Text Size


Tag » Ruth Elinor Kastner
On Jun 20, 2013, at 1:10 AM, Basil Hiley wrote:
On 19 Jun 2013, at 22:52, Ruth Kastner wrote:
OK, not sure what the 'yes' was in response to, but I should perhaps note that you probably need to choose between the Bohmian theory or the transactional picture, because they are mutually exclusive. There are no 'beables' in TI. But there is a clear solution to the measurement problem and no discontinuity between the relativistic and non-relativistic domains as there are in the Bohmian theory (which has to abandon particles as beables at the relativistic level).
This last statement is not correct. Bohmian theory can now be applied to the Dirac particle. You do not have to abandon the particle for Fermions at the relativistic level. There is a natural progression from Schrödinger → Pauli → Dirac. See Hiley and Callaghan, Clifford Algebras and the Dirac-Bohm Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi Equation. {em Foundations of Physics}, {f 42} (2012) 192-208. More details will be found in arXiv: 1011.4031 and arXiv: 1011.4033.
Like · · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 21, 2013, at 3:54 AM, Basil Hiley <b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk> wrote:


    My work on the ideas that Bohm and I summarised in "The Undivided Universe" have moved on considerably over the last decade. But even in our book, we were suggesting that the particle could have a complex and subtle structure (UU p. 37) which could be represented as a point-like object only above the level of say 10^-8 cm. This comment, taken together with point 2 in our list of key points on p. 29 implies that we are not dealing with 'small billiard balls'. There could be an interesting and subtle structure that we have not explored-indeed we can't explore with the formalism in common use, i.e. the wave function and the Schrödinger equation. This is my reason for exploring a very different approach based on a process philosophy (See my paper arXiv: 1211.2098).

    In the case of the electron, we made a partial attempt to discuss the Dirac particle in our book (UU chapter 12). The presentation there (section12.2) only scratched the surface since we had no place for the quantum potential. However we showed in arXiv: 1011.4033 that if we explored the role of the Clifford algebra more throughly, we could provide a more detailed picture which included a quantum potential. We could then provide a relativistic version of what I call the Bohm model or, more recently, Bohmian non-commuting dynamics to distinguish it from a number of other variants of the model.

    In our approach all fermions could then be treated by one formalism which in the classical limit produced our 'rock-like' point classical particles. Bosons had to be treated differently, after all we do not have a 'rock-like' classical limit of a photon. Rather we have a coherent field. Massive bosons have to be treated in a differently way, but I won't go into that here.

    reference? I have been struggling with that in my dreams.

    We noted the difference between bosons and fermions in the UU and treated bosons as excited states of a field. In this case it was the field that became the beable and it was the field that was organised by what we called a 'super quantum potential'. In this picture the energy of say an emitted photon spread into the total field and did not exist as a localised entity. Yes, a rather different view from that usually accepted, but after all that was the way Planck himself pictured the situation. John Bell immediately asked, "What about the photon?" so we put an extra section in the UU (sec. 11.7). The photon concept arises because the level structure of the atom. It is the non-locality and non-linearity of the super quantum potential that sweeps the right amount of energy out of the field to excite the atom.

    Since the photon is no longer to be thought of as a particle, merely an excitation of the field, there is no difficulty with the coherent state. It is simply the state of the field whose energy does not consist of a definite number of a given hν. A high energy coherent field is the classical limit of the field, so there is no problem there either.

    All of this is discussed in detail in "The Undivided Universe".

    Hope this clarifies our take on these questions.

