Member

As a basis for the study of the ontology of ?time', we analyze three suspect phenomena introduced by modern physics: non-locality, asymmetric aging, and advanced interaction. It is shown that all three arise in connection with what have to be taken as arbitrary idiosyncrasies in formulation. It is shown that minor changes result in internally consistent variations of both Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity devoid of these phenomena. The reinterpretation of some experiments thought to confirm the existence of non-locality and asymmetric aging is briefly considered, and a possible test is proposed.

Nowadays Bell's theorem is commonly considered to "prove" that at
a fundamental level, Nature exploits some kine of "nonlocal" (i.e., faster
than light) interaction. This 'theorem" states that a certain statistic
must remain below |2| for all local-real (in other words: classical) theories.
This is very problematic for two reasons: One, it implies that
Quantum Mechanics is in fundamental contradiction with Special Relativity,
and two, there are many examples of circumstances in which
the subject statistic for fully classical phenomena exceeds the 'Bell'
limit.
This writer and the read and collaborators have presented models
for EPR experiments; but, they have been criticized for involving
unphysical/improbable mechanisms.
I shall present a new model that remedies these defects, explains all
the data taken in EPR experiments and makes a falsiable prediction.
It is based only on the photoelectric effect.
My main conclusion is: there is no need for nonlocality and non-reality
to account for quantum effects.

At past PIRT conferences, and elsewhere, I have asserted, that the usual arguments for time dilation, i.e., the twin paradox, contain an oversight that annihilates their conclusion. Inevitably, this has provoked the question: 'how then is the extension of the decay time of moving muons to be understood?' My response, that this effect can be understood as an effect of space-time perspective, was heard only with skepticism? And, indeed, my own researches into just how this effect can be understood better has led me to a more inclusive viewpoint, namely: while there is no such thing as kinematical time-dilation, there are obviously dynamical effects that objectively slow individual physical processes, e.g., pendulums depend on altitude, biological decay depends on temperature (e.g., in refrigerators). Perspective alone cannot account for everything. These local modifications of the tempo1 of processes, conned within a subunit of the universe, however, cannot be designated time dilation, anymore that can use of a refrigerator be considered to dilate time for the universe. 'Tempo' must be distinguished from an unalterable 'time,' in that the latter is given by the variable conjugate to the Hamiltonian of the universe and, therefore, unalterable from within the universe; whereas, the flow of sub-processes, or the rate of changes of state (tempo), in sub-volumes of the universe, can be altered at the expense of other portions of the universe. To say that time itself is dilated, would be to say that the flow of all processes in the whole universe has been slowed. Obviously, in this light, clocks tell tempo only of their own inner workings, i.e., for localized processes, as affected by local conditions (potentials) and cannot take account of the whole universe; they do not, therefore, tell 'time' per se. Muons, however, are thought to be decoupled from all external interaction; thus, they are said to spontaneously decay, without external triggering input. However, it is a common insight from Quantum Electrodynamics, that so called 'spontaneous decay' can be seen actually as decay stimulated by a vacuum mode. From this viewpoint, then, acceleration through the vacuum can be taken as a dynamical undertaking doing work on the inner processes of muons, which alters their tempo, analogous to extending biological decay in refrigerators. This effect, then, in addition to determination of an anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background, provides a physical and operationally practical means of distinguishing a privileged frame, namely that one in which muons have the shortest decaytime. As such, it provides additional support for a Lorentzian viewpoint on Special Relativity. 1 This term is taken from music, where it is instinctively recognized that the rapidity of the flow of a piece of music is gauged in terms of an unalterable, external and universal time flow.

I will present a description of a modified version of what is known as the ?Wheeler-Feynman action-at-a-distance? formulation of relativistic electrodynamics, but devoid of advanced interaction and asymmetric aging. I will describe initial results of a study using this formulation to analyze time dilation experiments using muon decay which shows that this is a space-time perspective effect that does not contribute to asymmetric aging (the twin paradox).

I argue that Bell?s argument for nonlocality is the result of an error in the use of Bayes? formula. By correcting this error all derivations of Bell Inequalities become impossible. Further, I show by direct construction and simulation that the data from EPR- and GHZ-type experiments can be explained by the classical formulas for higher order correlations. Additionally, I argue that irreality is a consequence of the assumption that QM is complete. Superposition of mutually exclusive states arise in classical mechanics for coupled oscillators where the energy sloshes back and forth between two modes.

If a physics theory is good, beautiful, correct, etc., then it would seem reasonable to expect that it would offer a good, beautiful and correct solution to the simplest of all conceivable nontrivial physics problems. Maxwell field theory does not satisfy this desideratum! The simplest of all physics problems surely is the description of a ?toy? universe comprising one particle. This problem is, of course, trivial and boring; the particle just sits there. The next simplest problem, a toy universe of two, classical, charged particles, is both nontrivial and unsolved! There are, however, approximation techniques, so that practical problems can be mastered. Basically, they take it that one of the particles is a current, solve Maxwell?s equations at the location of the other, apply Lorentz?s force law to get the second particle?s motion. Then it in turn is taken as a current, its EM fields are calculated at the position of the first, where then Lor-entz?s force law gives a perturbation-correction. This is then continued back and forth until an approximation of the desired accuracy is obtained. But, to date, there is no widely-accepted closed formulation for the dynamics of such a toy universe. One central reason, it is asserted, is that there is no universal, absolute time able to serve as the variable conjugate to the Hamiltonian of the total system. A didactic example of this matter is well known as the ?twin paradox?. Now, this writer regards this situation as symptomatic of serious misunderstanding. If there were, in fact, no system time, then there would also be no system Hamiltonian, which in turns would mean that there would be no global conservation of energy and momentum for this toy system. But, as there are only two particles in the system, there is nowhere for energy or momentum to go; no absorbers exterior to the system, etc., so on and so forth. Energy and momentum just have to be conserved, and a formulation of dynamics taking these realities self-consistently into account must be possible. If `Nature? can do it, so can some mathematics! This matter has occupied this writer for a number of decades now, and a certain amount of potential progress has been made. In addition, at least two other ancillary issues with regard to `time? have been injecting mysticism into modern physics theories suspiciously. These include the notions of ?advanced interaction? and ?non-locality?. The paper, submitted also to Galilean Electrodynamics, surveys this writer?s proposed remedies for these problematic features.