On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 4:58:44 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 7:49 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 4:30:51 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> >>> Anyway, all of this is just your attempt to divert attention from the >>> fact that your retrocausal ideas do not work in real experimental >>> situations. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> >> I don't think so. >> >> *Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the >> future influences the past* >> >> https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html >> >> *Can the future influence the past? The scientific case for quantum >> retrocausality* >> https://boingboing.net/2018/06/15/can-the-future-influence-the-p.html >> >> *This Quantum Theory Claims Future Events Can Influence Past Events* >> >> https://wallstreetpit.com/113788-quantum-theory-claims-future-events-can-influence-past-events/ >> >> ... >> >> And then there’s retrocausality, which basically says that the present >> (or the future) can influence the past, and in terms of cause-and effect, >> the effect happens prior to the cause. Connecting that concept with quantum >> entanglement, it’s like saying that measuring an entangled particle in the >> present (or future) affects the particle’s properties in the past. And >> instead of the famous Bell tests >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments> showing proof of >> quantum entanglement, they can be regarded as evidence of retrocausality. >> This is what Matthew S. Leifer of California’s Chapman University and >> Matthew F. Pusey of Ontario’s Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics >> are proposing. >> >> >> In relation to the traditional concept of time symmetry which says that >> physical processes can run forward and backward in time while following the >> same physical laws, Leifer and Pusey argue that retrocausality should also >> hold true. They believe that unless we are somehow able to prove that time >> only moves one way, which is forward, then retrocausal influences should >> also be considered. >> >> Right now, separate particles seemingly being affected by measuring >> either of the particles is attributed to the concept of ‘spooky action at a >> distance’, because there’s simply no other way to explain how the particles >> influence each other. Leifer and Pusey’s theory is that the measurement of >> one particle can retrocausally influence the behavior of the other >> particle. There’s no spooky action at a distance, just retrocausal >> influence. >> >> >> While the concept of retrocausality has yet to gain momentum, there are >> those who believe that it is worth looking further into. And part of its >> appeal has to do with its breaking away from ‘realist interpretations of >> quantum theory’ and its implication that it’s time to come up with new >> alternative interpretations about quantum physics. >> >> As Leifer explained >> <https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html> >> to >> Phys.org: “I think that different interpretations [of quantum theory] have >> different implications for how we might go about generalizing standard >> quantum theory. This might be needed to construct the correct theory of >> quantum gravity, or even to resolve some issues in high-energy physics >> given that the unification of the other three forces is still up in the air >> in the light of LHC results.” >> >> >> In a way, retrocausality doesn’t make things any clearer. In fact, it >> might even be making things even weirder. But the point is, it provides an >> alternative explanation to those ‘entangled particles’. Testing and proving >> that it’s the correct explanation is the bigger challenge. >> >> >> The paper detailing Leifer and Pusey’s work was recently published >> <http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/473/2202/20160607> in >> the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A. >> >> and so on. >> > > More arguments from authority. But these are just speculative proposals. > If you have an actual retrocausal account of the Aspect experiment, why not > produce it? Your contiinued evasions only go to prove that you are just > blowing wind. > > Bruce >
You write an article that is published in the Royal Society Proceedings responding to the paper https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.2016.0607 by Matthew S. Leifer and Matthew F. Pusey *We conclude that the most plausible response to our result, other than giving up Realism, is to posit that there might be retrocausality in nature. At the very least, this is a concrete and little explored possibility that holds the promise of evading almost all no-go theorems in the foundations of quantum theory, so it should be investigated further.* and you might have some credibility. Otherwise, you sound like a quack with a fascist-like authoritarian stance. *I'm not claiming anything to be settled. You are.* @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/782a455e-9ae8-4435-b322-9a34f73f4a83%40googlegroups.com.