  • Jack Sarfatti The Brown-Wallace is an interesting paper, but I do not agree with its conclusions. Of course, this is exactly what you would expect me to say! What is needed is a careful response which I don't have time to go into here, so let me be brief. The sentence that rang alarm bells in their paper was "Our concern rather is with the fact that for Bohm it is the entered wave packet that determines the outcome; the role of the hidden variable, or apparatus corpuscle, is merely to pick or select from amongst all the other packets in the configuration space associated with the final state of the joint object-apparatus system." (See top of p. 5 of arXiv:quant-ph/0403094v1). As soon as I saw that sentence, I knew the conclusion they were going to reach. It gives the impression that it is the wave packet that is the essential real feature of the description and there need be nothing else. For us the 'wave packet' was merely short hand which was meant to signify the quantum potential that would be required to describe the subsequent behaviour of the particle. For us it was the quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation that was THE dynamical equation. The Schrödinger equation was merely an part of an algorithm for calculating the probable outcomes of a given experimental arrangement. ( Yes it's Bohr!) But for us THERE IS an underlying dynamics which is a generalisation of the classical dynamics. Indeed my recent paper (arXiv 1211.2098) shows exactly how the classical HJ equation emerges from the richer quantum dynamics. The term 'wave packet' was merely short hand. There is no wave! This is why we introduced the notion of active information which is universally ignored.

    On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:21 AM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

    Thank you Basil, but what about other particles? E.g. photons and quanta of other fields. -RK

    On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Ruth Kastner wrote:

    Well my main concern re photons is coherent states where there isn't a definite number of quanta. Perhaps this has
    been addressed in the Bohmian picture -- if so I'd be happy to see a reference. However I still think that TI provides
    a better account of measurement since it gives an exact physical basis for the Born Rule rather than a statistical one,
    and also the critique of Brown and Wallace that I mentioned earlier is a significant challenge for Bohmian approach. What
    B & W point out is that it is not at all clear that the presence of a particle in one 'channel' of a WF serves as an effective reason for collapse of the WF.


    From: adastra1@me.com
    Subject: Re: Reality of possibility
    Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:13:10 -0700
    To: rekastner

    Never a problem for boson fields just look at undivided universe book now online

    Sent from my iPhone

    Subject: Re: Reality of possibility
    From: b.hiley
    Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:10:39 +0100
    CC: adastra1@me.com

    On 19 Jun 2013, at 22:52, Ruth Kastner wrote:

    OK, not sure what the 'yes' was in response to, but I should perhaps note that you probably need to choose between the Bohmian theory or the transactional picture, because they are mutually exclusive. There are no 'beables' in TI. But there is a clear solution to the measurement problem and no discontinuity between the relativistic and non-relativistic domains as there are in the Bohmian theory (which has to abandon particles as beables at the relativistic level).

    Basil: This last statement is not correct. Bohmian theory can now be applied to the Dirac particle. You do not have to abandon the particle for Fermions at the relativistic level. There is a natural progression from Schrödinger → Pauli → Dirac. See Hiley and Callaghan, Clifford Algebras and the Dirac-Bohm Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi Equation. {em Foundations of Physics}, {f 42} (2012) 192-208. More details will be found in arXiv: 1011.4031 and arXiv: 1011.4033.



    > Subject: Reality of possibility
    > From: adastra1@me.com
    > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:14:42 -0700
    > To: rekastne
    > Yes
    > That's what i mean when I say that Bohm's Q is physically real.
    > Sent from my iPhone

  2. See Your 2012 Year in Review
    Look back at your 20 biggest moments from the past year.
  3. Activity
    Jack is now friends with Josh Everett and 18 other people.
    · Comment
  4. Discussion with Ruth Elinor Kastner Physicist at University of Maryland and Menas Kafatos, Dean of School of Physical Science, Chapman University & MIT Physics Professor's book on me and my associates that got 2012 physics book of the year award. My name appears ~ 600 times in the Hippies Saved Physics book reviewed in NY TIMES, WALL STREET JOURNAL, NATURE, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, PHYSICS TODAY, AMERICAN SCIENTIST ...
    Like · · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti They do not require, it i.e. retrocausality is not necessary, it is sufficient. Invoking retrocausality does not contradict any orthodox quantum experiments. Retrocausality is a true Godel undecidable proposition within the too limited rules of the orthodox quantum theory game.
    • Destiny Matters Congratulations!!!
    • Gareth Lee Meredith And not to mention, Wheeler delayed choice experiment is experimental evidence for retrocausality.
    • Jack Sarfatti On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

