O. Costa de Beauregard

Time symmetry and the Einstein paradox. - II

SummaryTo the predictive Einstein correlation between future measurements corresponds a retrodictive Einstein correlation between past preparations, exemplified by Pflegor and Mandel–s interference experiments between independent laser beams (one cannot retrodict from which laser each detected photon has come, so that the two emissions are « nonseparable »). It is shown that the Schwinger-FeynmanS-matrix formalism describes both of these phenomena, which thus belong torelativistic quantum mechanics. Intrinsic time symmetryplus Born–s addition of partial amplitudes are the essential ingredients of the Einstein correlation, which is tiedvia the Peynman zigzag (that isindirectly). Joint absorption of two polarized photons in an anticascade induced by two superposed laser beams (« echelon absorption ») is suggested as a convenient, fast and precise procedure for testing the wellknown quantal sinusoid (absorption ratevs. angle between the polarizers). As a throught experiment, this arrangement allows an illuminating discussion of intrinsic time symmetryvs. factlike, macroscopic, time asymmetry with respect to 1) varying the lengths of the beams and 2) turning the polarizers while the photons are in flight.RiassuntoAlle correlazioni predittive di Einstein tra misurazioni future corrisponde una correlazione retrodittiva di Einstein tra preparazioni passate, esemplificate da esperimenti sull–interferenza di Pflegor e Mandel tra raggi laser indipendenti (uno non può retrodeterminare da quale laser ogni definito f otone è venuto cosioche le due emissioni sono « non separabili »). Si mostra che il formalismo di Schwinger-Feynman sulla matrice S descrive entrambi questi fenomeni, che così appartengono alla meccanica quantistica relativistica. La simmetria intrinseca di tempo più I–addizione di Born delle ampiezze parziali sono gli ingredienti essenziali della correlazione di Einstein, che è vincolata tramite il zig zag di Feynman (cioè indirettamente). L–associato assorbimento di due fotoni polarizzati in un–anticascata indotta da due raggi laser sovrapposti (« assorbimento a scaglioni ») è suggerito come procedura conveniente, veloce e precisa per controllare il ben noto sinusoide quantale (valore di assorbimento rispetto all–angolo tra i polarizzatori). Come esperimento pensato, questo schema permette una discussione illuminante della simmetria di tempo intrinseca rispetto all–asimmetria di tempo macroscopica fattiforme, nei confronti del 1) variare le lunghezze dei raggi e 2) voltare i polarizzatori mentre i fotoni sono in volo.РезюмеЧтобы предсказанная Эйнштейновская корреляция между будущими измерениями соответствовала послесказанной Эйнштейновской корреляции между прошлыми приготовлениями, рассматриваются интерференционные эксперименты Флегора и Мандела между независимыми лазерными пучками (невозможно сказать, каким лазером был испущен каждый зарегистрированный фотон, т.е. два излучателя являются неразличимыми). Показывается, что формализм S-матрицы Швингера-Фейнмана описывает оба эти явления, которые относятся к релятивистской квантовой механике. Симметрия собственного времени плис борновское добавление парциальных амплитуд представляют необходумые ингредиенты Эйнштейновской корреляции, которая связана через зигзаг Фейнмана (т.е. косвенно) Предполагается, что совместное поглощение двух поляризованных фотонов в анти-каскаде, индуцированном двумя лазерными пучками («ступенчатое поглощение ») представляет удобный, быстрый и точный метод проверки хорошо известной квантовой синусоиды (интенсивность поглощения в зависимости от угла между поляризациями). Этот мысленный эксперимент позволяет обсудить симметрию собственного времени в зависимости от макроскопической временной асимметрии при 1) изменении длительности импульсов, 2) вр изменении длительности импульсов, 2) вращении поляризации во время поляризации во время движения фотонов.

Time symmetry and interpretation of quantum mechanics

A drastic resolution of the quantum paradoxes is proposed, combining (I) von Neumanns postulate that collapse of the state vector is due to the act of observation, and (II) my reinterpretation of von Neumanns quantal irreversibility as an equivalence between wave retardation and entropy increase, both being “factlike” rather than “lawlike” (Mehlberg). This entails a coupling of the two de jure symmetries between (I) retarded and (II) advanced waves, and between Aristotles information as (I) learning and (II) willing awareness. Symmetric acceptance of cognizance as a source of retarted waves, and of will as a sink of advanced waves, is submitted as a central “paradox” of the Copernican or Einsteinian sort, out of which new light is shed upon previously known paradoxes, such as the EPR paradox, Schrödingers cat, and Wigners friend. Parapsychology is thus found to creep into the picture.

Time symmetry and the Einstein paradox@@@Сqiмметрия времени и п арадокс Эйнштейна

SummaryThe characteristic difference between the paleoquantal calculation (addition of partial probabilities) and the neoquantal one (addition of partial amplitudes) for the correlation of photon polarizations in cascade transitions is derived in terms of elementary trigonometry. This deliberate use of simple formulae aims at a transparent rendering of the change in paradigm required by the so-called EPR paradox (which is truly the 1927 Einstein paradox), namely that 1) the two photons donot possess polarizations of their own when leaving the source C, butborrow onelater, when interacting with the analysersL andN; 2) the die is thus not cast atC, but later, atL andN; 3) the correlation between the measurements atL andN is tied throughC, in their common past. The tight connection between this « Einstein nonseparability » and the nonlocality in Feynman’s « theory of positrons » is demonstrated through an analysis of the e+e+ annihilation into two photons. Thus the Einstein paradoxcorresponds, in the « new wavelike probability calculus », to the Loschmid and Zermelo sort of paradox in the old probability calculus. That is, it contrasts theintrinsic time symmetry existing at the elementary level to thefactlike macroscopic time asymmetry. Our discussion deliberately by-passes the hidden-variable problem, our model in this being Einstein’s by-passing of the mechanical aether when proposing special relativity. We believe that here today, like there in 1905, the problem istayloring the wording after the (operationally good)mathematics. Moreover, that the change in paradigm, which is needed, comes through a victory of formalism over modelism.RiassuntoSi deriva la caratteristica differenza tra il calcolo paleoquantico (somme di probabilità parziali) e quello neoquantico (somme di ampiezze parziali) per la correlazione di polarizzazioni di fotoni in transizioni a cascata sulle basi della trigonometria elementare. Questo uso deliberato di formule semplici mira a rendere chiaro il cambiamenio di paradigma richiesto dal cosiddetto paradosso di EPR (che è realmente il paradosso di Einstein del 1927), cioè che 1) i due fotoni non posseggono polarizzazioni in proprio quando lasciano la sorgenteC, ma ne prendono in prestito una più tardi, quando interagiscono con gli analizzatoriL eN; 2) il dado non è tratto inC, ma più tardi, inL eN; 3) la correlazione tra misurazioni inL e N è legata tramiteC nel loro comune passato. La salda correlazione tra questa « non separabilità di Einstein » e la non località nella « teoria dei positoni » di Feynmann è dimostrata attraverso un’analisi dell’annichilazione di e+e+ in due fotoni. Così il paradosso di Einstein corrisponde, nel « nuovo calcolo della probabilità ondulatoria », al tipo di paradosso di Loschmid e Zermelo nel vecchio calcolo delle probabilità. Cioè esso contrappone l’intrinseca simmetria temporale che esiste al livello elementare alla macroscopica asimmetria temporale fattuale. La nostra discussione trascura deliberatamente il problema delle variabili nascoste, prendendo come modello in ciò la trascuratezza di Einstein riguardo l’etere meccanico, nel proporre la sua relatività ristretta. Crediamo che qui oggi, come là nel 1905, il problema sia costruire il discorso secondo la matematica (valida dal punto di vista operativo). E in più il fatto che il cambiamento di paradigma, che è necessario, avvenga attraverso una vittoria del formalisme) sul modellismo.РезюмеС помощью элементарн ой тригонометрии определяется характ ерное различие между палео квантовым вычислени ем (суммирование парциа льных вероятностей) и неоквантовым вычис лением (суммирование парциальных амплитуд) для корреляции поляр изаций фотонов в каск адных переходах. Указанное обдуманное использование прост ых формул имеет цель сформулировать в явн ом виде изменение в па радигме, требуемое та к называемым ЕРR парад оксом (к требуемое так называ емым ЕРR парадоксом (ко торый является парад оксом Эйнштейна), а име нно: 1) два фотона не обл адают поляризациями, когда испуск является парадоксом Эйнштейна), а именно: 1) д ва фотона не обладают поляризациями, когда испускаются источни ком С, но позже преобре тают поляризацию, ког да взаимодействуют с анализаторами L и N; 2) цве не обладают поляриза циями, когда испускаю тся источником С, но по зже преобретают поля ризацию, когда взаимо действуют с анализат орами L и N; 2) цвет не дает и нформацию об источни ке С, а об анализаторах L, и N; 3) корреляция между и змерениями в, и Х связа источником С, но позже преобретают поляриз ацию, когда взаимодей ствуют с анализатора ми L и N; 2) цвет не дает инфо рмацию об источнике С, а об анализаторах L, и N; 3) к орреляция между изме рениями в, и Х связана ч ерез С, их общим прошлы м. Анализ е+е-аннигиляц ии взаимодействуют с ан ализаторами L и N; 2) цвет н е дает информацию об и сточнике С, а об анализ аторах L, и N; 3) корреляция между измерениями в, и Х связана через С, их об щим прошлым. Анализ е+е-аннигиляции информацию об источн ике С, а об анализатора х L, и N; 3) корреляция между измерениями в, и Х связ ана через С, их общим пр ошлым. Анализ е+е-анниг иляции корреляция между изм ерениями в, и Х связана через С, их общим прошл ым. Анализ е+е-аннигиля ции общим прошлым. Анализ е+е-аннигиляции в два фотона демонстр ирует тесную связь ме жду этой« Эйнштейновской нера зличимостью » и нелокальностью в Ф ейнмановской« теори и позитронов ». Таким образом, парад окс Эйнштейна при« но вых волноподобных ве роятностных вычисле ниях» соответств волноподобных вероя тностных вычисления х» соответствует пар адоксу Лошмида и Церм ело в старых вероятно стных соответствует парад оксу Лошмида и Цермел о в старых вероятност ных вероятностных вычислениях. Указанн ое обстоятельство со поставляет внутреннюю симметри ю времени, которая суще ствует на элементарн ом уровне, с действительной макр оскопической асqiммет рией времени. Наша дис куссия умышленно не з атрагивает про времени. Наша дискусс ия умышленно не затра гивает проблему скры тых переменных. Мы счи таем, что сегодня, как и в 1905, проблема состоит в приспособлении фор проблему скрытых пер еменных. Мы считаем, чт о сегодня, как и в 1905, проб лема состоит в приспо соблении формулиров ок. Таким образом, это и зменение в парадигме, как и в 1905, проблема сост оит в приспособлении формулировок. Таким о бразом, это изменение в парадигме, формулировок. Таким о бразом, это изменение в парадигме, парадигме, которое является нео бходимым, происходит через победу формализма над моделизмом.

