So it seems. Here's some additional information for y'all:
I've alluded to this before. This paradox is analogous to those that confronted physics before the turn of the last century, when everyone was sure they had everything wrapped up in a tidy little box except for a few 'loose ends.' And then Einstein came along and blew up the box!
This is an interesting paradox. Einstein's theories give rise to QM which is the foundation of Bell's Theorem which then in turn, violates Einstein's theories. I like the last line of the second paper you referenced here:
"This proves that quantum mechanical theory is logically consistent with relativity."
They are trying to keep the whole thing from falling down, which they can see is a real possibility with QM. There IS something wrong here. But where?
You might know of, or run across, since you are clearly deep into this, much more than I am, (if I only had the time!) so let me ask you about something I've seen other writers allude to a couple times (years ago when I was really trying to understand this stuff, so I can't remember where to go back and look it up) that:
QM is a house of cards built upon Planke's Constant and that Planke's Constant is bad math, not derived from any actual observation but by working backwards and plugging in a certain figure because that is the only figure that works but no one knows the how or why of that figure. Nobody wants to question it because if they find a fault here then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
You ever run across something like this? It may have been superceded since then and I wouldn't know about it.
Thanks again (I think, you are tempting me and arousing an interest that is hugely time consuming to just follow, let alone understand, and that I really don't have the time for. Good job!)
QM is a house of cards built upon Planke's Constant and that Planke's Constant is bad math, not derived from any actual observation but by working backwards and plugging in a certain figure because that is the only figure that works but no one knows the how or why of that figure.
I suspect that both statements are true. There has been an accurate measurement of the Planck Constant by NIST. OTOH, the Planck Constant is the constant of proportionality.
(It seems like I'm forever defending the Platonist position that math and geometry pre-exist and await discovery - LOL!)
THE MOST ACCURATE MEASUREMENT YET OF THE PLANCK CONSTANT, the number which describes the bundle-like nature of matter and energy at the atomic and subatomic levels, has been carried out by NIST physicists, instantly improving the accuracy of related fundamental constants (such as electron mass, proton mass, and Avogadro's number) and paving the way for a quantum-based definition of mass. Carrying out an experiment first proposed by Brian Kibble of the National Physical Laboratory in England (011-44-171-594-7845), a NIST group (Edwin Williams, 301-975-4206) determined Planck's constant, otherwise known as h, by using a "moving-coil watt balance," an apparatus with a kilogram mass connected to a metal coil in a magnetic field. Injecting a current through the coil created an upward magnetic force which exactly balanced the downward force of gravity on the mass. In a second step, the group allowed the coil to move downward, measuring its velocity and the voltage it generated.
In both steps, the electrical power associated with the mechanical motions of the system contained quantities proportional to Planck's constant, allowing the researchers to extract the value of h while cancelling out factors such as the geometry of the setup. The team calculated a value for h of 6.62606891 x 10-34 Joule-seconds, with an uncertainty of 89 parts per billion, two times better than previously published measurements. Their watt-balance setup ultimately promises to lead to a definition of the kilogram based on quantum units, rather than one based on the stalwart physical artifact currently stored in France. (Physical Review Letters, 21 September 1998; figure at www.aip.org/physnews/graphics)
Introduction to Fundamental Physical Constants (NIST)
The velocity of light (c) and Planck's constant (h) are examples of quantities that occur naturally in the mathematical formulation of certain fundamental physical theories, the former in James Clerk Maxwell's theory of electric and magnetic fields and Albert Einstein's theories of relativity, and the latter in the theory of atomic particles, or quantum theory. For example, in Einstein's theories of relativity, mass and energy are equivalent, the energy (E) being directly proportional to the mass (m), with the constant of proportionality being the velocity of light squared (c2) -- i.e., the famous equation E = mc2.
The big quest in Physics is for the Higgs boson, which is necessary for the Standard Model. If it is not found, then the accepted theory of where mass comes from is in deep trouble.
HEP Fugitive - Higgs Boson (hilarious summary from Fermilab)
The Higgs Search at Fermilab (background)
Thank you so much for the encouragement and for the great discussion!
About 15 years ago, I wrote the software to control a high temperature optical fiber thermometor based on the Black Body phenomenon. It used Planck's Constant directly to derive the temperature from the photons emitted by the iridium painted tip of the fiber as it combusted. Other techniques using other, more traditionally built thermometers were used to verify the accuracy of my thermometer.
Planck's equation was consulted by the developers of the Eber's-Moll equations that describe how a solid state transistor works, before Intel implemented the very first of them to be used commercially. The very transistors that gate your computer onto the internet so you can be happily typing away here.
Planck's equation was fundamental in astronomy. We treated the stars as if they were Black Bodies, (which they are) for the purpose of simulateously deriving their actual magnetudes, temperatures, and distance, using Planck's Equation. This is why we can map the heavens with authority, and this mapping has been too extensively verified by secondary considerations, such as the relationships of stellar novas and interstellar dust concentrations, to be likely to be coming into question anytime soon.
It's barely conceivable that it's bad math or bad physics, but that's looking like a pretty poor bet just now.