      Jack, you'll need to say which argument you're talking about. If it's the claim in the abstract from the arxiv preprint I mentioned (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6224), yes, all the results
      are nic
      ely predicted by ordinary qm and do not require 2-state formalism as 'the only 'reasonable resolution' as claimed by Aharonov et al in that abstract. In fact the alleged 'contradictions' that they claim need 'resolution' are spurious; under a standard qm analysis, which I've already provided, there are no special problems or contradictions that need 'resolving' by recourse to a different formulation.

      Jack: As I said. Yakir & Co only have an argument of sufficiency of the retrocausal interpretation in which psi* is a post-selected advanced destiny influence and psi is the pre-selected retarded history influence colliding as it were in the intermediate weak measurement. Since orthodox quantum theory is degenerate in this regard, i.e. admits a meta-Hilbert space of Godel undecidable Bohmian "informal languages" or interpretations, e.g.

      1) Copenhagen epistemological

      2) Bohm ontological

      3) Parallel Worlds (Tegmark Level 3)

      4) Cramer Transactional

      5) London-Wigner consciousness reduction --> Penrose Orch OR


      Only strong signal nonlocality in Antony Valentini's sense can settle the issue.

      Libet --> Radin --> Bierman --> Bem

      I claim is clear evidence for the breakdown of orthodox quantum theory in living matter.

      Quantum theory is only limiting case of a more general post-quantum theory as special relativity was for general relativity.

      Ruth: So they are taking something that is perfectly sensible under standard qm and making it seem strange and obscure to create an apparent need for their formulation. There are no special problems with these experimental phenomena under a standard qm analysis. It all boils down to steering of quantum systems (by way of weak measurements) into tilted error states more likely to give certain 'strong' outcomes. So of course the strong outcomes are more likely to have come from the weakly measured states which lean toward those outcomes. It's just the shoe factory analogy: If Alice is known to have a high rate of defective shoe production on Saturdays (because she partied too hard the night before), if Bob gets a Saturday shipment, he's going to find that more of those shoes are defective. That doesn't indicate that Bob's identification of a particular defective shoe forces that shoe to retroactively have been (probably) made on a Saturday the week before. It just means that it's more likely to have been made on a Saturday. This is all ordinary statistical inference,
      no different conceptually from my inferring that in the past you interacted with your computer because I got an email from you. My getting that email did not retroactively influence you to have done something in the past.

      Neither do any of the fancy experiments referred to recently in the popular press require a 'back from the future' explanation.

      Jack: They do not require, it i.e. retrocausality is not necessary, it is sufficient. Invoking retrocausality does not contradict any orthodox quantum experiments. Retrocausality is a true Godel undecidable proposition within the too limited rules of the orthodox quantum theory game.

      Ruth: Rather than the 'back from the future' explanation being more 'elegant' or 'simpler' as 2-state vector proponents claim, it is tendentious and misleading since it's based on taking results perfectly consistent with standard qm and trying to argue that they require something beyond standard qm. They don't. Remember the shoe factory.

      Now if someone gets reliable statistically significant deviation from the Born Rule, that's a completely different matter: in that case, both standard qm and the 2-state formulation fail.

      Jack: I think the history-destiny picture naturally generalizes to include signal nonlocality - that's what John Cramer claims in his back from the future experiment and in Chapter 16 of Frontiers of Propulsion Science.

