Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Superluminal Communication

  1. Aug 17, 2008 #1
    My speculation relates to “Superluminal Communication” in the context of a paper by Robert Desbrandes and Daniel Van Gent titled “Intercontinental quantum liaisons between entangled electrons in ion traps of thermoluminescent crystals” (see http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611109). In their paper, Desbrandes and Van Gent proffer the following conclusions:

    “Entangled particles, such as electrons, can be “stored” in ion traps or impurities within thermoluminescent [dosimetry (TLD)]crystal lattices and remain isolated from environmental decoherence effects in the traps for considerable amounts of time. Electrons can be forced to leave these traps and then drop down to their respective ground state energies in the crystal lattice by thermal heating or by stimulated luminescence. An entangled electron dropping out of its ion trap will go through spin transitions which affect its entangled counterpart electron by reason of spin conservation laws such that it becomes favorable for the counterpart electron to exit its trap as a result, emitting some light while dropping to ground state, at whatever distances the traps are located from one another. Since traps can be entangled even though present in separate crystal lattices, such samples can be separated by a large distance and the entangled electrons still be connected until perturbed by thermal heating of the crystal lattice containing one of the trapped entangled electron pairs. It appears that the trapped entangled electrons escape only at discrete and unique temperature values, thus allowing the same glow curve response (although much less intense than the heated crystal) to be recorded for each non-heated thermoluminescent crystal when the temperature of the heated crystal lattice is increased and decreased.”

    As you can see, the experiment translates a correlated quantum event into a correlated non-quantum observable. It is the emission of light by a specifically identifiable TLD crystal that, from the study’s experimental findings, appears to be correlated. Although Desbrandes and Van Gent do not mention Superluminal Communication in their paper, my question is “does this study suggested ways by which Superluminal Communication might be possible?

    In consideration of this question, please visualize a large number of paired TLD crystals with the following characteristics: (i) Each TLD crystal pair is uniquely prepared relative to every other pair of TLD crystals such that when one crystal of a TLD crystal pair is heated, only its paired crystal will emit photons as described in the experiment. (ii) Each pair is uniquely identified or distinguished by any arbitrary means, to include numbering or sequential positioning. (iii) Retaining such identification or sequential positioning, the paired TLD crystals are separated into two ensembles. (iv) Each ensemble is then separated over some arbitrarily long distance.

    In the context of each TLD crystal being arbitrarily associated with some pre-determined message and making the assumption that the experimental findings were such that a signal event might be consistently distinguished from noise, it appears possible for the associated message to be superluminally transmitted by heating the designated “transmitting” crystal and monitoring the “receiving” crystal for the distinctive pattern of photon emissions that Desbrandes and Van Gent described in their study.

    Further, should the TLD crystals of each ensemble be sequentially designated with one ensemble being further designated the “transmitting” ensemble and the second ensemble being designated the “receiving” ensemble, it would also seen possible for simple binary messages to be superluminally transmitted through (i) the appropriate selection of crystals from the transmission ensemble and (ii) heating the selected crystals.

    Although the foregoing examples seem to be obvious applications of the paper’s experimental findings, it seems equally obvious that these hypothetical extensions of the Desbrandes and Van Gent study violate special relativity.

    There is another experiment by Daniel Van Gent (e.g. arXiv:nucl-ex/0411050) titled “Remote Stimulated Triggering of Quantum Entangled Nuclear Metastable States of 115m” that also appears to demonstrate superluminal communication. Van Gent’s description of the experimental design and results seem plausible, but the lack of confirming experiments for this and the experiment I reported above is troublesome.

    I would value the comments of others before I give further consideration to the experiment or to my adiabatic speculations outlined below.

    I know I should end my post here and await your comment on the Desbrandes and Van Gent paper. However, things could get even more interesting if the electrons trapped in a crystal might also be subject to adiabatic manipulation. The additional assumptions required for this thought experiment are: (i) It must be possible for trapped electrons to be stably maintained in a TLD crystal for an extended period of time. (ii) It must be possible for this stability to be extended for arbitrarily long periods of time when the TLD crystals are cryogenically maintained. (iii) The spin properties of entangled electrons within a crystal must be retained even when the crystal is placed in a cryogenic environment. (iv) It must be possible for such a cryogenically maintained crystal to be placed within a weak field for a sufficiently long period of time such that the spin of all or nearly all of the entangled electrons trapped within the transmission crystal to be adiabatically oriented in the same direction for any arbitrarily selected axis within the crystal without causing the electron to leave the trap. (v) The entangled electrons trapped within the receiving crystal must, notwithstanding a comparable cryogenic environment, assume the same spin orientation for the same selected axis, again without leaving the trap.

