On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 10:04 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>> At the risk of beating a dead horse, Cramer's Transactional Interpretation
>> Quantum Mechanics TIQM, a 4th possible interpetation of QM, requires waves
>> coming back from the future.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation "More
>> recently he [Cramer] has also argued TIQM to be consistent with the
>> Afshar experiment, while claiming that the Copenhagen interpretation
>> and the many-worlds interpretation are not."
>>  ^ A Farewell to Copenhagen?, by John Cramer. Analog, December 2005.
>> Feynman used waves coming back from the future to solve his Quantum
>> Electrodynamics QED, the most experimentally accurate physics theory
>> extant, which in my mind lends TIQM credence. Such teteological
>> effects are expanded on for living systems in Terrence Deacon's book
>> "Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter".
>> Is evidence of anticipatory effects possibly evidence for TIQM?
> Hi Richard,
> The advanced wave aspect is bounded in the future, just as the retarded
> waves are bounded in the past within a finite duration that is related to
> the Hamiltonian of the system in question. The best picture of this is to
> think of a standing wave bouncing between a pair of zero phase nodes. This
> is how normal QM works, the bra and ket of Dirac's formalism is just another
> version of this, but it does not take relativity (relative motions of
> objects 'in' space-time) into account.
> The anticipatory effect is a bit different as it involves a component of
> information that seems to be outside the causal light cone. This is an
> concept that requires new thinking about what "causality" is!
>> I should add that my extension of ordinary superstring theory, and in
>> particular the properties of the compactified dimensions, provides a
>> mechanism for TIQM. The conjecture of my extension is that the compact
>> particles or monads react instantly to the entire universe because of
>> its exterior to interior mapping, as Brian Greene showed in a 2-D
> Superstrings are not helpful here as they assume a flat space-time
> background and are just fibrations of that space-time. I don't know of any
> discussion of a variability of the compactified manifolds or whatever that
> would give us an explanation. The internal dimensions of the manifolds have
> no relation what so ever to the dimensions of space-time. They are
> orthogonal and thus completely independent.
I do not understand what you are saying here.
The compact manifolds are 10^90/cc, 1000 Planck-length, 6-d particles
in a 3-D space.
How can those 6d dimensions be orthogonal to 3D space?
I admit that it is a conjecture that each particle maps the universe instantly.
So if you have a means to falsify that conjecture I would like to hear about it.
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at