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 >> of >> 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 >> approximation. > > 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. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Calabi-Yau_manifold#Calabi-Yau_manifolds_in_string_theory . 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. Richard >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract >>> >>> Comments? >>> > > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.