More on coming conscious machines

 
Progress in Post-Quantum Mechanics
 
Jack Sarfatti
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
Abstract
Newton's mechanics in the 17th Century increased the lethality of artillery. Thermodynamics in the 19th led to the steam-powered Industrial Revolution in the UK. Maxwell's unification of electricity, magnetism and light gave us electrical power, the telegraph, radio and television. The discovery of quantum mechanics in the 20th century by Planck, Bohr, Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg led to the creation of the atomic and hydrogen bomb as well as computer chips and the world-wide-web and Silicon Valley's multi-billion dollar corporations. The lesson is that breakthroughs in fundamental physics, both theoretical and experimental have always led to profound technological wealth-creating new industries and will continue to do so. There is now a new revolution brewing in quantum mechanics that can be divided into three periods. The first quantum revolution was from 1900 to about 1975. The second quantum information/computer revolution was from about 1975 to 2015. The early part of this story is told by MIT Professor David Kaiser in his award-winning book how a small group of Berkeley/San Francisco physicists triggered that second revolution. The third quantum revolution is how an extension of quantum mechanics has led to the understanding of consciousness as a natural physical phenomenon that can emerge in many material substrates not only in our carbon-based biochemistry. In particular, this new post-quantum mechanics will to naturally conscious artificial intelligence in nano-electronic machines as well as extending human life spans to hundreds of years and more. This development is not far off and is fraught with opportunities and dangers, just like nuclear power and genetic engineering.
 
Quantum Mechanics and Beyond in a Nutshell
 

“Suppose there is even something vaguely teleological about the effects of consciousness, so that a future impression might affect a past action.” Roger Penrose, “The Emperor’s New Mind” pp 442-445 (1989)

 

“It seems to me that biological systems are able in some way to utilize the opposite time-sense in which radiation propagates from future to past.  Bizarre as this may appear, they must somehow be working backwards in time.” Sir Fred Hoyle, “The Intelligent Universe”, p. 213 (1986)

 
Classical physics from Newton to Maxwell emerged from the 17th to the end of the 19th Centuries dealing with the motion of matter under the influence of forces - mainly electromagnetism. Although Newton thought of gravity as a force, Einstein in 1915 realized that gravity is not a real force in the same way that electromagnetism exerts forces on charged particles. Gravity is, in fact, the curvature of the four-dimensional spacetime continuum induced by large concentrations of matter. This is why astronauts on the space station are weightless, They move on "geodesic" paths free of real forces. This is basically the essence of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
 
Quantum mechanics is not only needed to understand the chemical bond using tiny electrons to make molecules out of atoms, and atomic nuclei out protons and neutrons etc. We also need it to understand the stability and structure of solids, energy generation in stars as well as the long-range coherent phase wave properties of superfluid helium and electrical superconductors at the lowest temperatures near absolute zero. The achievement of high-temperature superconductivity allowing electrical power to flow long distances without any heat dissipation would dramatically change the energy picture as would the development of nuclear fusion - neither goal unfortunately has been achieved after many decades of trying. All of these applications were part of the first quantum revolution still unfinished.
 
The second quantum information/computation/crytpographic revolution described in David Kaiser's book [1,2,3] is about what Einstein called "spooky telepathic action-at-a-distance" given the more neutral name of "entanglement" although some call it "quantum voodoo." Einstein was not comfortable with entanglement because it seemed to contradict his classical physics theory of relativity which requires that no useful signals conveying meaningful messages can be transmitted faster than the speed of light in a good vacuum. However, we now know how to make observed quantum entanglement connecting widely separated particles consistent with Einstein's relativity. In fact, Einstein's mathematics is perfectly consistent with an extension of our notion of time, cause and effect. Our common sense is a psychological illusion in which time only seems in our consciousness to flow from past to present to future. This irreversible "arrow of time" (aka Second Law of Thermodynamics) is seen in the tragic fact that we age and die, eggs do not unscramble themselves, etc. However, quantum entanglement, which is beginning to play the crucial role in practical command-control-communication technology, is becoming increasingly important to Google, Apple, Microsoft et-al in their Artificial Intelligence Big Data business, is telling us that time also flows in reverse from future to present. In fact, all quantum entanglement phenomena in the present come from back-from-the-future "destiny" partial causes in addition to the familiar classical historical past partial causes of those same present effects. In other words what happens to the world now not only depends on our past history, but also on our future destiny! [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]
 
Finally, we have the third or "post-quantum revolution" that explains not only how our own human consciousness emerges out of the two-way action-reaction between classical matter particle and fields with their respective back-from-the-future destiny and from-the-past history quantum information "thought" mental wave fields, but all possible forms of consciousness including conscious artificial intelligence machines from Intel, Microsoft, Apple et-al at the billionth of a meter "nano-electronic" level. Our history mental field is the seat of our memories of things past. I suggest as a hypothesis or conjecture that our destiny mental field is the source of our intuition, of our creative ability to imagine, wonder and discover.
 
