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

From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:27:42 -0600

chaverondier wrote:

> 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

Your english is difficult to follow, but I believe that I've understood
it well enough, and it seems to correspond to my own conclusions. Just
to check: Would you say that your view is more or less equivalent to the
collapse of the wave function being, what amounts to, the emission of a
negative photon with instantaneous propagational speed?
If so, then we are in agreement. OTOH, I haven't seen yet where this
provides faster than c information transfer in the forward time direction.

Richard Perry

Relevant Pages