From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Hidden variables in QM (refutation of Budnik etc.)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:52:40 GMT


*Sarfatti comments* on:

From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Date: 1 Jan 93 16:08:53 GMT
In article <1992Dec31.222704.19821@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com
writes:
> In article <31DEC199211004292@author.gsfc.nasa.gov>
> rkoehler@author.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bob Koehler) writes:
>
> > Would someone be so kind as to summarize the argument that hidden
variable theories violate causality?
>[...]
> However (and simply ignoring the many person-years of "debate" in
sci.physics on this issue), I would strongly suggest that if you look
carefully at the way it is set up, this very odd QM "spookiness" does _not_
violate causality any more than fully local "hidden variable" theories do.
Causality violation means the abilty to transfer a message upon which some
very real action can be taken.

This is an interesting new definition of causality.

*It is not so much a definition of cauality as it is a good definition of
"strong causality violation". Your idea Paul I would call "weak causality
violation".*

Bell's result implys that either special relativity, quantum mechanics or
causality as defined in classical mechanics is false.

*Agreed*

There is no escaping this except be redefining causality as some physicists
have attempted to do. It is not possible to send a message instantaneously
using this effect.

*It will soon be possible to make machines that will send messages over
both spacelike intervals and from future to present via lightlike and
timelike intervals. These machines require a minimal generalization of
standard quantum mechanics from "strong unitarity" which is a sufficient,
though not necessary, condition for conservation of local probability
current to "minimal nonunitarity" in which local probability current is
still conserved (i.e. norms <i|i> = <i|N*N|i> = 1 are invariant) but
orthogonal states are squashed to parallel states (i.e. <i|j> = 0 ->
<i|N*N|j> = 1, i /=j). This does demand that N be almost an "intelligent
operator" that induces variable phase shifts dependent on the input
superposition. This generalized QM appears mathematically self-consistent
and the issue is whether they exist as natural processes. There is
circumstantial evidence that the answer is affirmative.*

However, the effect does require that information be transferred
instantaneously.  We know something about possible combinations of two
events, polarizer angles and detections, at a distant site that could not
have been transferred in a way that preserves causality consistent with
Lorentz invariance. In some frames of reference the information must be
transferred from A to B and in other frames from B to A.

*You can get away with this for weak causality violation but not for strong
causality violation. In latter case, in some frames for spacelike
communication the cause will be in the future of the effect. But in the
timelike or lightlike "delayed choice" mode the cause will be in the future
of the effect in all Lorentz group frames of reference - for example a
message from the future giving the date of your death - the quantum force
of destiny.*

> The QM version just does not allow that, since no matter how you
> arrange it the "correlations" will be recognizable _only_ after you bring
> records back together from both sites and compare them.  The latter
process of "bringing together" the records enforces a speed-of-light delay
that keeps the universe nicely consistent and prevents any serious (past-
changing) info from being transferred.

*This is only a temporary "unitary barrier" that we will soon smash!  It is
already smashed in precognitive experiences and in the fact that there is a
universe delicately adjusted in its fundamental constants and boundary
conditions that permit life to evolve.*

This is true, but I believe there is a serious problem with the current QM
model

*No Paul, there is no problem. The problem is your way of understanding the
meaning of nonlocality.*

... when you start asking what happens in the time domain in tests of
Bell's inequality. Assume the polarizers are located some distance from the
detectors. Assume there is a steady stream of singlet state particles that
you are detecting. At what time does QM predict that one will see a change
in probability of joint detections as a result of changing the angles
between polarizers? QM does not make a clear prediction about this.

*Wrong Paul. QM is perfectly clear about this as the following spacetime
diagram shows. A pair is emiited from events 1 and 4. The first pair is
detected at events 2 and 3. The second pair is detected at events 5 and 6.
The standard QM formalism (without the minimal extension needed to ger
quantum connection communication) unambiguously predicts that the nonlocal
joint probability to detect both photons in the same local linear
polarization state (i.e., relative to local orientations of polarizers) is
for the first pair (i.e.,ideal conditions of efficiency etc)

p(2+|3+) = {cos[@(2) - @(3)]}^2/2

and for the second pair

p(5+|6+) = {cos[@(5) - @(6)]}^2/2

where @(i) is the actual orientation of the polarizer at the event in which
the photon locally interacts with electrons in the polarizer.  That's it,
period! It can be derived rigorously. You have been wasting years on a non-
problem. Try to be objective, I know its hard to moderate the ego, about
this.*


                            5 \                    / 6
                                \                /
                                  \            /
                                    \        /
                                      \    /
                                        \/
                                         4
                            2 \                    / 3
                                \                /
                                  \            /
                                    \        /
                                      \    /
                                        \/
                                         1


Considering this issue leads directly to a proof that QM is an incomplete
theory.

*False!*

This is an appropriate result since it was this claim by Einstein 60 years
ago that started this debate.

*NO! Einstein showed that QM was incomplete if there was no real action at
a distance. True, at the time he did not believe in real action at a
distance. However, his last research assistant Ernst Straus reported that
at the end of his life Einstein began to doubt his belief that there was no
real action at a distance on the quantum connection. I can find the actual
quote and reference if anyone is interested.*

Paul Budnik  with comments in *..* by Sarfatti