Antony Valentini has argued that the Born-Feynman probability rule (i.e, to take the modulus square of complex number path amplitudes ~ exp[i(classical action)/hbar] and to add the amplitudes coherently before squaring when the outcomes cannot be distinguished, but to square first before adding when they can, is not a fundamental law of nature, but is an accident corresponding to what he calls “sub-quantum equilibrium.” What I am calling “Post-Quantum Mechanics” (PQM) corresponds to Valentini’s “sub-quantum non-equilibrium” in which what he calls entanglement “nonlocal signaling” happens.
 
Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini
“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)”
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049
 
Valentini wrote the above in 2002 before Huw Price, Ken Wharton, Rod Sutherland convincingly explained, in my opinion, that spacelike nonlocality is not a good way to think of quantum entanglement. The alternative “Costa de Beauregard zig-zag” used implicitly at least by Yakir Aharonov and John Cramer in their respective interpretations of quantum theory, is preferable because it is consistent with the symmetries of Einstein’s classical theories of relativity if we allow “weak measurement” future causes of present effects as well as the usual past causes of present effects of orthodox von-Neumann “strong measurement” interpretations. Indeed, the observed violation of Bell’s inequality can be most simply and elegantly understood as the effects of future causes (strong measurements) of past effects (at the moment of emission of a pair).  From this point of view it is obvious why the space-time separations between strong measurements of the localized parts of the entangled whole do not matter. Those separations can be spacelike, timelike or lightlike even in curved classical spacetime where one can try to connect them with corresponding geodesics. Huw Price has also pointed out that John Bell was confused on the difference between “super-determinism” and “local retrocausality.” This confusion caused him to erroneously think that local retro-causality conflicted with “free will.”  All of this presupposes that we live in a “block universe” one physicist in particular thinks that this means there is no dynamics. This not the place to argue this, although, I mention it in passing, since it was discussed in this workshop. Suffice it to say, that the Lagrangian form of dynamics only makes sense in the block universe picture in which we take the global 4D spacetime view. The “dynamical” view is that of the Hamiltonian formulation (3D + 1). One beautiful result of Sutherland’s fully relativistic Lagrangian for Bohm’s pilot-wave particle theory is that because of the Costa de Beauregard “zig-zag” and the use of Yakir Aharonov’s advanced “destiny” and retarded “history” waves in the “weak measurements” of the particle motions between strong measurements, is that we no longer need higher-dimensional configuration space in the description of many-particle entanglement. Indeed, Sutherland has applied this notion to the problem of quantum gravity.
 
From the structure of Sutherland’s Lagrangian, which has classical particle parts independent of h as well as quantum parts dependent on h, it became clear to me that Valentini need not use the word “sub-quantum.” The “beables” are not at some hidden level at all. They are at the classical physics level. Furthermore, Valentini thinks that “non-equilibrium matter” is only found around the time of the Big Bang. On the contrary, I propose that all living matter is “non-equilibrium matter” in the sense of locally-decodable key-less entanglement signaling that is strictly forbidden in the limit of orthodox quantum theory. Indeed, I propose that Sutherland’s weak measurement action-reaction piece of his Lagrangian corresponds to what Valentini called “sub-quantum non-equilibrium.” Furthermore, when one reads Roger Penrose’s books, e.g. Emperor’s New Mind, Shadows of the Mind, Fashion, Faith and Fantasy etc. one sees mention of the possible importance of Herbert Frohlich’s macro-quantum coherence in pumped open non-equilibrium dissipative structures. This leads me to further conjecture that any such open macro-quantum coherent pilot wave, but classically thermodynamically non-equilibrium system will be post-quantum with Sutherland’s action-reaction not equal to zero. Indeed, I conjecture that the PQM action-reaction term will be proportional to the amount of external pump stress-energy current densities above Frohlich’s critical threshold. The mathematical model here is formally similar to that of a coherent laser beam above threshold rather than in the thermodynamic equilibrium of a conventional Bose-Einstein condensate.  Now it turns out that Sutherland’s PQM action-reaction is proportional to a factor, which when set equal to zero in the limiting case PQM àQM is exactly de Broglie’s guidance equation that the particle world lines coincide with pilot wave “fluid” stream lines (gradients of the phase of the pilot waves). This explains why, in a beautiful way, we can dispense with the particles entirely in the orthodox quantum limit and pretend they are not there. Of course, doing that leads to bending over backwards with contortions like “wave function collapse”, “problem of the classical limit” etc. – all non-problems in the Bohmian 1952 picture not to be confused with his later less intuitive “implicate/explicate order” speculations. I have no need of that hypothesis here. Finally, it needs to be pointed out that the basic Sutherland Lagrangian theory is non-statistical “God does not play dice” (Einstein) it is nonlinear and non-unitary. The statistical linear unitary QM limit comes from doing several things:
 