    • Jack Sarfatti From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
      Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 1:16 AM
      To: Kafatos, Menas

      That's what I have been saying. However Ruth seems to think her argument refutes Yakir's It doesn't Difference in logic between a sufficient explanation and a
      ...See More
      Physicists of the group of Prof. Anton Zeilinger at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), the University of Vienna, and the Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ) have, for the first time, demonstrated in an experiment that the decision whether two particl...
Back From The Future Post-Quantum Theory
  • Laurel Weiner likes this.
  • Jack Sarfatti I think Yakir only claims that real retrocausality is a sufficient consistent interpretation of orthodox quantum theory, but not a necessary condition. My claim, consistent with Antony Valentini's papers, is that the experimental presponse data from Libet -> Radin -> Bierman -> Bem is a violation of orthodox quantum theory's no-entanglement signaling "theorems". Therefore, that proves with a high degree of Baysean confidence in my opinion, that real retrocausality is a fact of nature and quantum theorists need to expand their boundaries if they are to remain intellectually honest.

    On Dec 20, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

    Ok Jack -- the only thing I question is holding up these experiments in the popular press as evidence of retrocausality -- they aren't.

    From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
    Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:25 PM
    To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

    Subject: Re: I missed this. You?

    Sent from my iPad

    On Dec 20, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

    The presponse data is a separate issue from what's going on in the experiments referred to by CL.


    The retrocausal phenomenon is moot in orthodox qm
    Yakir agrees with that
    The presponse data is a violation of it
    So orthodox qm is not interesting for retrocausality
    What Yakir shows is that there is no contradiction
    It's like lifting a degeneracy in the meta Hilbert space of parallel qm interpretations

    I don't rule out that humans might be able to get around QM statistics and that there may be other physics out there, but my point is just that
    _these experiments do not contain that new physics_. These experiments are perfectly consistent with standard QM without explicit retrocausality.
    Therefore, of course they are also consistent with TI as an interpretation of standard QM. Yes in TI there are advanced states but these are sub-empirical; i.e.
    their existence cannot be revealed/confirmed by experiment- -- at least not by these experiments.

    On the other hand, Valentini's work predicts deviations from standard QM (i.e. Born Rule).

    That's my point.

    Only if there is deviation from the Born Rule is there truly
    new quantum physics in this sense. In terms of the Transactional Interpretation, deviation from the Born Rule would mean that there might be some way to directly influence _which_ transaction is actualized from a set of possible ones.

    Cramer say that in ch 16
    I prove it using entangled Glauber states

    From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
    Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:59 PM
    To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

    Subject: Re: I missed this. You?

    Right I still have not had time to respond properly in depth
    But your critique noted
    Crucial test is presponse evidence u ignore
    Also Russ Targ's CIA RV SRI report
    John Cramer disagrees w you in ch 16 of exotic propulsion book
    I mean your not addressing issue that qm is limit of more general theory with entanglement signaling.

    Sent from my iPad

    On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

    I've seen a discussion elsewhere about these kinds of experiments. As soon as you detect a single particle (say Alice's), a one-particle Alice state is necessarily detected
    and actualized on Alice's side, even if nobody 'looked' at it (i.e. even if there is still epistemic uncertainty about what state was actualized) and that
    collapses the pair (both Alice's and Bob's particles) in that particular run into a particular state . Then the subsequent measurements you perform on Bob's particle
    will reflect the statistics of the state that was created via the detection of Alice's particle.

    In the experiments involving a superposition of the interferometer mirror in a 'which-slit' and 'both slits' configuration, detection of Alice's particle projects that combined system of Alice + Bob + IFM mirror into a particular state, and then detection of the mirror in a particular state further projects Bob's particle into a particular state corresponding to the mirror's detection, so of course Bob's particle is later detected with statistics reflecting those earlier detections.

    No explicit retrocausality is necessarily present in these kinds of experiments. The claims are usually overstated based on a conflation of any given individual run with the statistical analysis of sets of runs.

    From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
    Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
    To: Levit, Creon (ARC-P)

    Subject: Re: I missed this. You?

