From stapp@thsrv.lbl.gov Mon Sep 25 12:53:52 2000 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:53:27 -0700 (PDT) From: stapp@thsrv.lbl.gov Reply-To: hpstapp@lbl.gov To: Dr. Jack Sarfatti Cc: Evan Harris Walker , "Puthoff@aol.com" , Saul-Paul Sirag , "tsmith@innerx.net" , Vladimir Poponin , Creon Levit , Gary E Schwartz , Stan Klein Subject: Re: Relativistic EPR-Bell Experiments I am sending this longer version of my reply to Jack to people on the list that I think are physicists. --------------------------------------------------- Dear Jack, Your latest communication is very helpful: it pin-points where your understanding of my theory differs from my theory as I define and understand it. The point is this: When I refer to frame independence the frame that I am referring to is the frame that is used to define the surfaces along which the state of the universe Psi(t) at time t is defined. In the von Neumann- Wigner measurement theory that I use the state Psi(t) undergoes abrupt changes (called collapse or reductions) at certain instants of time. The von Neumann theory was formulated in non- relativistic terms, so the question arises: How do we make it relativistic? My answer is to use Tomonaga-Schwinger (T-S) theory, and to pick from all of the infinitude of spacelike surfaces `sigma' that T-S allow some particular ones, namely the constant time surfaces t=const. in the rest frame of the cosmic background radiation, as the surfaces which are to be identified with the constant time surfaces of vN/W quantum theory (of measurements), and hence the surfaces on which the instantaneous collapses occur. Thus the Psi(t) of vN/W gets equated to the Psi(sigma(t)) of T-S, where the surface sigma(t) is the special T-S surface that is the time=t surface in the cosmic rest frame (rest frame of cosmic black-body radiation). This is for special relativity, which I believe should be OK for understanding the mind-brain interaction: my aim here is to elevate vN/W quantum theory to relativistic status by tieing it to T-S theory, which is formulated for special relativity.] This specification introduces a huge dependence of the theory, at the level of the underlying reality, on this special choice of coordinate frame. But the T-S theory, coupled with vN measurement theory, shows that the predictions of the theory about observations in fact do not depend upon which frame was used to define the surfaces sigma(t) that define the state of the universe at time t: all choices give the same predictions about observation, and hence the same prediction about whether or not the EPR correlation is present or not. The prediction that EPR correlations will be present is independent of this choice of frame. Of course, the picture of what is "really happening" would be very different for different choices of the frame that defines the instants t=const along which the collapses occur, but the prediction about the EPR correlation does not depend on that choice. Similarly, the prediction that the EPR correlation will be present does not depend on the frame in which the experiment is done: the same EPR correlation will be present in a space ship that is at rest in the frame in which the t=const surfaces are defined as in a space ship that is moving rapidly in that frame [insofar as there is no significant interaction with things outside the spaceship.] These are the key results of T-S QED, combined, of course, with vN theory of measurement. As I mentioned in earlier replies, what is `really happening' will depend on which experiment is performed first in the frame that defines the instantaneous states of the universe, but the predictions pertaining to observations will not. The essential point, here, is that I am using the non-dependence of the prediction about observations upon `real' differences, such as differences in the velocities of two spaceships: the T-S-vN theory shows that the the prediction about the EPR correlation WILL BE INDEPENDENT OF THAT REAL DIFFERENCE! The predictions are `relativistically invariant' in this non trivial sense. I am NOT talking about the trivial non-dependence upon how fast `observers' are moving. This non dependence upon the velocity of the observer of whether a geiger counter will be seen to click or not is taken for granted. It is NOT this trivial nondependence that T-S-vN theory assures. This theory assure the nontrivail nondependences. That is why I use it. Your messages of Sept 23 make it clear that you were under the impression that the nondependence that I was talking about was of the trivial kind generated by what you call > above fundamental metaphysical ontological principle. But I was referring to the nontrivial results that are generated by T-S-vN/W quantum theory. This difference between the nontrivial results that I was using and the trivial result that you believed that I was using explains all the difficulties that you were pointing out in your messages of Sept 23. Best regards, Henry _____________________________________________ On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, Dr. Jack Sarfatti wrote: > > stapp@thsrv.lbl.gov wrote: > > > Dear Jack, > > > > My theory IS theory Tomonaga-Schwinger theory (Theory 1) > > with this > > particular frame taken to be the frame in which the > > instantaneous > > collapses occur. > > [Jack] > > I understand that is what you believe. My point here is > that for reasons I have > given in detail now several times summarized in the picture > > http://stardrive.org/Jack/PFI.jpg > > That you cannot consistently hold such a position. > > > There is no significant difference between my theory > > and Tomonaga-Schwinger theory with that particular > > choice of the > > surfaces along which their instantaneous collapses > > occur because there > > is no computational difference: the two theories are > > one, except that > > from the T-S viewpoint one stresses the fact other > > frames could be used > > to give the same predictions. > > [Jack] > > Let me see if I can spell out again what I think is the > confusion here. ... > We all agree, you me and Stan Klein, > that different observers moving uniformly to the > Hubble flow frame will see > different time orders for those two definite actual > happening events. Some will see > E1 before E2, some will see E1 after E2. We also all > agree, that all observers looking at these same two > events E1 and E2 must agree as to what happened in any > good theory. So if EPR correlations do not disappear in > an ensemble {E1,E2} of > equivalent E1E2 events, all observers no matter how > they are moving relative to > those definite actual pairs of events must agree that > the EPR correlations do not > disappear, for example. I call this the fundamental > ontological principle that we > all agree must be obeyed by any good physical theory. > So in this general ontological > sense, the spacelike foliations, i.e. the different > perspectives of different > observers looking at the same sets of actual events, > don't matter. All theories, > whether Theory 1 without a preferred frame of absolute > global rest ("aether") and > without "absolute uniform velocities", or whether Theory 2 > with a preferred frame of > absolute global rest ("aether") and with "absolute uniform > velocities" must obey the > above fundamental metaphysical ontological principle. > I assume no one objects so far? > We all agree: this all goes without saying. > Now Henry, when you say "one stresses the fact other > frames could be used to give > the same predictions" that is simply the fundamental > ontological principle No! If you look at the context you will see that the frames that I am talking about are the different possible frames that could be used to define the state "now" in the Tomonaga-Schwinger (T-S) theory, and hence different space-like surfaces along which the actual collapses will occur when one applies their theory to the measurement problem. That is, the different frames that I am talking about are different frames that specify the physically different surfaces t=const. that specify the different definitions of the state of the universe Psi(sigma(t)). So the differences that I am speaking about are not about what different observers moving at different velocities see: the differences in the choice of frame that I am speaking about are differences in how one defines the state of the universe "now", and hence the surfaces along which the collapse associated with a measurement is instantaneous. I think this should clear up your apparent misunderstanding of what I have been saying. ... > > When Henry you write: > > "There is no significant difference between my theory > and Tomonaga-Schwinger theory with that particular choice > of the > surfaces along which their instantaneous collapses occur > because there > is no computational difference: the two theories are one, > except that > from the T-S viewpoint one stresses the fact other > frames could be used to give the same predictions." > > That is false IMO. As soon as you say there is an > instantaneous collapse you have stepped beyond T-S theory. T-S theory speaks of these surfaces Psi(sigma) that define the relativistic analogs of the t=constant surfaces of the non relativistic theory of measurement. It is then a rather trivial exercise to see that the predictions of the theory about observations will not depend on which frame is used to define the instants "now". I am combining T-S with the von Neumann theory of measurement. ... > So, then Henry, you posit, that > > 1. There is such a thing as "OR" i.e. objective reduction > or objective collapse of a real psi field. > > 2. This OR process has a physically real "speed", I call it > the "qubit speed". We > both agree that psi is an information field of qubits > rather than c-bits. I think we > agree on that? > > 3. In particular the real qubit speed is infinite in > the particular Hubble flow > foliation into spacelike surfaces. > > Now at this point your presentation gets highly ambiguous > and obscure. You seem to > say that the real qubit speed is infinite in any > arbitrary spacelike foliation. I am saying that the T-S theory allows us to see/show that there is an infinite set of ALTERNATIVE