1)     setting the wave action-particle reaction term to zero
2)     integrating over the future destiny causes of past effects with the ad_hoc Born rule weighting factor |<destiny|history>|^2.
 
As an example the Aharonov weak measurements at x are of the form for a local operator J
 
<J(x)>w = <destiny|x>J<x|history>/<destiny|history>
 
Therefore, the integral over all possible <destiny| states with the above weighting factor in 2) is the orthodox strong von Neumann statistical expectation value
 
<J(x)> = <history|x>J<x|history>
 
And it appears as if time only flows one-way from past to future in accord with the Arrow of Time of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as in Henry Stapp’s talk at this conference for example.[1]
 
 
 
I would now like to comment on some recent developments having to do with the resurgence of interest in Geoffrey Chew’s “bootstrap”, in ER = EPR which I first mentioned in 1975 in the book “Space-Time and Beyond (E. P. Dutton version) and in the AdS/CFT interior bulk-horizon boundary duality in relation to PQM.
 
Chew's bootstrap was of a logical nature. It may be connected with Igor Novikov's temporal bootstrap of "globally self-consistent loops in time." Novikov was mainly thinking about time travel to the past through traversable wormholes in a classical way. Kip Thorne & students then did some calculations with quantum Feynman histories that seemed to agree with Novikov's idea. David Deutsch and Seth Lloyd considered slightly different models of quantum computation between a pair of entangled qubits, one going back in time through a CTC traversable wormhole. We also have ER = EPR connecting AdS ER wormholes in the interior bulk with EPR CFT correlations on the cosmological horizon boundary in Susskind's "The World is a Hologram" idea. In fact we have both past and future cosmological horizons, which take us to Yakir Aharonov's locally retrocausal "weak measurements" underlying von Neumann's strong measurements. Huw Price of Trinity College Cambridge has clarified the meaning of entanglement and the violation Bell's locality inequality in terms of a more fundamental timelike locally real retrocausality of future causes of past effects as the only explanation of all kinds of entanglement that is consistent with Einstein's relativity. Price re-introduced the old idea of Costa de Beauregard's "zig-zag" implicit in both Yakir Aharonov's "destiny" and "history" quantum waves similar, though not identical, to John Cramer's "confirmation" and "offer" waves in the Transactional Interpretation. Finally, in 2015 Australian physicist Rod Sutherland has taken these ideas in an action-principle Lagrangian mathematics of a fully relativistic Bohm pilot-wave/hidden variable particle model in which Aharonov's "weak measurements" are clearly represented a locally retrocausal "zig-zag" manner that allows us to dispense with higher dimensional configuration space. This is a considerable simplification conceptually and computationally. Indeed, Sutherland has done some preliminary work on quantum gravity from this new POV. Even more important Sutherland has taken some first steps toward a Post-Quantum-Mechanics PQM which is to QM as Einstein's GR is to his SR. In both cases the key is the action-reaction organizing principle (not to be confused with the more specific Newton's 3rd Law from translational symmetry of the dynamical action). In relativity, the action-reaction is between the space-time continuum and matter-energy. In PQM, which requires the Bohm 1952 picture, the action-reaction is between the pilot waves and matter-energy. PQM is basically a non-statistical nonlinear theory in which messages encoded in an entanglement pattern can be locally decoded without a key. This corresponds to traversable ER bulk wormholes from signaling EPR entanglements on their horizon boundaries obeying Novikov's globally self-consistent loops in time. Thus we are back to Geoff Chew's "bootstrap" at least in spirit. The QM bootstrap posited a unitary S-Matrix. The PQM bootstrap is non-unitary corresponding perhaps to pumped open dissipative structures held far from thermodynamic equilibrium, but with macroscopic (ODLRO) long range quantum phase coherence (e.g. laser analogy). The QM limit of PQM involves setting the action-reaction to zero and ad_hoc introduction of the Born rule for squaring amplitudes etc and then integrating the future away. This hides all retrocausal effects and yields the vN collapse picture of strong measurements with linear unitary retarded time evolution of closed systems between the measurements.
 