    I know about this and I think kim already has it posted on Stardrive

    Sent from my iPad

    On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:26 AM, "Levit, Creon (ARC-P)" wrote:

    Physicists of the group of Prof. Anton Zeilinger at the Institute for Quantum Op...See More

It will take me time to carefully read & ponder all this. Meantime I hope others do as well. Of course, signal nonlocality in Valentini's sense settles the issue of whether retrocausation is not only real, but is controllable of practical use as suggested also in the presponse brain-mind experiments and the CIA SRI RV experiments. That goes beyond the domain of validity that even Yakir has considered. I agree with Yakir's logic below that I personally find impeccable. The new physics of course is in the Popper falsification of his last sentence: Causal loops are avoided by this anticipation remaining encrypted until the final outcomes enable to decipher it.
Now this is the point that many still don't get. With Tony Valentini's "signal nonlocality" there are Novikov causal loops in which Bob's future strong measurement final outcome is decrypted by Alice BEFORE Bob even knows what choice he will make.

This is proved by CIA/DIA experiments (assuming of course they are correct)

Harold E. Puthoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harold E. Puthoff (born June 20, 1936) is an American physicist who, earlier in his ... H. E. Puthoff, CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute, ...
Background - Ventures in Austin - Scientology - EarthTech
Remote viewing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1972, Puthoff tested remote viewer Ingo Swann at SRI, and the experiment led to a visit from two employees of the CIA's Directorate of Science and ...
History - Scientific studies and claims - Recent research
You've visited this page 3 times. Last visit: 12/4/12
CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute
CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute. by H. E. Puthoff, Ph. D. Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin 4030 Braker Lane W., #300. Austin ...
You've visited this page 3 times. Last visit: 12/5/12
On Dec 5, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

This recent preprint from Aharonov et al claim that the "only reasonable" way to understand these is by invoking retrocausality and make the unsupported claim that the weak outcomes 'anticipate the experimenter's future choice'. This is the paper I analyze in the previous drafts I attached:

"Can a Future Choice Affect a Past Measurement's Outcome?
Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Doron Grossman, Avshalom C. Elitzur
(Submitted on 27 Jun 2012 (v1), last revised 18 Sep 2012 (this version, v5))

An EPR experiment is studied where each particle undergoes a few weak measurements of different spin-orientations, whose outcomes are individually recorded. Then the particle undergoes a strong measurement along a spin orientation freely chosen at the last moment. Bell-inequality violation is expected between the two strong measurements. At the same time, agreement is expected between all same-spin measurements, whether weak or strong. A contradiction thereby ensues: i) A weak measurement cannot determine the outcome of a successive strong one; ii) Bell's theorem forbids spin values to exist prior to the final choice of the spin-orientation to be measured; and iii) Indeed no disentanglement is inflicted by the weak measurements; yet iv) The weak measurements' outcome agrees with those of the strong ones. The only reasonable resolution seems to be that of the Two-State-Vector Formalism, namely that the weak measurement's outcomes anticipate the experimenter's future choice, even before the experimenter themselves knows what their choice is going to be. Causal loops are avoided by this anticipation remaining encrypted until the final outcomes enable to decipher it. "  > end quote from Aharonov etal

From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:28 PM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Paul Werbos on back from the future physics (Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar-Aharonov-Cramer …)

Yakir does say that his results can be understood in the orthodox way. However, different ways of looking at the problem are asymmetric in terms of extending the orthodox theory to a larger domain of validity as special relativity was extended to general relativity where special relativity is only true locally but not globally in the presence of real (tensor curvature) gravity fields.

Similarly, Yakir's "Wheeler-Feynman" approach, Cramer's approach, Bohm's approach all lend themselves naturally to entanglement signal nonlocality violating orthodox quantum theory extensions of the the latter in natural ways.

This is in contrast to, for example, Asher Peres's interpretation in which such an extension is not even thinkable.

On Dec 5, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastnerwrote:

Attached is my quantitative analysis of allegedly wondrous experiments allegedly requiring retrocausation and/or claiming to show loophole in Bell's thm.  My analysis (attached) shows that no retrocausation is necessary and there is no such loophole in Bell's thm. The experiments have no new physics and are all straightforwardly accounted for by standard QM.

