On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 6:23:43 AM UTC,
richali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 9:13:43 AM UTC-5, ben...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:25:23 PM UTC, richali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 11:53:17 AM UTC-5, ben...@hotmail.com
...
If an observer saw Alice's measurement for the positron travelling backwards
in time to the Source, then that observation/measurement would render the pair of particles to be no longer entangled, and so not a pair entitled to be in a Bell experiment. I admit that I either do not understand 'weak measurement' or believe it to be a measurement which is not provable to be on a single particle. A non-weak measurement to me is one which changes the spin sign of a particle.
I am not talking about time reversal. There is no attainable speed
at which an observer would see a positron travelling from Alice
back to the source.
Not sure why you say this. My meaning was that an observer who measured
the positron between source and Alice would destroy the entanglement and
render the particle pair void in the Bell experiment. Unless some form
of supposed weak measurement was made which I do not understand. I did
not mean to imply that an observer could recognise backwards-in-time
motion in his/her measurement on the positron.
What I mean by retro-causality is that a particle (photon or a
massive particle) will not be emitted until, by some as yet mysterious process, there is a definite location in the future for it to end
up. As I said, this is a very controversial idea, but not unrecognized,
and I hesitate to assert it too forcefully as there is much unknown
about how this would work.
I am in sympathy with retro-causality as I have met something like it
maybe in a Feynman video where he describes the minimised-in-some-way
path of a photon travelling through two media to its target. Also I
have read (but not able to read it very deeply alas, despite my
mathematics degree) a book reproducing Feynman's PH.D. thesis in which
there is a commentary amplifying the thesis. There is some discussion of
his initial doubts about introducing apparently retro-causal effects,
unless I completely misunderstood it. There is also minimised Action via Lagrangians which I met in an online video course by Susskind. These
seem to imply that the target is involved in the calculation to minimise
a quantity over the whole path. Not easy using only forward-causality?
(But I am only an amateur.) Also, relativity gives lack of absolute
certainty about which cause is forward and which is backward.
One justification for it is inhibition of emission of photons by
atoms in certain situations. For example, an atom in a resonant
cavity that does not support a mode at the photon frequency will
not emit that photon. Emission is suppressed. This is related to
so called "hole burning" in lasers where a population of atoms that
can emit a wide range of wavelengths will show dips in the population
on the resonant modes of the laser cavity. I have read of experiments demonstrating this in a more direct way, where the decay of atomic
states is extended when atoms are in a suitable cavity.
What I'm suggesting is something very similar to what Feynman and
Wheeler were suggesting in the early 1940s where the emission of a
photon is a process that involves a transaction between the emitter
and absorber. The "retro-causality" reference here is that if that
future absorber atom does not exist, the photon will not be emitted.
There is no transmission of information from future to past, only
that there exists, somewhere in the future, something capable of
accepting that photon.
Rich L.
I need to read up on emission suppression and hole burning but I am
already in sympathy with your idea due to Feynman and Susskind.
Returning to positrons moving backwards in time. I am now in a position
to write an amateur paper on this despite not having answers to my main
query about the nature of the distribution of hidden variables after a measurement. But some more points below.
In my preon model, a photon with spin +1 is an exact antiparticle of the
photon with spin +1. This means that I can apply time reversal to spin
+1 photons as well as positrons. A complication is that every
elementary particle is an equal mix of preons and anti(particle) preons.
As I described in an earlier post, the effect of time reversed positrons
on a Bell experiment is to send a beam of electrons to Bob which are
pre- measured in the direction of Alice's vector a. This reduces the experiment to be a Malus experiment. The Bell analysis of these data
breaks the inequalities and the Malus experiment gives just two cells
extracted from the Bell experimental 2x2 table of results. The Malus
results conform to the usual Malus Law formula and are directly
equivalent to the breaking of the Bell inequalities. In a normal forwards-in-time Bell simulation the hidden variables vectors of the
beam of electrons are at random and the inequalities are not broken.
Breakage in my scenario using hidden variables requires time reversed antiparticles.
Analysing results using Malus bypasses the weird effects of entanglement
in the Bell analysis of the same data and makes entanglement less
central to these results.
My search is still on. for a later paper. to find what is the
distribution of hidden variables after a measurement by Alice. A random distribution of vectors on a hemisphere only works when b-a is 0 deg or
90 deg and not anywhere in between. It may be that the 'pole' (vector a)
of the hemisphere acts as an attractor with fewer vectors pointing at
the 'equator' than at the 'pole'.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)