possible ways in which can defined the surfaces "now". One interesting subset, if general relativity curvature is ignored, are the surfaces t=const. in various possible frames. The different frames provide ALTERNATIVE possible ways of defining the instants "now" along which the instantaneous collapses occur. All of the infinitude of choices are pragmatically equivalent, in the sense that no matter which alternative is selected the theory gives the SAME predictions about connections between observations: these predictions do not depend upon which of the alternative possibilities is selected. Moreover, the theory is relativistically invariant in the sense that two different experimental set ups that are related by the fact that they are both described in the same way in different Lorentz frames will both get the same predictions: e.g., the theory will predict the same EPR correlations for experiments done done in two space ships that have large relative velocities. This is required for a "relativistic theory", and it does hold in T-S-vN quantum theory. This is a key point in my theory. > This > is an obvious elementary inconsistency since it violates > > v = (v' - u)/(1 - uv'/c^2) > The different frames give ALTERNATIVE possible definitions for the instants "now": one must choose between the alternative possibilities. ... > So error correction 1 to your thesis that Stan Klein > seems to agree with me on is > that if the qubit speed of objective collapse is infinite > i.e. v -> infinity in the > Hubble foliation, it is not infinite in any other! There is no error to correct, except your error of applying conjunctively disjunctive alternative possibilities : the different choices give alternative possible definitions of "now". ... > Furthermore, how you can claim that your additional > restrictions above on the > Tomonaga-Schwinger theory does not change that theory > profoundly is beyond my > comprehension. > There is no significant change because the T-S-vN theory says that there are an infinitude of ways of defining the surfaces "now" along which the collapses associated with measurements occurs "instantaneously", and my theory simply says the one this infinite set of pragmatically equivalent possibilities is the physically real one. But the pragmatic equivalence of this way of defining the surfaces "now" with all of the alternative possible ways of defining these surfaces means that one cannot deduce from experiments that conform to these common predictions coming from all frames anything about which frame this real frame is. > We now come to the physical idea of "absolute speed". > In Theory 2, which I claim is > your actual theory though you suffer under a delusion > that you are doing Theory 1 > (T-S). By definition, my theory is T-S-vN theory with one particular one of the infinitude of alternative possisible pragmatically equivalent ways of defining the instants "now" identified as the REAL set of instants along which the instantaneous collapses actually occur. > We have an "aether" theory not equivalent to > TS theory. The real objective > physical situation of (E1',E2') is different from that > of (E1,E2) in that the former > have a physically detectable absolute speed u through > the primordial aether and its > cosmic black body radiation. The absolute speed u is > objectively measured by > departure from isotropy of the cosmic black body > radiation red-blue shift pattern. > Therefore, this idea of absolute speed together with your > idea of infinite qubit > speed in the Hubble flow imply that if u is big enough > then the EPR correlations > between (E1',E2') will disappear when > > L'/T' > c^2/u > > because in that case the objectively real qubit speed u in > the S' frame is too slow > to connect the two events (E1',E2'). As I explained earlier, the instantaneous collapse acts at the instant when the earlier (in the preferred frame) of the two events, E1' or E2', occurs, and it instantaneously affects the propensities for the later event, in such a way as to produce the EPR correlation predicted by quantum theory. This is the basic result of T-S-vN theory. > L' is the space > distance between (E1',E2'), and > T' is the time uncertainty in their simultaneity due to > finite time resolution of > the detectors and length of light signal wave packet. Each collapse occurs at some definite instant of time: it acts, I believe, on the coulomb part of the EM field in the brain of some observer. > Note that this Theory 2, > different from T-S Theory 1, still obeys the fundamental > ontological principle. It certainly obeys your "fundamental ontological principle": that is not at issue. But it is just T-S-vN theory with one particular one of the infinite set of pragmatically equivalent possible choices for the instants "now" sinlged out as the REAL set of "nows". ... > So the key property of Theory 2, that makes it different > from T-S > Theory 1, noting that you, Henry, do not grant this > distinction, is > that, since (E1',E2') have an objectively real absolute > common > absolute velocity u relative to the aether Hubble flow, ... > , their