Amit

@EugeneO would it matter if the question was closed with the reason of being opinion-based? I think that asking "why the mainstream interpretation is X and not Y" is not really a concrete question about physics. You can ask concrete questions about any QM interpretation, but I don't see that here. Then there's a second independent question of "Who checks Bell's inequality violation experiments?[...]Is no evidence of non-locality exists until now?" with regards to which I believe you can find a lot of similar questions, e.g. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/497987

"Occam's razor saying us do not introduce a new thing", I think actually it's the pilot-wave model that introduces a nonlocal quantum potential, which is redundant in the more mainstream interpretations.

As of the latest edit the question seems to me 100% legit and I would encourage any downvoter who still happens to follow the post to consider reversing their downvote (following a review of the latest edit of course).

@EricBaird it isn't only necessarily books and it isn't "educational" only in the narrow academic curriculum sense. See for example: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/709681 , where asker is clearly interested in a rather advanced topic, and also gets some references to papers in the answer.

@EricBaird Just a few operational remarks: 1. This isn't the right venue to look for collaborators on your personal research 2. If you want to ask for references, use the "resource-recommendations" tag next time (or edit it in now and clarify this is what the question is about) 3. I think it's better not to base the premise of a question on your particular reading of history. You'll do better imho to just say what you're looking for from the get-go. Otherwise everything just may get sidetracked by the historical discussion, which is not useful, and is often opinion-based.

On one level it looks like a very long winded way to ask "Who is working on unifying GR with QM?", am I wrong? Second remark, regarding "what happens when we DON'T fudge the geometry and fiddle the answers", it's worth mentioning that even in "vanilla" GR we very often do that, in that we obtain a lot of useful approximations by neglecting the influence of the moving body (e.g. "test particle") on the metric, for otherwise the problem becomes incredibly difficult and mostly only amenable to numerical methods, cf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem_in_general_relativity

@asimdahal So it's better to be explicit, I can't know what you know and what you don't know, or what you possibly are not understanding correctly. So please don't assume that I "know what you mean"... for example, I don't know what you mean when you mention "general invariance", invariance of what? Are you referring to the light postulate? (the 2nd principle here).

@asimdahal so many things you've written are incorrect. 1. You can detect your own motion if you're non inertial 2. Galileo had the same essential idea and the principle of relativity should be regarded as his conception. He realized the equivalence of inertial frames, cf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_ship 3. About what SR changed, to quote Anthony Zee "In the showdown between t' = t and c' = c, the former blinked, and lost", the relativity principle remained the same but various aspects of what constitutes inertial frames and their relations had to change to account for that.

@asimdahal what do you think that the principle of relativity says? Hint: apart from the transformations between inertial frames, Galilean and Einsteinian relativity are essentially the same, and correct.

@asimdahal and is that a physically feasible possibility? You might as well just say ether; knowing what we know about air it's unlikely there can exist a frame where it is always stationary!

"Filled with air" is not the same as "filled with stationary air relative to a specific frame".

You really should clarify what is your actual question vs. what are rhetorical questions in your text. Asking "Anyone want to add anything?" invites an open ended discussion so is not appropriate on this site.

@asimdahal voted to reopen

btw I think I agree with your conclusion: general covariance, taken on its own, doesn't really tell us that there should exist a special equivalence class of frames known as "inertial frames" in which the laws of physics take a simpler form. I think that's also where your question is similar to the one I linked to. But anyway if you just amend the bit regarding "invariance principle" to clarify what you mean, I'll vote to reopen (and to be clear again, I never voted to close).

@asimdahal it is better, but as I think I already wrote here, "the invariance principle" is ambiguous. If you want to refer to the principle of general covariance, it's better stated that way. Especially since you're suddenly shifting the discussion from SR to GR, and it's important to be clear on where that comes in

Usually it's not "one" but requires 3 votes, I didn't vote either way

Nope

@asimdahal see if that helps: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290851/…

@asimdahal I was referring to statements like you made here

but you're using it as if there's an equality there

"relative motion" $\neq$ "inertial motion". That's what I mean to be brief.

"Relative" quickly becomes an overloaded term if one isn't explicit.

... because relative motion can be accelerated or non-accelerated. That's the point of confusion.

@asimdahal it seems like your logic is that since it's called "The relativity principle" then when you write "acceleration is not relative" (you didn't write that, but that's an example) then automatically everyone understands you mean "accelerating is distinguishable from being inertial", but that's an incorrect assumption on your part, about how the language is used; the title "relativity principle" is just a shorthand like all titles. When we discuss the subject it's important to be clear.

"all motion is relative" is vacuously true.

you're using confusing language again.. by "relative" you mean to ask why you can detect that you're accelerating

god knows? :)

you can test it experimentally

why? It's a very physical thing to be able to detect acceleration

Yes general covariance tells you that ultimately the same laws of physics hold in both. But that doesn't mean the laws don't take on certain more complicated aspects in an accelerating frame, indeed they do

In a sort of negative way. It tells you that the laws take a more complicated form in an accelerating frame

you're using confusing language, very confusing. I'm not just trying to be annoying. But acceleration being detectable from within the frame has nothing to do with the fact that you're also accelerating relative to another frame

it's fine, so anyway I was asking to clarify what you mean by "all motion is relative", I really don't understand

see that makes sense, but if you read what you've written it looks like you meant the former

are you saying that Einstein often used "general covariance≠general principle of relativity" or often used "general principle of relativity" to mean "general covariance"? Are you assuming I can divine your intentions again? :)

as I said, citation needed, re what you said Einstein "often used"

If you don't want to back your statement with evidence, that's fine, "lol".

He published a lot of papers, "lol".

"all motion is relative" is an ambiguous statement. You mean to say all frames are equivalent? The answer is no

citation needed

Idk what you want to express exactly with that slogan

That's in a nutshell general covariance

That the same laws of physics hold in all frames is much broader

general covariance is a more sweeping statement

no

yes I don't see how it figures into this, but ok

where did I say that I don't understand what GR means?

what's the lol about?

@asimdahal So it's better to be explicit, I can't know what you know and what you don't know, or what you possibly are not understanding correctly. So please don't assume that I "know what you mean"... for example, I don't know what you mean when you mention "general invariance", invariance of what? Are you referring to the light postulate? (the 2nd principle here).