Pin It

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

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:50 PM, nick herbert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

Shimony's "passion at a distance" as I understand it is meant to define
a 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.

Seems to me PAD means Local Facts/Non-local Reality
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:

There are three levels of description


Quantum Theory is patently non-local cause it's formulated in configuration space not 3D space.


Z: I'm not sure it's quite that simple. If that were true, couldn't you also argue that classical statistical mechanics is patently non-local?

Yes, indeed, Nick's condition is necessary, but not sufficient. We need Q =/= 0 and even more.
Z: After all, if there is an interaction between classical particles then any probability distribution that takes account  of the interaction (i.e., registers statistical correlations between the positions and momenta of the particles) has  to be constructed in the entire configuration space of the system, since a correlated probability function cannot be factored into statistically independent parts each referring to a separate single particle configuration space.

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.

N: Quantum Fact is empirically local


N: What about Quantum Reality? Is it local? (obeys relativity) or non-local? (disobeys relativity)

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).

Z: If the non-local disturbance is truly physical, then we should be able to use it to transmit information. Evidently that is not the case according to what is known so far.

N: Bell proved that any deterministic model of reality must be non-local.


Z: Only in the Bell sense that there must be *some* kind of effect on the quantum state of the remote system that results from the local observer's measurement decisions.  But this could still turn out to be an artifact of the manner in which the quantum state of a compound system is defined; logically it doesn't necessarily follow that we are dealing with an objective physical influence propagating instantaneously through space.

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.

N: Bell proved that any probabilistic model of reality must be non-local.


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.


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.

Z: Why not? Because Einstein proved that there is no Poincare-Lorentz ether? Even Einstein himself gave that up! There is an ether and now we have condensate models, world crystal models, all kinds of models -- all perfectly consistent with the minimal Lorentz-Poincare ether model. According to contemporary physics the vacuum is an objective physical system. There is a "there" there.


N: (Altho a lot of theorists wasted their time constructing ether models of matter which contracted in motion) Today we regard time and space transformations as basic properties of spacetime NOT NEEDING AN EXPLANATION IN TERMS OF SOME DEEPER REALITY such as the ether.

Z: There is nothing in Minkowski's model that contradicts the idea that moving clocks objectively slow down. That's the whole point of the clock problem. To the contrary, Minkowski's model strongly supports the idea that clocks in inertial motion objectively slow down in a frame-invariant manner. In a generally covariant formulation of Minkowski's model, the choice of coordinates is completely arbitrary -- you get  the same invariant proper time intervals even is you use Galilean transformations.

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]–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 <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> 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.


However Tipler's argument does not prove the existence of Multiverse,
anymore than observations on light prove existence of the luminiferous ether.


Begin forwarded message: