You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog Blog (Full Text Display) Zielinski's comments on Nick's position.

On Aug 22, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:50 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:*Shimony's "passion at a distance" as I understand it is meant to definea weaker form of non-locality than action-at-a-distance.*

Yes, it reconciles special relativity's light cone barrier with orthodox quantum theory, i.e. signal locality - built into the unitary evolution + Born probability interpretation.

Just that.

I need more detail there. One means by "non-local reality" the argument by John S. Bell that quantum entanglement in some instances violated the light cone barrier - this can be seen in hindsight but not, so to speak in real time. The local decoding is always random noise without any message signal until light cone limited key arrives to allow the decoding of the nonlocally stored message - this is passion at a distance signal locality. This would obviously not allow remote viewing, but worse, it does not allow our ordinary consciousness in my opinion, therefore quantum theory fails in living matter - the realm of non-equilibrium of the matter hidden variables that feel the quantum potential Q.

On Aug 22, 2010, at 6:38 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Aug 22, 2010, at 5:58 PM, nick herbert wrote:

Theory

Fact

Reality

Agreed

Agreed

Yes, indeed, Nick's condition is necessary, but not sufficient. We need Q =/= 0 and even more.

Right, but the Bellians will argue that the classical stat mechanical regime will always obey the Bell-type locality statistical constraints.

Z: In addition such an interaction imprints non-zero correlations on the multi-particle distribution which persist after the interaction ceases to operate. Then when the actual positions of the particles are empirically determined the correlated distribution "collapses", reflecting a mere change in our subjective state of knowledge of the states of

the particles. This of course cancels the correlation information contained in the n-particle distribution. What is difficult about the quantum case (it seems to me) is that we cannot easily separate the objective and subjective components of the statistical information contained in a correlated n-particle wave function. May I suggest that this is the true EPR conundrum.

Agreed

Your error here may be that nonlocality means disobey's relativity - Shimony's "passion at a distance" shows that is not the case. There is the third alternative of David Finkelstein.

However, I think "passion at a distance" is only a limit like the limit of zero curvature reducing 1916 GR's LIFs to 1905 SR's GIFs, e.g. limit of sub-quantal thermal equilibrium for the real particle hidden variables piloted by the nonlocal quantum potential Q.

Note that in ordinary quantum theory the hidden variables are the localized real particles on local classical trajectories. All the weirdness is in the qubit quantum potential. "Beables" have garbled this clear distinction it seems to me. In field theory the hidden variables are the classical field configurations on either spacelike or lightlike hypersurfaces, e.g. the Penrose-Rindler null tetrads for the latter in the case of the gravitational field (curvature and maybe torsion).

OK

It does in the Bohm ontology, but you are correct that the Bohm ontology is not testable until we achieve signal nonlocality that violates quantum theory in the same way that general relativity globally violates special relativity i.e. the smaller theory is a limiting case of the larger theory when some parameter vanishes.

OK

*Z: In Bell's definition of "non-local", which is not the same as the EPR definition, which is not as agnostic as Bell's. **N: But Bell's theorem doesn't apply to the Multiverse model of reality.*

Agreed.*N: Multiverse is local and reproduces (so tis said) the Quantum Facts.*

I don't understand "Multiverse is local." How is that falsified? I agree that quantum measurements must be local. I mean localized detectors, not Yakir Aharonov's more abstract idea of nonlocal measurements needing several localized detectors or the same detector at different times along its world line.*N: This is Tipler's point. If Reality is local, then the Multiverse is where we REALLY LIVE.**Z: Depends on what you mean by "local". *

Yes. You and Tipler have lost me. Also there are at least three levels of multiverse.*Z: Me too. **N: But the Multiverse is not the only choice.Nobody today looks for a mechanism (Reality) behind the Lorenz Contraction.*

I think Zielinski and Puthoff do - also Bell himself seems to prefer it in "How to teach relativity" in his Unspeakable book.

Yes.

Not quite, the Galilean transformation are local - not global, they are different at different events.*Z: This whole "Einstein proved that there is no ether" slogan is a canard. *

I'm not so sure of that because objective changes suggest inhomogeneous stress-strains in the material objects relative to the global absolute rest frame of the ether and I don't think that will agree with observation, it would mean that the stress-strain configurations in our bodies, for example, would depend on which force-free geodesic we were on above and beyond the Weyl and Ricci curvature tensor effects. That the real rate of a clock should depend on its unaccelerated motion seems implausible. In principle there should be some local stress-strain pattern dependent on powers of (v/c) that would allow an intrinsic local proper time measurement where v is the speed relative to the absolute global frame in which say Q acts instantaneously. In that regard, the only way to save Bohm's Q relativistically is using the Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar-Costa-de-Beauregard-Cramer advanced-retarded time loop transactions.

We do have the generally covariant and locally special relativistic aether of virtual bosons and closed virtual fermion loops. Indeed, the former is the dark energy and the latter is the dark matter in my opinion.*Z: Meaning Lorentz invariant? *

Meaning locally Lorentz group O(1,3) invariant (excluding accelerating frames) and locally T4(x) invariant (AKA local frame transformations including accelerating frames) - all frames are local i.e. LIF or LNIF and are locally coincident for the relevant invariance symmetry groups. This is most easily implemented by using the tetrad/spin-connection formalism on the local equations of matter fields in special relativity e.g. worked out in detail in Ch 2 of Rovelli's text Quantum Gravity.*N: Likewise we could simply accept the ULTRA-STRONG QUANTUM CORRELATIONS AS A BASIC FEATURE OF NATURE not
to be explained by some deeper structure (Reality). This is close to what Bohr was saying, I believe. No need to invoke the Multiverse.
Is Reality Local? The question makes no sense in this formulation.*

But Bohr's view is seriously inadequate in my opinion.*Z: Bohr was forced to retreat after the EPR paper was published. **N: There are problems with this "pragmatic approach" which do not exist in the relativistic/ether case but the possibility of taking this
"Bohrian" stance is why I have labeled Tipler's nice little paper a "proof" rather than a proof.*

I have not read Tipler's paper as yet as carefully as you have and your point may be correct. I don't know.*Z: I think he is injecting the EPR definition of "local" into Bell's argument.*

On Aug 22, 2010, at 5:34 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Aug 22, 2010, at 3:47 PM, nick herbert wrote:

If Relativity holds at the level of Reality

that FTL potentials of the Bohm variety are Kaput.

I don't understand you, take the Relativistic Klein Gordon equation for 2 interacting particles A & B

the quantum potential Q(A,B) comes out of the Hamilton-Jacobi piece of the Klein-Gordon equation.

Entanglement means Q(A,B) =/= Q(A) + Q(B)

or better yet the Bethe-Salpeter equation.

The Bethe–Salpeter equation[1], named after Hans Bethe and Edwin Salpeter, describes the bound states of a two-body (particles) quantum field theoretical system in a relativistically covariant formalism. The equation was actually first published in 1950 at the end of a paper by Yoichiro Nambu, but without derivation.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethe–Salpeter_equation

The Bohm ontology needs to be formulated in this case. I don't see why this is not possible, probably someone did it already?

On Aug 22, 2010, at 3:16 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Aug 22, 2010, at 2:53 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

I can see why you might not like this.

If Relativity is correct at the level of Reality

this blows Bohm out of the water.

How?

However Tipler's argument does not prove the existence of Multiverse,

anymore than observations on light prove existence
of the luminiferous ether.

Ok

Begin forwarded message:

http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2010/08/quantum-immortality.html