    With these assumptions met, the spin orientation for the predetermined axis may be set for ensembles of transmission and receiving crystals prior to their spatial separation. Thereafter, the spin orientation of the entangled electrons within selected crystals would be adiabatically changed for the same axis. The last assumptions of this thought experiment are: (i) at such time as the spin orientation of the entangled electrons within a receiving crystal equals or exceeds some critical percentage of the total number of entangle electrons within the crystal, some non-quantum attribute of the entire crystal will be changed and (ii) this macro-attribute may be observed without impact on the spin orientation of the entangled electrons which, in the aggregate, have caused the observable.

    Your critique of any aspect of this post would be valued.

    Thank you,

    Jon Trevathan
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 18, 2008 #2
    In experiments of this type, the issue always comes down to correlation of events at one end with events at the other. What I would ask is: How was the determination made that the passive light emissions of the slave crystal were highly correlated with the heated master if there was not some sort of non-superluminal communications channel to verify this? If some end-to-end verification was needed in correlating the experiment it does not matter if the turnaround point did not require any communications between ends and no superluminal transference of information took place.
     
  4. Aug 19, 2008 #3
    Dear Mr. Trevathan,

    Thank you very much for posting with great clarity this experiment that has actually been ongoing for about 15 years now. I also find your suggestions for further experimentation intriguing.

    I want to make clear at the outset that we are not claiming superluminal transfer of information since our experimental protocol does not allow for this test under the present circumstances (although it may be implied). Along those lines, I have proposed a "chronology protection" mechanism that would preclude the possibility of FTL information transfer. However, the argument (see below) is not very convincing. The time frame of the experiment requires a gradual heating of the "master" chip from room temperature to the target temperature of 250 C over an 8 minute period, then subsequently, an even longer natural "cool down" phase after the heating oven is cut off. We have the heating and cooling function of this oven very well characterized by thermistor measurements. Obviously, determination of the "speed" of information transfer within the time period and distance involved in the present experiment are not feasible.

    What we find is truly unique about this experiment is that we are essentially observing a non-deterministic statistical "time reversal" by allowing the master chip to cool down. After a proper compression of the PMT light emission data of the "slave" chip for the somewhat slower cooling phase opposed to the "faster" heating phase, we find that the light emission data from the slave chip strongly auto-correlates with itself when the cooling phase data is essentially "bent" back on itself via computer algorithm at the heating oven cutoff time. Thus, the "pivotal" point for determining this correlation is the oven "cutoff" point typically at 8:00 minutes.

    The reader no doubt would ask himself/herself how this could be done without communicating the oven cutoff point to the experimenter in France recording the light emission of the "slave" chip. This is the critical question of the entire experiment. The short answer is that we have written a computer algorithm that seeks the best "reverse" autocorrelation of the recroded slave chip light emission vs time data which invariably is calculated (or iterated by the algorithm) at about 8:10 minutes for the oven cutoff time which would seem to indicate that the "master" chip temperature is lagging about 8-10 seconds behind the instantaneous oven temperature. Thus, the slave chip is "tattling" on itself by emitting a reverse light emssion "playback" that is highly reverse auto-correlated (correlation coefficients of r^2 as high as 0.70) It does not appear that a conventional communication is required since the autocorrelation of the slave chip emissions provides self-consistent authentication and verification of the oven cutoff time for the mastr chip. We have varied the oven cutoff times from 5 to 9 minutes, and the computer algorithm is remarkably consistent in determining the oven cutoff time with impressive accuracy in over 95% of the experimental trials run to date. We have a "fast" oven and a "slow" oven in order to reach the target temperature at 250 C at varying cutoff times.

    Most recently, we are using a pulsed Laser to thermally stimulate the "master" chip. We are finding encouraging results, but since heating occurs mush more quickly with the Laser pulsing, we appear to be observing an "echo" effect after each Laser stimulation which requires about five minutes to damp out. We attribute this effect to the non-linear dynamics between the two chips, as if they are having a negative feedback "conversation" with each other.

