From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: The instantaneous transfer of information in QM calculations
Date: 9 Jan 93 23:35:58 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

The questions and objections to my proof that QM is an incomplete
theory all relate to the role that wave state reduction plays as
a *necessary* *intermediate* step in QM calculations. It is easy to see the
necessity for this step and easy to see how this step introduces
an ambiguity about what the *macroscopically observable* delays will be.

Following is a standard experimental configuration used in a tests of
Bell's inequality:


    |---------\---------------[ ]--------------------/--------|
Detector   Polarizer      Photon source            Polarizer    Detector
  D1         P1                                       P2          D2
      Site 1                                             Site 2

This is not drawn to scale The distance between the photon source and
either polarizer is much greater than the distance between each polarizer
and its local detector. The experiment is symmetric with the two polarizers
and the two detectors the same distance from the photon source.

The experiment is conducted in a single inertial frame so that we can
speak of simultaneous distant events. We want to compute the
probability of a joint detection at D1 and D2. This probability is
influenced by the relative angles of P1 and P2. Information
must be conveyed from *both* P1 and P2 to at least one
detector to produce the correlation function predicted by
quantum mechanics. There is no way that such information can be conveyed
by the linear propagation of the wave function as determined by the
Schrodinger equation. With that mechanism the shortest time in which such
information can effect the results is the time it would take light to
travel from the *more distant* polarizer to the detector. If the
delay is this long there would be no violation of locality and the
predictions of QM would be false.

The only way to reproduce the predictions of QM is to reduce the wave
function as a result of a detection at one site. This *instantaneously*
alters the singlet state wave function for both particles throughout all space
and transfers the information about the polarizer where the reduction was
assumed to occur to the distant detector. (Note I am only talking about how
one does the calculation. I am making no assumptions about what is `really
happening'.)  One then uses this `reduced wave function' at the other site
to compute the probability of a detection there. As long as the polarizers
are not changing this calculation is straight forward and produces the
standard quantum mechanical predictions.

If the polarizers are changing the calculation become problematic. One
might assume that since the wave function changes instantaneously it will
be reduced in accord with polarizer angles at the instant the reduction
occurs. This would make the delay between when the angles change and
this has an observable effect 0. This assumption leads to the unfortunate
conclusion that superluminal communication is possible. All we need do
is change the experimental configuration so the polarizers are located
close to the source and redirect the photons with mirrors so the detectors
can be located close together. Now we can change the angle of the polarizers
and this will instantaneously change the probability of a joint detection
at the distant detectors that are next to each other. We can immediately
detect this and thus we have a superluminal communications channel.

What then does quantum mechanics predict about this delay? The assumption
that wave function changes instantaneously with an observation is either
in direct contradiction with special relativity because of the superluminal
communication channel just described, is too vague to predict what these
delays are or (most likely) is false. The wave function probably
changes only in a *local* fashion. Of course the wave function we use
in calculations must be a composite of our lack of knowledge about a real
physical wave function and the real distribution of the physical wave
function. That portion of this function that represents are lack of
knowledge does change instantaneously with an observation. That portion
that represents a real physical entity does not.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc