum mechanics may involve non-local interactions between particles. It has also been used to support the concept of quantum entanglement and the idea that particles can be connected in ways that defy classical notions of space and time.