    Another curious observation common to these experimental trials is that the light emission data emitted from the slave chip appears to be the first derivative of the actual glow curve expected from the "master" chip. We are not sure why this may be the case (any ideas are welcome).

    PROPOSED CHRONOLOGY PROTECTION MECHANISM:

    I have actually worked very hard to come up with a "chronology protection" mechanism that could be applied to this experiment that would PRECLUDE superluminal information transfer, since the prevailing thought is that superluminal information transfer is not possible (again, I am trying to "reconcile" Relativity with Quantum Theory in my own mind).

    The only conceivable "protection" mechanism I can postulate is related to R. Penrose' "one graviton limit" which supposedly would account for the collapse of any given wave function into an actual observable outcome.

    Penrose' utilizes a cloud chamber with an alpha emitting isotope within it to illustrate this concept. He goes on to point out that the alpha particle potential emission paths in the cloud chamber are almost unlimited, so what allows for the macroscopic observation of a single trajectory "track" in the cloud chamber for each alpha particle emission? Penrose argues that the first potential "alpha trajectory track" that reaches the "one graviton" interaction limit is the one that materializes as the observed trajectory for any given alpha emission within the cloud chamber.

    Thus, I imagine that the track length (distance) of the "potential" tracks in the cloud chamber may be related to how quickly the "one graviton" limit allows for collapse of one of the many potential "tracks" into an observable "average" length which is also dependent on the kinetic energy of the particular alpha "particle." Only very rarely is a "maximum" track length observed for a given energy of alpha particles emissions in a cloud chamber which implies to me that length or distance MAY be a factor related to how "fast" a potential path can be collapsed.

    If this supposition is correct, then actual spatial distance between the entangled electrons (France and Oklahoma) may be a rate limiting factor of the collapse of an entangled particles wave function because of the "one graviton" limit. Since the wave function is "delocalized" and evidently virtual gravitons are thought to be delocalized, the interaction between wave functions and virtual gravitons may possibly constitute a chronology protection mechanism. I have already discussed this with some of my physics colleagues and friends, and most of them think this proposed "one graviton limit" chronology protection mechanism is implausible for various reasons, but it is the only possibility that I can currently proffer at this time.

    I tend to reply to reasonably polite and open-minded persons, especially those that are not still stuck in the worn out and dogmatic, "Alice and Bob Primer" world of single photons-quantum channeling-and conventional verification. There is so much more to quantum entanglement than this. Please let us move into a broader and much more general application of quantum entanglement where experiment trumps theory and revised theory verifies and validates experimental results. If I am not mistaken, that is the procedure in applying of the basic concepts of Scientific Method.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2008
  5. Aug 19, 2008 #4
    This is where you lost me:

    'In the case of the present work, the state of particle A is not measured, it is forced by
    stimulation to go from state I 1 >A to state I 0 >A,"

    If you force the particle to go into a particular state, you can no longer claim it is entangled with the other or that the state of the other is known. The measurement of the entangled particle B will appear completely random.
     
  6. Aug 19, 2008 #5

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I want to thank the participants in this thread for some very interesting comments. This is what I come to PhysicsForums for...

    :)

    -DrC
     
  7. Aug 20, 2008 #6
    “The reader no doubt would ask himself/herself how this could be done without communicating the oven cutoff point to the experimenter in France recording the light emission of the "slave" chip. This is the critical question of the entire experiment. The short answer is that we have written a computer algorithm that seeks the best "reverse" autocorrelation of the recroded slave chip light emission vs time data which invariably is calculated (or iterated by the algorithm) at about 8:10 minutes for the oven cutoff time which would seem to indicate that the "master" chip temperature is lagging about 8-10 seconds behind the instantaneous oven temperature. Thus, the slave chip is "tattling" on itself by emitting a reverse light emssion "playback" that is highly reverse auto-correlated (correlation coefficients of r^2 as high as 0.70) It does not appear that a conventional communication is required since the autocorrelation of the slave chip emissions provides self-consistent authentication and verification of the oven cutoff time for the mastr chip. We have varied the oven cutoff times from 5 to 9 minutes, and the computer algorithm is remarkably consistent in determining the oven cutoff time with impressive accuracy in over 95% of the experimental trials run to date. We have a "fast" oven and a "slow" oven in order to reach the target temperature at 250 C at varying cutoff times.”—Van Gent--


