[ExI] Josephson Brains

scerir scerir at libero.it
Sat Feb 27 22:07:21 UTC 2010

[...] (according to the available data) "ESP" is as effective with future 
random targets as with realtime hidden targets. That's what makes it 
interesting and truly puzzling. To explain this data is going to require a 
revision or expansion of current physics models--maybe some version of 
entanglement, or maybe Cramer's transactional handshaking, or something utterly 
new, that *does* permit nonlocal signaling.


Already in the '80s Bohm and Aharonov in a couple of papers showed that the 
evolution of quantum states (i.e. entangled states) cannot be made covariant (i.
e. it cannot be made invariant under reltivistic boosts that change the time-
ordering of events). But Bohm and Aharonov showed that the probability 
distributions of possible outcomes are covariant.

In Gisin's words: "The probability distributions are covariant, but don't 
describe the actual world. The realizations describe the world we see around 
us, but, necessarily, in a non-covariant way. In short: Only the cloud of 
potentialities is covariant, the actual events aren't. Hence, in some sense, 
the open future is covariant, but the past is not."

Decades and decades of models and experiments about Bell theorems, and 
inequalities, and nonlocality, and nonseparability, have also shown that: 1) 
there are no local hidden variables; 2) there are no nonlocal hidden variables; 
3) there are no hidden variables of any possible kind; 4) the remaining option 
- a sort of 'sui generis' hidden variable model - being the transactional 
interpretation, and the Aharonov two-time interpretation, | ket > & < bra | 
having different / opposite times; 5) there are models, sometimes called "flash 
onotology", based on GRW dynamics, but they are rather "ad hoc". 

Summing up: nonlocality, nonseparability, no local causality, no relativistic 
causality, they all rule out spacetime as we know it (or they are hints to a 
more physical spacetime, based on nonlocal quantum processes).

Under the necessary postulate of "free will" of observers (establishing 
specific experiments), and instruments (with random parameters to be set), 
during a Bell-type experiment (a sort of precondition imposed by Bell to avoid 
the "ultimate conspiracy"),  the actual reification of single outcomes (in 
spacelike separated regions) is something happening completely out-of-
(as we know it from relativistic theories). As Pauli once said, the outcome is 
something "irrational", an act of "creation" (and Gisin repeats that). 

The interesting point  here is the following "loop". If outcomes are unique 
acts of creation, out-of-spacetime (since there is no possible relativistic 
representation), nonetheless they are real facts, they are the only real 
physical facts. So these outcomes must also be the only bricks from which the 
"true" spacetime must be build. In Gisin's words "[Q]uantum events are not mere 
functions of variables in spacetime, but true creations: time does not merely 
unfold, true becoming is at work. The accumulation of creative events is the 
fabric of time.” Rather, I would have said ... " is the fabric of spacetime".

Dunno the possible consequences of all that for PSI stuff.  But for sure some 
(unknown) conceptual revolution is needed also here.

Gisin: http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1392
Gisin: http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1390
Kastner: http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2675
Tumulka: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0602208
Suarez: http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2697

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list