Begin forwarded message:
From: JACK SARFATTI <
Subject: [Starfleet Command] Re: Causal Discovery Algorithms - where to draw the line in the sand on the domain of validity of orthodox quantum no entanglement signaling
Date: March 9, 2013 12:47:28 PM PST
To: Exotic Physics <
Reply-To:
Right on the money
where to draw the line in the sand on the domain of validity of orthodox quantum no entanglement signaling postulate
"The deBroglie-Bohm interpretation is a prominent example
of a model that seeks to provide a causal explanation
of Bell correlations using superluminal causal influences.
Consider the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation of a
relativistic theory such as the model of QED provided by
Struyve and Westman [18], or else of a nonrelativistic theory
wherein the interaction Hamiltonians are such that
there is a maximum speed at which signals can propagate.
In both cases, it is presumed that there is a preferred rest
frame that is hidden at the operational level. In a Bell
experiment, if the measurement on the left wing occurs
prior to the measurement on the right wing relative to the
preferred rest frame, then there is a superluminal causal
influence from the setting on the left wing to the outcome
on the right wing, mediated by the quantum state,
which is considered to be a part of the ontology of the
theory [19]. (Note that no causal influence from the outcome
of the first experiment to the outcome of the second
is required because the outcomes are deterministic functions
of the Bohmian conguration and the wavefunction.)
It follows from our analysis that the parameters in
the causal model posited by the deBroglie-Bohm inter
pretation must be ne-tuned in order to explain the lack
of superluminal signalling.
Valentini's version of the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation
makes this fact particularly clear. In Refs. [20, 21]
he has noted that the wavefunction plays a dual role in
the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation. On the one hand,
it is part of the ontology, a pilot wave that dictates the
dynamics of the system's conguration (the positions of
the particles in the nonrelativistic theory). On the other
hand, the wavefunction has a statistical character, specifying
the distribution over the system's congurations.
In order to eliminate this dual role, Valentini suggests
that the wavefunction is only a pilot wave and that any
distribution over the configurations should be allowed as
the initial condition. It is argued that one can still recover
the standard distribution of congurations on a coarsegrained
scale as a result of dynamical evolution [22].
Within this approach, the no-signalling constraint is a
feature of a special equilibrium distribution. The tension
between Bell inequality violations and no-signalling
is resolved by abandoning the latter as a fundamental
feature of the world and asserting that it only holds as
a contingent feature. The fine-tuning is explained as the
consequence of equilibration. (It has also been noted in
the causal model literature that equilibration phenomena
might account for fine-tuning of causal parameters [23].)
Conversely, the version of the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation
espoused by Durr, Goldstein and Zhangi [24] {
which takes no-signalling to be a non-contingent feature
of the theory { does not seek to provide a dynamical explanation
of the fine-tuning. Consequently, it seems fair
to say that the fine-tuning required by the deBroglie-
Bohm interpretation is less objectionable in Valentini's
version of the theory."
On Mar 8, 2013, at 11:53 AM, JACK SARFATTI <
On Mar 8, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <
Jack, interpretations are generally not Popper falsifiable since they are empirically equivalent with the theory they're interpreting.
In the case of quantum theory, the main different interpretations
1) Copenhagen - epistemic
Asher Peres's as a sub-category?
2) Bohm ontologic
3) Aharonov history-destiny
4) Cramer transactions
5) Hartle consistent histories
6) variations on many-worlds (Tegmark's Level 3)
are degenerate as you say.
However, Antony Valentini has shown how Bohm's theory in particular breaks the above impasse since it gives entanglement signal nonlocality violating no-cloning & no-signaling constraints for sub-quantum non-equlibrium violation of the Born probability rule. This is not even thinkable in some of the above interpretations.
Bohm's theory is a different theory from standard QM to the extent that it has possible empirical non-equivalence (for particle distributions deviating from Psi^2).
right
However there is a possible empirical prediction at the relativistic level for PTI in which there could be deviations from standard QED (which possibly have already been observed). I'm working on that now.
good
RK
________________________________________
From: JACK SARFATTI [
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:06 PM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner
Subject: Re: Causal Discovery Algorithms - Stapp, Kastner, Cramer, Aharonov
The issue is what is the precise operational meaning of your particular distinction between "possibilities" and "actualized transactions"? How can we Popper falsify such a verbal distinction in the "informal language" (Bohm). In contrast, in Bohm's interpretation there is a clear distinction in the formalism between the "thoughtlike" (Stapp) quantum BIT potential Q and the "rocklike" (Stapp) hidden variable classical lepton-quark et-al world lines and electromagnetic-weak-strong classical field configurations.
On Mar 8, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <
Thanks Jack,
My ontology takes spacetime relations as supervenient on causal relations., where the latter are relations among possibilities, and those are time-symmetrically related. The spacetime relations (i.e sets of events resulting from actualized transactions) are only indeterministically related to the time-symmetric causal relations characterizing the underlying possibilities. So I don't see anything here that refutes anything I'm doing. Of course I welcome anyone's pointing out what I may be overlooking.
Best
Ruth
Now Available: The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Ruth E. Kastner
http://www.cambridge.org/us/knowledge/discountpromotion/?site_locale=en_US&code=L2TIQM
________________________________________
From: JACK SARFATTI [
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:28 PM
To: art wagner
Subject: Causal Discovery Algorithms - Stapp, Kastner, Cramer, Aharonov
This very important paper will have profound impact on Henry Stapp's and Ruth E. Kastner's models - also Cramer's & Aharonov's. I am curious about their future responses to it.
On Mar 7, 2013, at 11:41 AM, art wagner <
Causal Discovery Algorithms - http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1208.4119.pdfbasi
________________________________
Subject: Re: Chinese Physicists Measure Speed of "Spooky Action At a Distance" | MIT Technology Review
From:
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:36:59 -0800
To:
" because the “spooky action” cannot be used to send information faster than the speed of light."
Don't be so sure. The Fat Lady has not yet sung on that one. ;-)
The question is whether orthodox quantum theory is complete, or is it a limiting case of a more general theory with pre-sponse entanglement signal nonlocality for living matter?
__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
RECENT ACTIVITY:
Visit Your Group
These are the logs of the starship NCC-1701-280Z. Its five-year mission to seek out new minds, new quantum realms. To boldly explore physics where no physicist has gone before (in physical, virtual, or quantum worlds)!
Starmind(tm) -- Your daily journal to the industry's brightest stars. You get infinite knowledge only with Starmind:
All hits. All Physics. All the time. And now in parallel and diverging universes. (Thus proving they don't exist as separate entities --But have we gotten to them yet or not?)
** Patronize any Yahoo! Group Sponsor at your own risk.
- - - - - - Message From Starfleet - - - (Read below) - - - - - - - - - - -
To change any characteristic of your online membership access, visit via web:
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/SarfattiScienceSeminars
Join in our ongoing discussions and theoretical science writings:
http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/SarfattiScienceSeminars
Dr. Sarfatti may be reached at his e-mail or using Internet site:
http://stardrive.org
http://www.1st-books.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To respond or comment directly to the group's archive, reply via e-mail:
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
.
__,_._,___
Causal Discovery Algorithms
- Details
- Category: Jack Sarfatti Blog
©
2024 - 2020
Internet Science Education Project