    Thank you for that explanation. It has long been my contention that, if superluminal communication is to be achieved, it will be by using quantum entanglement in conjunction with a powerful computer using statistical analysis to sort out the random interreactions from those that are forced. That appears to be just what you are doing. In this way it may possible to achieve the goal of superluminal communication by still remaining within the laws of physics because those laws do not take into account the effect of a powerful computational capability or coding algorithm. If several such paired crystals are arranged into an array, as suggested by Mr. Trevathan, it should be theoretically possible to send superluminal code. I look forward to reading more about this in the future. The very best of luck to you!

    “Another curious observation common to these experimental trials is that the light emission data emitted from the slave chip appears to be the first derivative of the actual glow curve expected from the "master" chip. We are not sure why this may be the case (any ideas are welcome).”—Van Gent--


    What comes immediately to my mind is the capacitance effect of the crystal.
     
  8. Aug 20, 2008 #7
    This is an obvious suggestion, but I cannot find reference to it in your text: Try to 'send' say, 10 bits of information from master to slave. If what you are saying is true, that should be possible and would be a major breakthrough if it worked. If it cannot do that, well its superluminal, sure, but only for the usual entangled correlations.
     
  9. Aug 20, 2008 #8

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The arXiv listing is from 2006. Has this paper been published? A complete journal citation would be appropriate.
     
  10. Aug 20, 2008 #9
    This is not a superluminal example but an attempt at communication using entanglement at a macroscopic level.

    Based on what the paper says was done in the experiment, IMO the same results and conclusions would have been obtained if the wrong crystal or no crystal had been put in the oven for heating.
    That the experiment did not include such a simple set up test of what their procedures actually produced with the wrong crystal or no crystal in the oven is a significant shortcoming in the experiment.
    I cannot imagine this passing any peer review for a journal.
    It is so short of addressing its claims properly it makes me suspect it as an intentional fake.
     
  11. Aug 20, 2008 #10
    This post is for the purpose of clarifying that the experimental design does not allow for any "forced" measurements of any kind (unless we are deceiving ourselve, which is always a possiblity). We do increase the probability of spontaneous electron decay from the crystal lattice traps by increasing the thermal energy of the crystal lattice. Peter0302 was kind enough to post this highly relevant "inconsistency."

    This is a "hands off" experiment where we simply let nature take its course after pairing chips and x-ray irradiating them. The irradiation process promotes ground state electrons in the crystal lattice of Lithium fluoride into impurity traps or defects in the crystal lattice. In our case, we purchase commercially manufactured TLD chips that have been "doped" by design with a fairly large concentration of "impurities" for the purpose of maximizing the probability of "trapping" electrons promoted by ionizing radiation.

    The "decay" of an electron out of a crystal lattice impurity trap back into the crystal lattice ground state actually occurs spontaneously at room temperature, but at quite a slow rate (about 5-10% of the trapped electrons per year). This phenomenon is called "fading" in thermoluminescence terminology and is a first order decay process that follows simple exponential spontaneous decay kinetics.

    We don't "force" anything during the experiment, but we do increase the probability of spontaneous decay of the impurity trapped electrons by increasing the thermal temperature of the chips. Thermal heating of a crystal lattice at the molecular level is a purely random process that causes the crystal lattice to become more disordered which in turn increases degrees of freedom within the crystal lattice. Thus, it becomes much more probable for a trapped electron to "fall" out of its impurity trap at 250 degrees C than at 22 degrees C. I am oversimplifying the theory of the mechanism by which the trapped electrons are released from their traps by thermal energy of the crystal lattice for the sake of brevity. There are several very good books and papers describing the theoretical mechanism for electron release (which involves phonons interacting with the crystal lattice traps) in detail by McKeever and others:

    S.W.S.McKeever, Thermoluminescence of Solids, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985).

    http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/issues/fiz-01-25-4/fiz-25-4-6-9910-2.pdf

    The same is true for the cooling phase of the thermal cycle where we allow the oven (and chip) to cool "naturally" without any interference from us. We leave the oven door closed during both the heating and cooling phase, so it turns out that the natural cooling rate is quite a bit slower than the heating phase. Thus, the cooling of the crystal lattice constitutes a non-deterministic reversal. During the cooling phase, we record a "reverse play back" light emission from the slave chip as the master chip cools and the crystal lattice of the master chip returns to its "original" state (which cooling is also non-deterministic, so it won't be the exact state as the original state before heating).

    There are basically three populations of trapped electrons present in an x-ray irradiated chip of this type (TLD 100), each population having different characteristic energy states above the ground state of the crystal lattice. It so happens that at certain chip temperatures of fairly narrow "width", phonons resonate with the electron traps such that spontaneous decay probability is greatly increased, and so a characteristic "glow curve" is recorded with three peaks in light emission at these resonance temperature. The lower the electron energy of a particular impurity trap population, the more rapidly the electrons fall out of the traps when the characteristic "resonant" temperatures are reached. The trapped electrons emit light in the visible to UV range as they fall back from the traps to ground state. Thus, each of the three populations gives rise to a recognizable and repeatable glow curve "signature" with three light emission "peaks."

    Therefore, we are able to "recognize" the three expected characteristic peaks found at three different temperatures in light emissions by the slave chip. However, there is quite a bit of variation in peak position and shape between chips even of the same batch. The "reverse" play back observed from the slave chip as the master chip cools allows for "verification" of the three peak position on a "light emission intensity" vs. "temperature" graph. The computer algorithm takes the entire data collection and basically iterates to the best reverse auto-correlation with the glow curve data turned "backwards." The computer algorithm then gives the most probable temperature "turn around point" which is typically about 10 seconds after the hearting oven has cut off.

    I might add that this process simply does not work when we use a double gamma photon emitting source such as Co-60 instead of machine produced x-rays to irradiate the paired chips. On the other hand, X-ray (Bremsstrahlung) photons produced by man-made electron accelerators are ideal for this type of experiment. Machine generated x-ray photons as opposed to nuclear emitted gamma rays are much more directional and have highly correlated spins. Man-made x-ray equipment also produces periodic "pulsed" x-ray "bursts" based on alternating current operation.

    Thanks very much for your comments,

    Daniel Van Gent
     
  12. Aug 20, 2008 #11
    Dear RandallB,


    Why so sardonic? Have you never been ill-treated by your "peers?" All you have to do is ask for additonal information. We are not intentionally holding anything back from honest persons willing to condsider the experimental results. I freely admit that the archive paper is incomplete and a rough sketch summary of a large number of actual experimental trials. Do you really think we have not considered the problem with "noise?"

    The paper in the archive is intentonally a very rough and incomplete draft version of the data collected and analyzed from thousands of hours spent collecting real data during actual experiments.

    It is inconceivable that an honest Research Scientist would be so quick to render a condemnation of an experiment and even the concepts of it before considering the broader facts and experimental results. Then again, politeness and professional courtesey seem to be a rapidly fading art among men of professed higher learning these days.

    We have run countless "null" experiments and run the autocorrelation algorithm on these controls many times. Certainly, noise does autocorrelate to a small degree, but we do not observe any hint of the characteristic energy peaks that are readibly observed when irradiated chips are used. The best we can auto-correlate noise from null experiments with our measurement system is below r^2 = 0.11. The typical autocrrelation outcome for "loaded" experiments is almost invariably above r^2 = 0.50 and clusters toward an upper limit of 0.70.

    We have nothing to hide and are honest experimentalists. If you doubt this, please see Dr. Robert Desbrandes dsitinguished carreer as an Ph.D engineer with a culmination of it with the life time achievement medal awarded in Norway. We would also be pleased to send you more actual raw data (null or otherwise)

    Your objection is well-taken, however, if it is an honest one. Obviously, we don't expect anyone to "believe" what we have put forward without a mountain of empirical data to support our assertions. This forum is only useful if ideas, concepts, and data can be exchanged without suspicion or bias. It is sad that "science" among many has degraded into the same type of sniping and small-mindedness typical in an AOL chat room.

    Please, we can surely do better than this in the interest of scientific inquiry?

    Daniel Van Gent
     
  13. Aug 20, 2008 #12

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You could clarify one important thing that Doc Al has requested - in which journal was this published? This after all, is one of a criteria for "scientific inquiry".
    Zz.
     
  14. Aug 20, 2008 #13
    Dear ZapperZ,

    I mean no disrepect to Dr. Al since I have been carefully thinking about how to answer this question. Let us just say that it is "under Review" for the moment by some reputable journals.

