According to QM, in small systems evolving according to the Hamiltonian,
time certainly exists but there is no arrow of time within the scope of
the experiment.  In such small systems we can run the movie backwards
and everything looks normal.  Of course the movie can't include a
measurement suitable for a human, because in order for a human to know
something he will inevitably send large numbers of advanced waves
backwards in time stuffing up the supposed smallness of the experiment.
This I believe is the source of QM uncertainty.  Thinking of an event at
the "end" of the experiment influencing something at the "beginning" is
*not* at odds with our normal conception of cause and effect (which is
associated with the arrow of time due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics).

In the case of the two slit experiment,  it seems easier to say that the
screen (a macroscopic measuring device) is able to send advanced waves
backwards in time, backward through the slits interacting with the
electron gun attempting to emit an electron,  rather than say that the
"particle behaves like a wave", or there is a "pilot wave steering the
electron".

For "spooky action at a distance" experiments, advanced waves easily
explains how a human may measure (say) the spin of one electron, and
because of an advanced wave traveling backwards in time to when the pair
of electrons were close to each other, it is able to "causally" affect
its spin, and the spin of its paired electron currently some distance
away "instantaneously".  It seems clear to me that our normal notion of
causality will break down precisely when it is allowed to - ie in small
reversible systems.  Why invent "holographic" interpretations of the
universe when we don't need to?

The huge advantage of advanced waves for me is the explanation of
inertia because it allows all the matter in the universe to act on an
accelerated mass instantaneously.  Otherwise one is left asking how
"empty space" knows about a privileged inertial frame of reference.

See http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/

- David


-----Original Message-----
From: scerir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2003 4:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "spooky action at a distance"

David Barrett-Lennard

> Isn't "non-locality" simply associated with 
> the ability for the "future" to affect the "past"?

Imo future and past means time, and light cones, etc.
If there is no flow of time, there is no past, and 
no future. 

But I may be wrong. Because, at this level, as
pointed out long ago by Finkelstein it is
difficult to distinguish between subject and
object. So it is possible a self-interaction 
(self-reference!) governed by some internal 
parameter, instead of time.

This reminds me of an unknown italian poet (XVIII sec.) 
who wrote: "Era il tempo che il tempo ancor nun era tempo".
Unfortunately this poet is so little known that I also
forgot his name! Anyway my poor translation is:
"Once upon a time the time wasn't yet time."

Finkelstein: "The Physics of Logic" [in "Paradigms and 
Paradoxes", ed. R. G. Colodny, 1971, pag. 60]:
 "There is, to be sure, a genuine problem in the phenomenon
of quantum measurement, but I will not discuss it here. It
concerns *introspective* systems, were subject = object so
that the basic conception of a single subject observing an
ensemble of objects must be modified."



Reply via email to