From: JACK SARFATTI [adastra1@me.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:37 PM
To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics

Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Paul Werbos on back from the future physics (Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar-Aharonov-Cramer …)

good question Z

I think Ruth is wrong, but it will take me time to properly refute her argument

On Dec 5, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Then what do they show?

On 12/5/2012 12:27 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

They show nothing of the sort. This is all hype.

From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net<mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net>]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:25 PM
To: Exotic Physics
Subject: Paul Werbos on back from the future physics (Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar-Aharonov-Cramer …)

*   Home<http://discovermagazine.com/><http://discovermagazine.com/>
*   »
*   April<http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr><http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr>
*   »
*   Back From the Future

Back From the Future
A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?

On Dec 5, 2012, at 5:17 AM, Paul Werbos <paul.werbos@verizon.net<mailto:paul.werbos@verizon.net><mailto:paul.werbos@verizon.net><mailto:paul.werbos@verizon.net>> wrote:

The idea that causality might go backwards in time is certainly older than any of us.

Agreed. But that should not be confounded with the much stronger condition spelled out in Antony Valentini's paper here, which is what I am talking about.
Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini<http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Valentini_A/0/1/0/all/0/1><http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Valentini_A/0/1/0/all/0/1>
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049v1><http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049v1>), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
Comments:       10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
Subjects:       Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference:      Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
DOI:    10.1007/s12043-002-0117-1<http://arxiv.org/ct?url=http://dx.doi.org/10%2E1007/s12043-002-0117-1&v=35ec265c><http://arxiv.org/ct?url=http://dx.doi.org/10%2E1007/s12043-002-0117-1&v=35ec265c>
Report number:  Imperial/TP/1-02/15
Cite as:        arXiv:quant-ph/0203049<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049><http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049>

PW: Certainly we all know about HG Wells time machine, and about the concept of prophecy
of the future.

JS Agreed.

PW: And certainly Einstein himself was quite blunt about the claim that time is just
another dimension, and should not be treated otherwise. There is a sense in which
one might call special relativity itself a species of backwards-time physics (BTP).
Indeed, by playing with the definition of BTP (as many played with the definition of
BP and even tried to play with BTT), one could justify all kinds of statements about the history.


PW: For the backwards time interpretation of quantum mechanics, I had a special advantage.
I went to graduate school with one of the authors of the CHSH theorem and one
of the first two CHSH experiment, which is popularly called "Bell's Theorem."
(Though JS Bell himself uses the proper term CHSH.) It would be hard for anyone to
publish a paper explaining the paradoxical nature of quantum mechanics, and the CHSH
experiment, before the experiment came out and the theorem was widely disseminated.
Still, Von Neumann did look into these issues, and he did conclude that our conventional assumptions about "causality"
seem to be the basic problem in carrying through Einstein's program. (I cite the source in the IJTP paper.)

But that is just a starting point. If people get too deep into personality issues, the logical starting point will be lost,
and likewise all that it could lead to.


PW: The IJTP paper tries to get us back to empirical reality in this kind of issue. For example, the discussion
of Bell's Theorem experiments with imperfect polarizers could itself get somebody a Nobel Prize, if properly followed up on
by someone motivated to aim for a Nobel Prize. (I have too many other goals on my plate to
give that one any serious attention.) Most people try to forget the inconvenient fact that the first Bell's Theorem
experiment contradicted BOTH "local causal hidden variable theory" AND quantum mechanics in its present form.
The simple algebra in the IJTP paper basically offers a way to explain that, and nail it down.

JS: I need to study your argument as well as Ruth Kastner's rejection of Yakir Aharonov's back from the future History-Destiny double state vector interpretation.

PW: As for Aharonov... well, I do hope he can help with the cultural revolution we need to make.
Help and allies are badly needed, to get this beyond what I put into my own notebooks, and to get the experiments we need
as well. I think he has grown a lot in recent years, and he has done a great thing to try to move the mai nstream
out of its lethargy by epsilon... but...