    If there is an implication that since the paper has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the experimental evidence can be dismissed out of hand, I include this "edited" email from a world expert in his field:


    Dan,

    Very interesting (not that I understand everything, but I get the gist). Quite similar, if not the same thing, as I put in the preface of my Ph.D. dissertation.

    I find that there is a terrible level of jealousy among scientists, and as a whole, I am not impressed with their claims of objectivity. My best manuscripts always have to run a gauntlet (while the poorer papers are accepted without a second thought). The review process for journals is deeply, deeply flawed. A lot of reviewers seem to have as a default position the rejection of all papers that come their way. My nemesis here at the USDA, for example, is a good ol' boy who depended on cronyism to get to where he is, and he has stated to me that in all his years of being a reviewer (and on the board for Environmental XXXXXXXXXX), he has never accepted a manuscript. I find this sort of attitude to be all too common. You just have to keep trying, and to offer sensible rebuttals. Good luck.

    Looks like this weekend will be good for fishing. **** and I will be out on the water.


    With sincerest respect,


    Daniel Van Gent
     
  15. Aug 20, 2008 #14

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    It really doesn't matter. Unlike String and high energy physics, this area of study still does an overwhelming majority of its work based on peer-reviewed work, and that's what has been required not just from you, but from every member who participate in this particular subforum.

    If it hasn't been published, and the manuscript was from 2006, then many people are inclined to think that there's something wrong with it in the first place. Again, as you have insisted as part of "scientific inquiry", a major criteria for something to even be considered as valid nowadays is that it is published in peer-reviewed journals. I'm assuming that this review process has been going on and that you should be receiving a decision soon (if it is PRL, it would take only 2 weeks for the referees to send back their reports). So maybe you should wait until you get a definitive yes before we discuss this any further.

    Zz.
     
  16. Aug 20, 2008 #15
    I am very grateful to Dr. Van Gent for his participation in this discussion and wish to thank him for illuminating the experiments which led to my speculations. It is my hope that he will continue to do so.

    However, as I look over the comments that have been posted so far, I apprehend that there is more than one discussion going on. Dr. Van Gent is generating what is, to me, some incredibly interesting science. The discussion that he is leading relates principally to the procedural details and specific theories applicable to his experimentations. Accordingly, the science of his experiments constitutes one theme of our discussion; which I hope will continue and blossom with additional participants.

    The second theme of our discussion is “superluminal communication”; which was to me an attention grabbing title – and little more. Everyone who is reading this thread knows that “superluminal communication”, as this term is traditionally understood, violates special relativity and is impossible. As noted in my initial post, Drs. Van Gent and Desbrandes do not mention “superluminal communication” in the paper I cited. Dr. Van Gent has clearly pointed this out in his initial post. He, in fact believes that the presence of a "chronology protection" mechanism to preclude superluminal communication should be an element of any explanatory theory that is developed for his experimental findings. I too believe that, as conventionally understood, superluminal communication is an impossibility yet I also believe that the thought experiments I proffered in connection with Dr. Van Gent’s work give every indication that this conventional understanding might be violated. This is the 300 pound gorilla that is in the same room as the Dr. Van Gent’s experiments and our discussions. As I reflected on the comments that implicitly addressed this theme I am reminded of Albert Einstein statement: "It is the theory that decides what we can observe."

    There we have it --A paradox of some very interesting, and I now believe very well-done science, with an impossible implication. Niels Bohr one said “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.” Niels Bohr also said “Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it.” This is our challenge.

    As a third theme for our discussion may I proffer the work of Yakir Aharonov, Jeff Tollaksen and others on time symmetric quantum mechanics (TSQM) for your consideration. (see, as example only, New Insights on Time-Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics; http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1232)

    According to Drs. Yakir Aharonov and Daniel Rohrlich in their book: Quantum Paradoxes: Quantum Theory for the Perplexed; "the claim that quantum theory is incomplete may well be correct, though not in the EPR sense. Quantum theory does not explain how we go from probability to observation, from possibility to actuality, as a complete theory would."

    Best wishes,

    Jon Trevathan
     
  17. Aug 20, 2008 #16

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Unverified personal theories must only be done in the IR forum, per our PF Guidelines which you had agreed to upon joining.

    This thread is done.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2008
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?