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
>
>