----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:28 AM Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:55 AM > Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM > > > > > What I have a hard time understanding is the (real long term) problem > with > > "backwards in time signals". > > I see it repeated that you cannot violate causality, but most of the > > examples I've seen given (perhaps they were oversimplifications) seem to > > illustrate what amounts to an optical illusion. (In discussions about > FTL) > > The TI interpreation has real, not illusionary signals coming back from the > effect to the cause. In principal, these can span billions of years. Yeah, I understood that the first time actually. What I was trying to convey was that I question the validity of the "absolutely no violations of causality" axiom , at least the way it has been presented to me in the past. The example that I find offensive goes something like this: Locations A, B, and C are seperated by great distances. C is much closer to B than it is to A. At C, there is an observer watching events at both A and B. At A, an FTL ship leaves heading for B. Observer at C sees the ship arrive at B, and only later sees it leave A. This is supposed to be a violation of causality. I don't see how it could be. Its just an optical illusion since events for the ship follow the normal linear progress of time (exempting local relativistic effects). Its possible that this is supposed to be a metaphor for some other type of event, but it was never presented to me this way. It was presented as evidence of why FTL is impossible. FTL may be impossible, but not for this reason I don't think. So when I see causality being invoked, I look for an opportunity to find real reasons why causality must necessarily be preserved. > > > I understand the principle that states that cause cannot precede effect. > > *That* is quite easy to understand. > > And I seem to recall that there is some axiom that says there are no > > privileged frames or points of view. > > > > But couldn't it be that "backwards in time signals" are part of an > > underlying backbone or framework that underlies reality, normally > > unobservable? > > It could. But, the problem with that is, if you allow real, unobservables, > with no addition to the predictive power of the theory, then you open > things way up. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Has it never occured in the past as part of a workable theory? Just a history question mind you! <G> > As I said before, with that sort of latitude one could > resurrect the aether. Indeed, with that type of latitude, I could generate > a geocentric universe. > That would falsify the theory wouldn't it? > > > > And that, like in most of the QM I have read, observation would change > >those signals, therefore they would be inaccessible? > > Not really. The signals have to be hidden, or else we would see violations > of otherwise well verified laws of physics. > > > I guess my real question is "why cant there be a channel for backwards in > > time signals?" > > There could be. There also could be a lot of other things. One thing that > typically identified realists is that they were loath to accept unseen > things that had no visible tracks. Part of the theory of these hidden > variables is that they had to forever remain hidden. > That makes sense since observation would by itself change the signals. That sort of reminds me of some things I've read concerning "Anthropic Principles". > > > > And I suppose my proposal is "if the simpler explanations have not > >worked, perhaps trying a higher level of complexity might". > > But, the simpler approach worked. So, is TI a dead issue? > Detailed predictions have been verified, > to many significant figures. So, why add metaphysical baggage? Understandable. > > > I really wish I had a greater understanding of QM and how it differs from > > relativistic theory. > > I can repost some of my several years old discussions of spacelike > correlations, if there is an interest. > That would be nice. My knowledge of physics resolves to related and isolated factoids. There are plenty of fundamentals that I am missing. I just gather them up as I go. xponent Ignorant But Interested Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