EPR correlations > (in the ensemble > sense) can disappear even though they never disappear > for the > inequivalent event pairs (E1,E2) for the same L and T > parameters. It all depends of the word "can" means. Maybe the EPR correlation "can" in some abstract sense disappear in someone's idea of my theory, but it does not disappear in S-T-vN theory no matter which frame is picked as the REAL one, since the predictions of that theory are independent of the frame that is used to define the constant-time instants of time on which ther collapses occur > However, Theory 2 is perfectly compatible with the > fundamental > ontological principle in that observers in arbitrary > spacelike > foliations will all agree on whether or not the EPR > correlations did > disappear for any particular ensembles {E1',E2'}. > That is, all > observers are looking at the same set of unique actual > historical > happenings. > There is no disagreement there: that is not pertinent, or an issue. > The objective difference of this Theory 2 with T-S Theory 1 > is that in Theory 1 > there is never an experimental difference between what > happens with {E1,E2} and what > happens with {E1',E2'}for the same L and T parameters. And this is true also in T-S-vN theory with any chosen frame defining the constant-time surfaces t=const. along which the collapses occur. That is. it is true in my theory. > That is because Theory 1 does > not recognize any such thing as an absolute uniform speed through the > aether as > Theory 2 does. Theory 2 "recognizes" the concept of absolute velocity u. but has the important property that this velocity has no effect on the ERP correlations. The ERP correlation look the same in a spaceship moing at velocity u, independent of the value of u [unless the experiment is actually sensitive to the physical effects of the cosmic background radiation.] > > [Henry Stapp] > > > I also use that fact, but simply stipulate > > that in order to have a single coherent idea of an objectively existing > > and unambiguously defined universe I adopt the viewpoint that > > this one frame is the one that defines the objectively real situation. > > This is conceptually useful because it allows one to have a fixed idea > > of the actual physical universe, But the mathematical equivalence between > > using this frame any other one of one's choosing for any computation > > of any prediction about observable ensure the relativistic invariance > > of the theory, because the only pertinent quantities in science, > > according to quantum thinking, are observable quantities. > > > > In short, my theory IS theory 1, except for viewpoint, and it IS > > theory 1 as regards the point under discussion here, which is the > > impossibility of determining from data that conforms to > > the standard predictions of theory 1 the frame in which the collapse > > occurs. > > > > > You can use local Lorentz transformations in the local tangent spaces to > > > compare data in the absolutely moving LIF that detects cosmic microwave > > > anisotropy with the PGF in which there is no such anisotropy. Therefore, in > > > Class III experiments where both detectors D1 and D2 at events E1' and E2' > > > respectively are in motion with speed u in same space direction, the qubit > > > speed in their frame is not infinite, but is c^2/u. Therefore, as Gisin et-al > > > explicitly wrote one can do an experiment in which the "EPR correlations > > > disappear" in the absolutely moving frame. In contrast, the EPR correlations > > > never disappear in the PGF of Class I where both detectors D1 and D2 are at > > > rest in the PGF with a DIFFERENT pair of events E1 and E2. > > > > > > Note: > > > > > > Class I experiments both D1 and D2 have absolute speeds u = 0 with E1, E2 > > > detection events. EPR correlations NEVER disappear. > > > > > > Class III experiments both D1 and D2 have same absolute speeds u not zero in > > > same space direction with E1', E2' detection events. When > > > > > > L/T > c^2/u > > > > > > EPR correlations disappear > > > > > > > The EPR correlation never disappears in standard theory and never > > disappears in my theory. It does disappear in theories, such as the > > one's considered by Gisin et.al. where the propagation is NOT > > instantaneous. That is the essential point. > > [Jack] > > Therefore, your inconsistency is in saying that there is a real speed of real > collapse in T-S and that that real speed is infinite in the special Hubble > foliation. Because if it is infinite in that Hubble foliation, it is, > according to > local special relativity, finite in any other foliation into spacelike > surfaces and, > therefore, you have slipped into the "theories, such as the one's > considered by > Gisin et.al. where the propagation is NOT instantaneous". > > So I think I have clearly isolated your conceptual error here. > Not so! In the T-S-vN theories one can choose any one frame, and use the t=const. surfaces in that frame to define the state Psi(t) of the universe at time t relative to that frame, and these surfaces t=const will then define the surfaces along which the