 
 
 
 
 
End Notes
 
I. “Back From the Future
A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?”
By Zeeya Merali,|Thursday, August 26, 2010
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the future/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=
 
II. https://ricochet.com/archives/saturday-night-science-how-the-hippies-saved-ph
ysics/
 
“ Jack Sarfatti has been exploring a generalisation of David Bohm’s[4] ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics, extended so a particle is not just guided by the quantum potential, but, in turn, through backactivity, modifies the quantum potential field. Backactivity introduces nonlinearity into the evolution of the wave function, much like the bidirectional nonlinear interaction of spacetime and matter-energy in general relativity.
The effects of backactivity are negligible in interactions at the atomic scale; divergences from the predictions of conventional quantum mechanics would be manifest only in systems where quantum coherence occurs at the mesoscopic and macroscopic scale. Sarfatti suggests that this post-quantum backactivity may be involved in various phenomena as follows:
Postulates
i. Life in general, and consciousness in particular, depends upon a backactivity-mediated feedback loop operating on macroscopic quantum structures in the cell. Roger Penrose[15] and Stuart Hameroff have suggested the microtubule as the site of this quantum system, but it may be elsewhere.
Life, through homeostasis, maintains the far-from-equilibrium quantum machinery necessary for its own existence. Rocks aren’t alive because they have no structures which prevent thermal decoherence of the wave function.
There is, then, an élan vital, and it consists of backactivity operating in macromolecular quantum systems assembled within the cell.
ii. Backactivity is the missing puzzle-piece needed to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. Linear quantum mechanics operating in a background spacetime cannot possibly describe the effects of spacetime curvature due to mass-energy or curvature acting on itself. Macroscopic quantum systems employing backactivity may produce strong spacetime curvature or interactions with the zero-point vacuum energy not predicted by orthodox quantum mechanics or general relativity. Per item (1) above, a “macroscopic quantum system employing backactivity” is, necessarily, alive.
iii. Development of a comprehensive and consistent post-quantum theory incorporating backactivity may, then, permit development of technologies impossible without such effects, for example:
Communication across spacelike-separated intervals.
Faster-than-light travel with an Alcubierre-like “warp drive”[1] without the need for exotic, negative energy, matter.
Access to the zero-point energy of the vacuum.
If Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff’s suggestion[11] that interaction with the zero-point energy is the source of inertia (as opposed to the Mach/Einstein view that it is caused by the dragging of inertial frames by distant galaxies), then technologies employing backactivity might be able to modify inertia.
I don’t know whether these suggestions are correct—nobody does at present, but there’s nothing in any of them which seems inaccessible to experiment in the relatively near future. Let’s assume calculations are done, predictions are made, experiments are performed, and the experimenters win the Nobel prize, shafting the theorists once again—that backactivity is shown to exist and indeed both accounts for life and permits the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity.” John Walker
https://ricochet.com/archives/saturday-night-science-flying-saucers-explained/
 
 

III. 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.

http://prce.hu/centre_for_time/jtf/retro.html
 
IV. 26. arXiv:quant-ph/0203049 [pdf, ps, other]
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).”
Subquantum Information and Computation Antony Valentini
 
V.  Quantum Telephones to Other Universes, to Times Past by John G. Cramer
https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw48.html
 
Weinberg's non-linear quantum mechanics and supraluminal communications: N. Gisin
Abstract
“We show with an example that Weinberg's general framework for introducing non-linear corrections into quantum mechanics allows for arbitrarily fast communications.”
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(90)90786-N
 
