Recent content by moving-finger

OK, but we're just nit-picking. An "initial condition" is a "boundary condition" in my book.

I clearly need to read more - the following from Silberstein & Stuckey suggests that RBW is indeed a local theory, but I just don't understand how it does this. More study needed. Thanks for picking me up on this. www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/SilbersteinStuckey.pdf

Demystifier seems to be suggesting that its the boundary conditions which make the difference - simple determinism could assume arbitrary boundary conditions, whereas superdeterminism (at least according to Demystifier) requires some special set of boundary conditions.

I often find that people reject determinism, because it rules out free will. But what makes you think that free will exists anyway, even if the world is not deterministic? As a concept, free will is emotionally attractive, but totally incoherent.

I concur.

As I understand it, RBW isn't so much a time-symmetric interpretation, as an atemporal interpretation, in the sense that RBW views the world in terms of 4D spacetime (blockworld), with any notions of time actually flowing, or of any kind of temporal dynamics (which is implicit to TI), being...

If the world is deterministic, these "initial positions" are all determined (by prior states of the world) - including the "positions" of the particles in the brains of the experimenters - so one has to ask - what is a "free decision" in this context? There seems to be some disagreement about...

An interesting question. "Never" is an awfully long time :) It could be argued that all photons "eventually" arrive somewhere - though it may take some of them "forever" to arrive. But then, from the POV of the photon, the journey takes no time at all. If TI is correct, then all photons...

Agreed. But its also true that 110 years ago, it was not at all generally accepted that Newton was anything other than rock solid.

Interesting. Is a deterministic variation of TI in principle not possible (ie something along the lines of hidden variables)? And if not, why not?

Thanks for this, Fred. I'm struggling to understand their work. It seems to me the time coincidence window cannot be taken out of the experiments (all work to date has relied on time coincidence to identify entangled pairs?), so their algorithms (based on local reality) can be made to match...

With respect, this reminds me of the alleged Lord Kelvin statement over 100 years ago: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement"

ADVANCES IN QUANTUM THEORY: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Quantum Theory, edited by G. Jaeger, A. Khrennikov, M. Schlosshauer, G. Weihs, (AIP Conference Proceedings, Melville and New York, 2011), vol. 1327, p. 429 - 433 Similar but much more detailed paper...

Are you saying there can be no interference pattern whatsoever observed at D0? For any photon to leave the crystal and be detected at D0 (for any given position of D0), the photon must have a specific angle of emission. The configuration of D0 plus the two "points of emission" on the crystal...

So... in the DCQE, we are saying that coherence is actually (really, genuinely) "spoiled" by the crystal, such that no interference pattern at all can be observed; and yet somehow this "spoiled" coherence can be magically regenerated, and the interference pattern also regenerated, simply by...