On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 4:49:55 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift 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 >
Unfortunately this article is a bit embarrassing. This apparent retrocausality is a nonlocal aspect of QM with respect to time. QM really has fundamentally no description in space or time; it is the up to the analyst or experimenter to represent quantum states in space and time. The Wheeler-Dewitt experiment is a case of this, but to remain within the quantum paradigm means the no-signalling theorem holds. The Kochen-Specker theorem corollary means there is not information transfer involved, which means there is no interaction. LC > > *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. > > @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/67cb8907-b18e-4877-a989-526209482245%40googlegroups.com.