VI. Living matter and back-action
In certain dark corners of the internet, can find speculation of the following nature:
·             Propose the wave function/pilot wave is intrinsically ‘mental’ and capable of qualia.
·             Equate the pilot wave with the mental aspect of the universe, generally: the
particles are ‘matter’, and ‘mind’ the pilot wave. OK, who cares, except..
·             ‘Mental’ aspect of universe upgradeable to life/consciousness by self-organization. Happens when a physical system uses its own nonlocality in its organization.
·             In this case a feedback loop is created, as follows: system configures itself so as to set up its own pilot wave, which in turn directly affects its physical configuration, which then affects its non-local pilot wave, which affects the configuration etc..
·             Normally in QM this ‘back-action’ is not taken into account. The wave guides the particles but back-action of particle onto wave not systematically calculated. Of course, the back-action is physically real since particle movement determines initial conditions for next round of calculation. But there is no systematic way to characterize such feedback. One reason this works in practice is that for systems that are not self-organizing the back-action may not exert any systematic effect.
Well, it’s not obviously wrong..!
[see p.346, Bohm and Hiley’s Undivided Universe).]
Two-way traffic
Important to note that pilot-wave theory does not take into account any effect of individual particle on its own quantum field (though Bohm and Hiley briefly sketch some ideas about how this might happen, see e.g. Undivided Universe pp. 345-346).
·             Idea that particles collectively affect quantum field of a single particle is contained in the standard notion that shape of quantum field of a particle is determined by shape of environment (which consists of many particles, and is part of the boundary conditions put into the Schr ̈odinger equation before solving it, even in conventional QM).
·             Jack Sarfatti (see e.g., http://www.stardrive.org) in particular has emphasized the need for an explanation of how the individual particle influences its own field and has proposed mechanisms for such ‘back-action’, also emphasizing its importance in understanding the mind- matter relationship and how consciousness arises (see earlier slide).
·             Assuming that notion of such an influence of the particle on its field can be coherently developed, we can then have two-way traffic between the mental and the physical levels without reducing one to the other. Role of Bohm’s model of the quantum system then would be that it provides a kind of prototype that defines a more general class of systems in which a field of information is connected with a material body by a two-way relationship.
·             Quantum theory is currently our most fundamental theory of matter and Bohm suggests that, when ontologically interpreted, it reveals a proto-mental aspect of matter. This is the quantum field, described mathematically by the wave function, which is governed by the Schr ̈odinger equation. Bohm’s suggestion is known as panprotopsychism.. so at least you learned a new word today..!
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT/lectures/bohm8.pdf
 
 
VII.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
References
 
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/books/review/book-review-how-the-hippies-saved-physics-by-david-kaiser.html
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0AipdgHRtI&t=39s  
3. https://vimeo.com/171013596 Jack Sarfatti, University of San Diego, June 16, 2016
4. https://vimeo.com/171178181 Rod Sutherland, University of San Diego, June 16, 2016 
5. arXiv:1509.07380  Interpretation of the Klein-Gordon Probability Density Roderick Sutherland
6. arXiv:1509.02442 Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics -- Entangled Many-Particle Case Roderick Sutherland
7. arXiv:1509.00001 Energy-momentum tensor for a field and particle in interaction
Roderick Sutherland
8. arXiv:1502.02058 Naive Quantum Gravity Roderick I. Sutherland
9. arXiv:1411.3762  Lagrangian Formulation for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: Single Particle Case Roderick I. Sutherland
10. arXiv:quant-ph/0601095 Causally Symmetric Bohm Model Rod Sutherland
11. arXiv:1510.06712 A Live Alternative to Quantum Spooks Huw Price, Ken Wharton
12. arXiv:1508.01140 Disentangling the Quantum World Huw Price, Ken Wharton
13. arXiv:1307.7744 Dispelling the Quantum Spooks -- a Clue that Einstein Missed? Huw Price, Ken Wharton
14. arXiv:1002.0906 Does Time-Symmetry Imply Retrocausality? How the Quantum World Says "Maybe" Huw Price
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
15. arXiv:0802.3230  Toy Models for Retrocausality Huw Price
16. arXiv:1408.2836 Quantum interview Antony Valentini "Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews", ed. M. Schlosshauer (Springer, 2011)
17. arXiv:quant-ph/0609184 Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference Guido Bacciagaluppi, Antony Valentini
Journal-ref: G. Bacciagaluppi and A. Valentini, Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference (Cambridge University Press, 2009)
18. arXiv:quant-ph/0112151  Signal-Locality and Subquantum Information in Deterministic Hidden-Variables Theories Antony Valentini
19. arXiv:quant-ph/0106098  Signal-Locality in Hidden-Variables Theories Antony Valentini
20. arXiv:1007.2615 The quantum mechanics of time travel through post-selected teleportation Seth Lloyd, Lorenzo Maccone, Raul Garcia-Patron, Vittorio Giovannetti, Yutaka Shikano
21. arXiv:1005.2219  Closed timelike curves via post-selection: theory and experimental demonstration Seth Lloyd, Lorenzo Maccone, Raul Garcia-Patron, Vittorio Giovannetti, Yutaka Shikano, Stefano Pirandola, Lee A. Rozema, Ardavan Darabi, Yasaman Soudagar, Lynden K. Shalm, Aephraim M. Steinberg
22. arXiv:1609.01496  Quantum physics, fields and closed timelike curves: The D-CTC condition in quantum field theory Juergen Tolksdorf, Rainer Verch