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

From: chaverondier (bernard.chaverondier_at_wanadoo.fr)
Date: 11/01/04 

Date: 1 Nov 2004 03:27:28 -0800

RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2uj6nrF2af8f2U1@uni-berlin.de>...

chaverondier wrote:
> > 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.

RP
> There is no FTL interaction.

Chaverondier
Provided quantum measurement indeterminacy is assumed to be of
fundamental nature.

If you assume on the contrary that quantum measurement indeterminacy
is due to the lack of knowledge of the observer (because he knows the
pure state of the observed system but ignores the pure state of the
quantum whole comprising the observed system, the measuring apparatus
and the environment which interact with them) then you can prove that
the polarization measurement of one of the photons of the pair of EPR
correlated photons of Alain Aspect experiment is an action at a
distance.

RP
> Aspect's experiment was no proof of FTL
> interactions, nor was it intended to be.

Chaverondier
Of course. The demonstration that Aspect experiment is an action at a
distance needs

1/ the demonstration of the compatibility of Faster Than Light
interactions with the expression of the relativist invariance of
phenomena that satisfy this invariance in the framework of Aristotle
spacetime (see http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/epr.htm and
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/transformation.htm )

2/ the emphasizing that the no-communication theorem relies on the
assumption that quantum measurement indeterminacy would be fundamental
(see http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/no_communication.htm)

3/ the demonstration that quantum measurement of EPR correlated parts
of a quantum system is an instantaneous action at a distance as soon
as quantum measurement is assumed to be a deterministic process (where
quantum measurement indeterminacy is interpreted as a lack of
knowledge of the observer about the quantum state of the measuring
apparatus and its environment see
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/epr.htm )

RP
> 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.

Chaverondier
A precise understanding of what Bell concluded needs a careful
examination. Noteworthy, he concluded that hidden variables, if any,
had to be non-local (see "Hidden Variables and non-locality in Quantum
Mechanics" dissertation by Douglas Hemmick
http://www.intercom.net/~tarababe/DissertPage.html ). Actually, he
was the first one to notice that a deterministic interpretation of
quantum mechanics was necessarily non-local.

However I don't see how to discard that the quantum state of the
measuring apparatus and that of the environment are the looked for
"hidden" variables that cause the quantum whole comprising the
observed system + the measuring apparatus + the environment to behave
deterministically without entering in conflict with the deterministic
evolution of isolated quantum system.

RP
> "The exchange is non-local because it is non-local".

Chaverondier
The exchange is non local if quantum measurement is interpreted as
deterministic.

For a proof of consistency of quantum statistics with a deterministic
interpretation of QM see The sub-quantum (deterministic) theory of
Micho Durdevich, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, "Physics
Beyond the Limits of Uncertainty Relations". A picture of physical
reality which is based on individual physical systems, completely
causal, and statistically compatible with quantum mechanics.
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/subq.html )

However, I don't see how to get an interpretation of quantum mechanics
that would be consistent with the assumption that quantum measurement
indeterminacy would be fundamental instead of it being a consequence
of the lack of knowledge of the observer about the quantum state of
the measuring apparatus and that of the environment.

RP
> The proof is rather shallow, and remains to this day a matter of religious
> conviction.

Chaverondier
I agree with you that there is probably a good deal of mathematical
and theoretical work to perform to prove that quantum measurement
violates boost invariance (hence proves the existence of a medium with
regard to which quantum waves propagate). This work has to prove that
the deterministic interpretation of quantum measurement is _needed_
(instead of it being only _compatible_ with known observation facts)
and is up to predict the Von Neumann statistics as well as the
evolution of the measured system towards the eigen states of the
measured observable.

RP
> 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,

Chaverondier
I am unsure this refutation be impossible.

First : from a point of view of consistency, I cannot see how the
assumed fundamental indeterminacy of quantum measurement can comply
the unitary, deterministic and reversible propagation of the infinite
Von Neumann chain.

Second : to prove experimentally the deterministic interpretation of
quantum measurement to be correct (or at least prove that this
interpretation is up to provide predictions that differ from that of a
not deterministic one and that would nevertheless be confirmed by some
experiment) one should look for an experiment that would prove quantum
measurement statistics rule to be broken by a strong control on the
quantum state of the measuring apparatus and on that of the
environment that interact with them.

I sketched a thought experiment to provide a more detailed
presentation about the issue of quantum measurement determinacy
experimental testing on the links http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
and http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/epr.htm

Relevant Pages
Loading