" Sutherland ist Sarfatti wie Marcel Grossmann war, Einstein” - Lobos Muddle
On Dec 1, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Mark Davidson wrote:
"The solution to these issues proposed by both Einstein and 't Hooft is that the universe is perfectly deterministic, possibly local and a possibly time reversible (so that it could be deterministic in the time-reversed direction as well). "
I don’t understand how the above would work in detail. I think Sutherland has solved this problem in a very elegant precise way using the battle-tested Lagrangian method combined with Aharonov’s two-state vector weak measurement formalism.
"Consciousness and apparent free-will are compatible with this idea, but they are manifestations of a deterministic machine if you like."
This makes no sense to me at all. If you can explain more clearly with mathematical-based model, please do. What does it do that Sutherland has not already done?
" 't Hooft argues for example that it could be a cellular automata machine."
If it’s a classical automata it cannot work. t Hooft reminds me of a mortician - a very competent one of course. ;-)
"Quantum entanglement can be a result of hidden conservation laws in a deterministic theory. "
Again I do not know what that sentence even means without seeing a concrete example. Huw Price, Ken Wharton, and especially Rod Sutherland have given detailed models showing how ALL quantum weird effects are local retrocausal zig-zags as suggested already by I. J. Good in the 1950s along with Costa de Beauregard. The Bohm particle paths (be-ables) are revealed by Aharonov weak measurements. However, when back-reaction particle to wave is neglected, then the particle paths coincide with the stream lines of the quantum hydrodynamics. Indeed, this is the de Broglie guidance constraint an example of which is:
be able particle velocity = [(Planck’s constant)/(be able particle velocity)]Gradient[phase of the pilot wave]
Sutherland modifies the above to show the retrocausal effect. Here it is in relativistic covariant 4-vector notation.
ualpha is the particle be-able 4-velocity
The RHS of Sutherland's eq 62 is my particle to pilot wave back-reaction for the neutral spin 1/2 special relativistic Dirac spinor
It vanishes in orthodox quantum field theory for dead closed systems.
"Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics -- Entangled Many-Particle Case
Roderick Sutherland
(Submitted on 5 Sep 2015 (v1), last revised 4 Oct 2015 (this version, v2))
A Lagrangian formulation is constructed for particle interpretations of quantum mechanics, a well-known example of such an interpretation being the Bohm model. The advantages of such a description are that the equations for particle motion, field evolution and conservation laws can all be deduced from a single Lagrangian density expression. The formalism presented is Lorentz invariant. This paper follows on from a previous one which was limited to the single-particle case. The present paper treats the more general case of many particles in an entangled state. It is found that describing more than one particle while maintaining a relativistic description requires the introduction of final boundary conditions as well as initial, thereby entailing retrocausality
Comments: 34 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:1509.02442 [quant-ph]
(or arXiv:1509.02442v2 [quant-ph] for this version)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.02442
"Contra-factual logic, such as is used in the Bell non-locality theorem, are ruled out by a deterministic theory. "
The best explanation of all this has been given by Huw Price:
Why retrocausality — and why free will?
"The 'classic' motivation for retrocausal models in QM stems from Bell's Theorem, and the nonlocality it seems to entail. Nonlocality is often felt to be counterintuitive in itself, and the source of an unresolved tension between quantum theory and special relativity. As Bell himself described the implications of his famous result: “[I]t's a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial ... [T]he cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincaré thought that there was an aether — a preferred frame of reference — but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether.''
As Bell was well aware, the dilemma can be avoided if the properties of quantum systems are allowed to depend on what happens to them in the future, as well as in the past. Like most researchers interested in these issues, however, Bell felt that the cure would be worse than the disease — he thought that this kind of “retrocausality” would conflict with free will, and with assumptions fundamental to the practice of science. (He said that when he tried to think about retrocausality, he “lapsed into fatalism”.)
If this objection to retrocausality in QM is well-founded, it raises interesting issues about the nature and origins of this "free will", that turns out to play such a surprising role in the foundations of physics. If the objection is not well-founded, then it is high time it is moved aside, so that the retrocausal approach can be given the attention it otherwise seems to deserve.
Moreover, there are other motivations for exploring retrocausal models in QM, some the focus of considerable current research. Examples include:
The proposed retrocausal explanation of the results of 'weak measurements' by Aharonov, Vaidman and others.
The relevance of retrocausality to the issue of the viability of an 'epistemic' interpretation of the quantum state, especially in the light of recent results such as the PBR Theorem.
Recent work throwing new light on the relation between retrocausality in QM, on the one hand, and time-symmetry and other symmetries, on the other.
For these reasons, too, there is a pressing need for a better understanding of notions of free will and causality, and of their relevance to the retrocausal approach to the quantum world. This conference brought together many of the leading writers and researchers on these topics, to discuss these issues."
http://prce.hu/centre_for_time/jtf/retro.html
"This is the simplest explanation of the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paradox and its offshoots such as the Bell theorem, so by Occam's razor it should be at least discussed in this forum.""
I disagree. The local retrocausal explanation of the mirage of faster-than-light spacelike nonlocality is the simplest explanation in my opinion. Retarded determinism is false. It can never explain quantum entanglement.
"Arguments along the lines that our consciousness and free will are proofs that the universe is not deterministic at the Planck scale, as 't Hooft deterministic theory assumes, are false. The fact that the quark-gluon plasma experiments unexpectedly showed that the early universe, shortly after the big bang, was described by a classical ideal fluid (a deterministic system) provides experimental evidence for a deterministic universe."
What do you mean by “deterministic”? If you mean only past causes of future effects, then I say you are wrong, your program cannot explain the facts of observation.