instantaneous transfers occur, for that choice of the "preferred frame". Of course, the velocity will then be non infinite in any other frame: it will be finite and forward in time if one moves away from the region of the measurement in some directions and finite and backward in time if one moves away from the the region of the measurement in other directions. This does not disrupt the predictions of quantum theory: the influence will act backward in time from the measurement that occurs first and thereby influence the measurement that will occur second, leaving all predictions about measurements dependent upon neither the choice of preferred frame nor the velocity of the spaceship in which the experiment is performed: Lorentz invariance is the predictions about observations is maintained, in spite of the explicit dependence of the computations upon the preferred frame and the velocity of the spaceship. The assumption tested by Gisin was the non invariant theory in which the collapse occurs slower than the speed of light IN ALL DIRECTIONS in some preferred frame. That is completely different from what is assumed in my theory. > > > > > > > L is space coordinate separation between E1 and E2 in common > > >absolutely moving > > > frame of oth D1 and D2, T is time coordinate separation. > > > > > > When > > > > > > L/T < c^2/u we see the EPR correlations. > > > > > > > > > In ALL cases, observers in relatively moving frames all get the SAME > > > answer to > > > the question > > > > > > Are EPR correlations observed or not? YES or NO? > > > > > > in Theory 2. > > > > > > > And that answer is YES! > > > > > The point is that Class I experiments and Class III experiments are > > > objectively different according Theory 2. They are NOT objectively > > > different > > > according to Theory 1. Therefore, according to Theory 1 your > > > "Tomonaga-Schwinger", EPR correlations in Class III will NEVER > > > disappear, but > > > that is NOT the theory you have proposed. > > > > The theory that I propose IS Tomonaga-Schwinger with ONE of their infinite > > set of possible rules for the instantaneous collapse taken to be the real > > one. Hence in my theory the EPR correlations NEVER disappear. > > > > > Your theory is Theory 2, not the > > > original Tomonaga-Schwinger theory from circa 1947 before they even > > > knew about > > > the cosmic microwave background. > > > > Back then it seemed unreasonable to believe that ONE of the infinite > > set of possible rules was the real one, but NOW nature herself > > presents us with a natural possibility for the favored rule. > > > > > > > > Now I have given a very clearly articulated precise logically sound > > > chain of > > > argument. You must refute it in kind on its own terms not by vague > > > handwaving > > > generalities. Also you cannot appeal to Theory 1 AS IF it were > > > equivalent to > > > Theory 2 as, in fact you are doing. I have explained in detail, in your terms, why your argument is incorrect. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... > > > > > > So what were Gisin et. al. doing? > > > > > > > > They noted that some physicists were boggled by the idea of > > > > instantaneous > > > > effects in faraway places,and were proposing that the collapses > > > > propagate at some high but finite velocity, in some frame. > > > > The most natural guess for this frame is the rest frame of the cosmic > > > > background radiation. If the collapse were to propagate at finite > > > > velocity > > > > in this way the prediction of quantum theory would be violated for > > > > certain > > > > placements of the experiments: if the two experiments are sufficiently > > > > close to instantaneous in this special frame then the effect of the > > > > faraway experiments would not arrive in time to affect the nearby > > > > outcomes, and the correlations in the EPR experiments would disappear. > > > > > > > > This would of course disrupt the relativistic properties that > > > > are so nicely preserved if the transfers are instantaneous. > > > > Still, science rests on the experimenal testing > > > > of even the most secure ideas, so Gisin et. al. noted that > > > > the conformity of their experimental results to the orthodox > > > > predictions did rule out the idea of finite velocity transfer > > > > in this particulr frame unless that velocity was > > > > greater than 1.5x10^4 c. > > > > > > > > But that result in no way alters the fact that experimental > > > > results that *conform* to the orthodox predictions provide > > > > no information about the surfaces along with the collapses > > > > occur if these collapses are instantanteous, as they are > > > > in the vN (and Tomonaga-Schwinger) theory. > > > > > > > > I hope this more detailed discussion of the situation > > > > resolves our differences on this matter. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Henry > > > > > > [Jack] > > > > > > I will come back to this last part of your remarks later as I have to > > > sign off now. > > > > > > > > -- > CREATE, COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE > http://stardrive.org > >