Re: Why it is impossible to reverse temporal ordering in superluminal information transfer.

From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:09:37 -0500

chaverondier wrote:
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:<3oFgd.3478$K7.15@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
> Bill Hobba
>
>>>>Then you need to address the argument found in Rindler, which
>>>>since it is obvious you do not want to look it up, I will reproduce
>>>>it from Rindler -Introduction to Special Relativity page 17.
>
>
> Chaverondier
>
>>>I know this argument perfectly. It proves that FTL does not
>>>satisfy Lorentz covariance, ie the principle of relativity
>>>(provided the principle of causality be assumed).
>
>
> Bill Hobba
>
>>That is not what it shows at all. As I demonstrated below assuming
>>only the Lorentz transformations it shows that FTL violates causality.
>
>
> Chaverondier
> To "have Lorentz transforms" is an expression which precise meaning
> has to be specified to be sure that we agree on what it means.
>
> * it may mean that you consider a geometrical framework (such as
> Aristotle space-time) where Lorentz transforms can be defined
> rigorously but where some phenomena (like possible FTL interactions)
> may not be covariant with regard to Lorentz transforms (hence violate
> _experimentally_ the Principle Of Relativity). In such a case a
> possible medium where quantum waves propagate can be detected.
>
> * it may mean that you consider a theoretical framework where the
> covariance with regard to Lorentz transforms (and rotation transforms
> and space-time translation transforms) are satisfied experimentally by
> any phenomena without any exception so that the Principle Of
> Relativity is experimentally satisfied. In such a case FTL
> interactions are impossible because they violate experimentally the
> Principle Of Relativity of motion.
>
> Chaverondier
>
>>>The detection of aether is no possible in an aether theory where
>>>all phenomena are assumed to be covariant with regard to the
>>>Poincaré group transforms (hence satisfy the Principle Of Relativity
>>>as far as only _observable_ consequences are considered).
>
>
> Bill Hobba
>
>>However that does not address my point - which is LET, by also having the
>>Lorentz trasformations, logically precludes FTL due to causality violation.
>
>
> Chaverondier
> Provided "having Lorentz transforms" be interpreted as meaning : all
> phenomena are experimentally covariant with regard to Lorentz
> transforms (and rotation transforms and space-time translation
> transforms) in which case, the Principle Of Relativity is
> experimentally preserved by any phenomenon without any exception
> (hence FTL is impossible because it violates experimentally the
> Principle Of Relativity Of motion).
>
>
> Bill Hobba
>
>>>>Such a possibility of actually being able to send
>>>>information faster than light rests on violation of
>>>>[the covariance with regard to] the Lorentz transforms.
>
>
> Bill Hobba
>
>>Please note the bit about covariance was added - it was not my words.
>
>
> Chaverondier
> It was necessary to add it to provide a precise meaning to the
> expression "have Lorentz transforms" (in accordance to the meaning you
> need to assume to ensure that "have the Lorentz transfoms" provides
> the impossibility of FTL).
>
> For instance in Aristotle space-time "I have Lorentz transforms" (with
> a different meaning). This means more specifically that they are
> rigorously defined in this geometrical framework (see
> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/transformaton.htm ) but "I have not
> the Lorentz transforms" in the sense you consider.
>
> Indeed, in Aristotle space-time, FTL interactions are authorized
> because in this space-time the principle of relativity of motion is
> not a required symmetry. Of course, FTL cannot be covariant with
> regard to Lorentz transforms because they violate experimentally the
> Principle Of Relativity of motion.
>
> Bill Hobba
>
>>Since the POR implies the Lorentz transformations (up to an undermined
>>constant) the above is certainly true. However LET, which also has the
>>Lorentz transformations, shows the converse is false - the Lorentz
>>transformations do not imply the POR.
>
>
> Chaverondier
> It depends on what is meant by "having the Lorentz transforms" and
> what is meant by the Principle Of Relativity.
>
> A theory where all phenomena are covariant with regard to Lorentz (and
> rotation and space-time translation) transforms satisfies
> (experimentally) the Principle of Relativity. Hence such a theory
> cannot have Faster Than Light interactions because such interactions
> violate experimentally the Principle of Relativity of motion. An
> experimental violation of the Principle Of Relativity of motion is
> incompatible with Lorentz transforms covariance for any phenomena
> without any exception.
>
> Bernard Chaverondier
> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
> Compatibility of Alain Aspect experiment interpretation
> as an action at a distance with a formulation of relativist
> invariance of phenomena that satisfy this invariance in
> the framework of Aristotle space-time SE(1)xSE(3)/SO(3)
> and the compatibility of possible instantaneous transfer
> of information thanks to EPR effect with an explicitly non
> local and deterministic interpretation of quantum measurement.

There is no FTL interaction. Aspect's experiment was no proof of FTL
interactions, nor was it intended to be. It was intended by Bell
originally only as a proof that there were no hidden variables masking
Einstein's supposed "local" exchanges. From the merely anticipated
quantum facts of the experiment, Bell regarded his contrived (other
assumptions were made) mathematical impossibility of hidden variables as
proof that the exchanges were non-local. OTOH, this conclusion doesn't
follow, since it relies entirely upon ones conscious choice of which
premise it was that was not empirically established. IOW, Bell's
conclusion follows only if we assume that Einstein's premise is the only
possible faulty premise, and thus the argument is entirely circular and
reduces to: "The exchange is non-local because it is non-local". The
proof is rather shallow, and remains to this day a matter of religious
conviction.

The fact that to date, no information has been transmitted FTL.....well,
let's just say, the proof is in the pudding. Had he lived to see the
supposed "proofs", I doubt that Einstein would've been satisfied that
the argument was yet settled.

One random string is indistinguishable from another, thus, while it is
impossible to refute Bohr's interpretation, it must still be taken into
account that a lack of a disproof of Bohr is certainly not a proof of
Bohr. In addition, the fact that the data strings recorded at A and B
must be locally compared to even provide shallow support for the
statement "data was transferred from A to B FTL", is nothing more than
an admission that the data wasn't in fact transferred until the local
comparison was made. In this case we are equally justified in stating
that any coded message is propagated FTL to a distant observer, so long
as the distant observer simultaneously received the decoding sequence.
The "carrier wave" if you will, a mere phase wave, is just a coding
algorithm in this experiment, and needs only be filtered back out of the
A string upon comparison to the B string, in order to derive the
information about the local changes in the A polarizer settings. Thus
there was no data about the A polarizer encoded at all within the B
sequence other than the component of the A sequence that was provided by
the incident photons, i.e. by the source.

It's a phase wave. Quantum physics is about obfuscation, the motto is
"if it can't be disproved then it must be true", Thus going counter to
the standard premise of falsifiability. IOW, Quantum physics classifies
as strictly metaphysics, even if there is some truth in the math. This
was Einstein's primary grudge against it, and the reason for his
insistence in looking for the hidden variables. I cannot help but
sympathize with his views, even though I disagree with his definition of
"local" as propagating at equal to or less than c. Being a statistical
theory, QM is necessarily incomplete, though this doesn't automatically
invoke Maxwell/Lorentz in the microscopic domain.

Richard Perry

Relevant Pages