.. In 2000, when I visited Brian Josephson in Cambridge, I found a very recent book from Cambridge University Press edited by Savitt,
with the current establishment work on "the arrow of time." Of the papers there, only the one by Huw Price really fit
the modern vision of BTP as **I** define it. Aharonov's paper had WORDS in the spirit of BTP, but the
mathematical formalism he presented simply is not consistent with BTP. More recently, he has sometimes sounded closer to
what I previously wrote, in his discussion of "preselection" -- but even so he often insists that it is just a matter of interpretation, that it's still the same theory of physics. How can we get different predictions and different technology if it's just a matter of interpretation and not a different theory?

JS: That's what Valentini's papers deal with and extension of quantum theory to include signal nonlocality "passion at a distance" violating orthodox quantum theory that is simply a limiting case of the more general "post-quantum theory". Weinberg and Stapp already published such models. Weinberg's is incomplete neglecting spontaneous symmetry breakdown in ground states of complex systems. Also my idea

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html - two slides in Lecture 8 on my back-action theory that implies Valentini's signal nonlocality


And Brian Josephsons (& Pallikari) "Biological Utilization of Nonlocality"


PW: I had a good personal relation for years with Karl Pribram, until other people in our lives and the general pressure of time pulled us in different directions. I still remember one time when he looked very perplexed and said: "<http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/================PW:IhadagoodpersonalrelationforyearswithKarlPribram,untilotherpeopleinourlivesandthegeneralpressureoftimepulledusindifferentdirections.Istillrememberonetimewhenhelookedveryperplexedandsaid:>Paul, I have already been marginalized to a huge extent
by being too far out in left field for most of the establishment to accept. But you are way the hell to the left of ME... and also way to
the right at the same time. Neither group, the left nor the right, will be able to accept that." So... with technology and the mind,
I see real-world possibilities rather beyond what those other folks you cite do. But with what we know in physics today..
I see more promise for now in trying to simplify and unify what physics knows
than in exercising creative imagination in a way which is not so grounded in experience and experiment (as the superstring people do,
making the medieval epicycle guys look mild by comparison, mor elike angels on the head of a pin).

Concretely, what I see right now is the possibility that Einstein's original goals are still doable. In the IJTP paper, I spoke
of a many world BTP AND an Einsteinian BTP. By now, I see more concretely how to fulfill that theoretical goal,
with a few specific Lagrangians for a classical PDE, which generates quantum stuff as an emergent statistical outcome,
so long as one does the statistics correctly WITHOUT imposing the exogenous assumption of classical time-forward statistics.
Yea even a neoclassical version of the standard model of physics, without a need for renormalization...

But it's a long story, and today I must move on to read 180 new proposals to NSF...
That time of year...

Best of luck,



<Weak measurement correlations with strong measurements.docx><specific calculation in reply to EC and AE.docx>

ExoticPhysics mailing list


Only signal nonlocality violating orthodox QM will resolve this.
The data from Libet -> Radin -> Bierman -> Bem
& Puthoff & Targ (SRI)
are evidence for signal nonlocality entanglement signaling (e.g. Antony Valentini's papers) as the essential signature of consciousness in my opinion. Nano-tech devices emulating microtubules et-al will result in a conscious AI robot in my opinion.

Henry Stapp argued that

1) statistical predictions of orthodox QM( i.e. Born probability interpretation aka sub-quantal HV thermal equilibrium as in A. Valentini's papers)

2) counter-factual definiteness

3) locality

are mutually incompatible.

If Henry is correct, then you can have 3) and 1) by violating 2).

Indeed that is Many-Worlds in sense of Everett. It is what Joy Christian, David Deutsch and Murray Gell-Mann seem to believe.

In contrast the ABL paper assumes 1) & 2) and violates 3) which is the dominant view and is also my own.

Only strong entanglement signaling violating current no-go theorems will settle this once and for all.

I claim that the brain data cited above is evidence for the latter.