From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 23:57:27 MST
The transactional interpretation of QM uses retarded waves. Worth a look, as
it very elegantly kicks MWI, observer privilege and whole bunch of other
annoyances out of the window. As I understand it, it falls down because a
lot of other physical theories (outside my area of specialty, unfortunately)
demand that retarded waves don't exist or don't exist in large numbers
relative to advanced waves.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of scerir
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 3:10 PM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: Re: No Planck limit for time!???
>
>
> > "The Big Bang theory supposes that at the instant of creation, the
> > quantum singularity that became the universe would need to have infinite
> > density and temperature."
>
> Btw, many years ago somebody performed real experiments following
> another idea. Unfortunately I've lost references and results. But,
> I suppose, many authors already performed similar experiments in their
> s.f. books!
>
> Let us imagine it is possible to build a consistent model
> of photons (and gravitons? why not?), with a "retarded" wave
> (from the past to the future) plus an "advanced" wave (from the
> future to the past). Ok it is the usual Feynman-Wheeler approach.
>
> But the "advanced" wave (we can imagine) needs the "existence" of
> a "target". Because the photon comes into existence if there is a
> "source" (emitter of the retarded wave) and also a "target" (emitter
> of the advanced wave).
>
> I remember that John Bell, talking with Davies, told him that a
> "super-determinism" would perhaps solve the business of QM (The Ghost
> in the Atom, page 47). Now the retarded + advanced waves model actually
> imposes a "super-determinism" on the universe.
>
> Now imagine there is a discrete and real "target" out there (hence
> in a different time).
>
> In example, assume the earth is x years old. An emitter of the retarded
> wave, far away from the earth, required (x light years ago) that the
> forming earth ("target") must emit the advanced wave backwards in time.
>
> A highly collimated laser radiating into the outer space, with
> a very very small angle, could show some effect. Because if waves were
> beamed, at various directions in the outer space, and some power
> fluctuations in the transmitter were observed, it could mean that the
> outer space is not uniform. That is to say that sometimes there are,
> or there are not, out there, "targets" receiving retarded waves and
> emitting advanced waves.
>
> Ok here we might find something similar to the Olbers' paradox! So,
> better to stop here.
>
> Oh no, wait. Sometimes science >> fiction. I do not remember if
> Greenberger or who else wrote that it is possible to write down
> a quantum state [I remember this state written on a blackboard]
> in which (not just 2 but) 3 particles are entangled in a very
> peculiar way. This one. If particle 1 is found to have the spin 'up',
> then particles 2 and 3 are entangled. If particle 1 is found to have
> the spin 'down', the particle 2 and 3 get disentangled. Now let us
> put particle 1 in a remote (say space-like separated) region.
> Yet a 'chance' event, befalling particle 1, strongly influences
> the mutual relationship betwwen particles 2 and 3!
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 21 2003 - 23:56:55 MST