Fred writes:*Let me add a few more comments of my own here. I believe that until the ontology/epistemology issue is fully resolved (although readers may believe it already resolved after reading this review), we still have the “measurement problem” that stimulated such considerations as given by PBR, Bell, Bohm, and many others. We also still have the nonlocality issue to deal with. Perhaps PBR can resolve this issue. **Ontologically speaking, what does it mean to have nonlocal influences? What does it mean to have an observer effect (collapse of the QWF)? Does the PBR solution resolve these problems? *

*Consider the effect of observation on an ontic QWF. Does a human being alter the QWF simply by making an observation? If the QWF is ontic then we have a real observer effect—observation (including nonlocal) indeed alters the QWF and therefore reality. That would mean that mind is inextricably tied into matter; they are truly entangled and such a finding could lead to breaking discoveries in the study of consciousness. On the other hand, if the QWF proves to be epistemic in violation of the Born probability rule, observation is simply the usage of the Bayesian approach to probabilities wherein new information simply changes what we know, but leaves reality unscathed—at least what we mean by ontic reality. I hope that PBR and others continue this line of research. The next frontier may indeed not be space but will be the mind.*

The PBR argument seems to be that overlapping HV probability distributions for states |alpha> and |beta> even if they are non-orthogonal like Glauber states will violate the Born Probability Rule.

If a specification of a HV uniquely determines a QWF, then the QWF is ontic. If, on the other hand, specification of a HV does not uniquely determine a QWF, the QWF is said to be epistemic.

The alleged PBR argument then seems to say that Bohr’s epistemic QWFs with Fig 2 conjoint HV probability distributions for |alpha> & |beta> violate the Born probability rule. Therefore, the QWFs of orthodox quantum theory must be ontic obeying Fig 1 for |alpha> & |beta>.

On the other hand, we know that Bohm’s ontic theory has Born’s probability rule only as the thermodynamic limit of HV’s as in e.g.
Subquantum Information and Computation

arxiv.org › quant-ph

by A Valentini - 2002 - Cited by 38 - Related articles

arXiv.org > quant-ph > arXiv:quant-ph/0203049. Search or Article-id ... Authors: Antony Valentini. (Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this ...

You've visited this page many times. Last visit: 7/5/12

Subquantum Information and Computation

Antony Valentini

(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), 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).*

Beyond the Quantum

arxiv.org › quant-ph

by A Valentini - 2010 - Cited by 2 - Related articles

arXiv.org > quant-ph > arXiv:1001.2758. Search or Article-id. (Help | Advanced search). All papers ... Authors: Antony Valentini. (Submitted on 15 Jan 2010) ...

Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay ...

arxiv.org › quant-ph

by G Bacciagaluppi - 2006 - Cited by 14 - Related articles

Sep 24, 2006 – arXiv.org > quant-ph > arXiv:quant-ph/0609184. Search or Article-id ...Authors: Guido Bacciagaluppi, Antony Valentini. (Submitted on 24 Sep ...

And that we need to violate the Born probability rule for ontic QWFs to get stand-alone entanglement signal nonlocality without the need of a classical signal key sent to Bob to decode the entangled message from Alice to Bob. Therefore, the issue of the violation of the Born probability rule is peculiar but logically consistent. On the one hand, obeying the Born probability rule demands ontic QWF (Quantum Wave Functions) implying that Bohm’s theory is better than competing Bohr theories for themodynamic equilibrium HV probability distributions. On the other hand, violation of the Born probability rule is required in a more general post-quantum theory with signal nonlocality and ontic QWFs.

On Jul 9, 2012, at 4:00 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Hi Fred

I have not had time to really understand the arguments, but does this result impact on the PBR argument?

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-classical-problem-undecidable-quantum.html

For example you write p. 15*there is always at least one of the 2^n QWFs predicted with zero probability*

Compare with*“The problem as such is simple - merely asking whether certain outcomes can occur in quantum measurements,” Eisert said.*

*When using a classical measurement device, the physicists show that they can always find an algorithm that can answer whether or not any outputs with zero probability exist. So in a classical context, the problem is decidable.**However, when using a quantum measurement device, the physicists show that there cannot be an algorithm that always provides the correct answer, and so the problem becomes undecidable. The scientists explain that the undecidability arises from interference in the quantum device, implying that, at least in this scenario, undecidability appears to be a genuine quantum property.**“In a way, one can say that it is undecidable whether certain processes are allowed by quantum mechanics or not; quite a puzzling situation,” Eisert said.*

On Jul 9, 2012, at 2:41 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: "fred alan wolf" <

Subject: RE: Morgan Freeman on a Paris experiment simulating Bohm's ontology on a large scale

Date: July 9, 2012 2:29:08 PM PDT

To: "'JACK SARFATTI'" <

* I think this walker work is interesting as a hidden variable made visible by a complex droplet/wave in phase interaction. Stability is achieved through continuous energy supply to the liquid. Of course in quantum physics we have this all going on and more without such a supply handy.** **Here also is the updated version of the paper I recently sent to you that will be published in JSE. I have made the explanation clearer than before and clearer than I believe the original authors have done. I used more graphics including some three dimensional graphics of the hidden variables involved in the argument. Please send it off to those who may be interested.** ** By the way, Dave Hestenes and I were graduate students together at UCLA going for our PhDs.** **Best Wishes,** **Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D*.

From: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:

To: Exotic Physics

Subject: Morgan Freeman on a Paris experiment simulating Bohm's ontology on a large scale

http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/27827-how-quantum-wave-particle-duality-couders-walking-droplets.html

On Jul 9, 2012, at 12:15 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

How can this be reconciled with the Higgs vacuum field explanation of the electron’s rest mass? The two pictures do not intrinsically conflict - the radius of the helix must be proportional to the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs Glauber coherent state of virtual off-mass-shell Higgs particles.

Begin forwarded message:

From: CL

Subject: cool paper

Date: July 9, 2012 11:59:44 AM PDT

To: Jack Sarfatti <

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Hestenes_Electron_time_essa.pdf

_______________________________________________

ExoticPhysics mailing list

http://mail.softcafe.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exoticphysics