A new law in electrodynamics

Abstract As a consequence of the “Laplace” force RE×β applied to a moving magnetic charge R, a varying dipole of moment M undergoes a force E × dM dt , and a slowly varying current of intensity i a force ( di dt )∳V O l , where V denotes the scalar potential.

On some frequent but controversial statements concerning the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations

Quite often the compatibility of the EPR correlations with the relativity theory has been questioned; it has been stated that “the first in time of two correlated measurements instantaneously collapses the other subsystem”; it has been suggested that a causal asymmetry is built into the Feynman propagator. However, the EPR transition amplitude, as derived from the S matrix, is Lorentz andCPT invariant; the correlation formula is symmetric in the two measurements irrespective of their time ordering, so that the link of the correlations is the Feynman zigzag, and that causality isCPT invariant at the microlevel; finally, although the Feynman propagator has theP andCT symmetries, no causal asymmetry follows from that. As for Stapps views concerning “process” and “becoming,” and his Whiteheadean concept of an advancing front, I object that they belong to “factlike macrophysics,” and are refuted at the microlevel by the EPR phenomenology, which displays direct Fokker-like space-time connections. The reason for this is a radical one. The very blending of a space-time picture and of a probability calculus is a paradox. The only adequate paradigm is one denying objectivity to space-time—but this, of course, is also required by the complementary of the x and the k pictures, which only “look” compatible at the macrolevel. Therefore, the classical “objectivity” must yield in favor of “intersubjectivity.” Only the macroscopic preparing and measuring devices have “factlike” objectivity; the “transition” of the “quantal system” takes place beyond both thex and thek 4-spaces. Then, the intrinsic symmetries between retarded and advanced waves, and statistical prediction and retrodiction, entails that the future has no less (but no more) existence than the past. It is the future that is significant in “creative process,” the “elementary” forms of which should be termed “precognition” or “psychokinesis”—respectively symmetric to the factlike taboos that “we can neither know into the future nor act into the past.” It is gratifying that Robert Jahn, at the Engineering School of Princeton University, is conducting (after others) conclusive experiments demonstrating “low level psychokinesis”—a phenomenon implied by the very symmetry of the negentropy-information transition. So, what pierces the veil of “maya” is the (rare) occurrence of “paranormal phenomena.” The essential severance between “act” and “potentia” is not a spacelike advancing front, but the “out of” and the “into” factlike space-time. Finally, I do not feel that an adequate understanding of the EPR phenomenology requires going beyond the present status of relativistic quantum mechanics. Rather, I believe that the potentialities of this formalism have not yet been fully exploited.Quite often the compatibility of the EPR correlations with the relativity theory has been questioned; it has been stated that “the first in time of two correlated measurements instantaneously collapses the other subsystem”; it has been suggested that a causal asymmetry is built into the Feynman propagator. However, the EPR transition amplitude, as derived from the S matrix, is Lorentz andCPT invariant; the correlation formula is symmetric in the two measurements irrespective of their time ordering, so that the link of the correlations is the Feynman zigzag, and that causality isCPT invariant at the microlevel; finally, although the Feynman propagator has theP andCT symmetries, no causal asymmetry follows from that. As for Stapps views concerning “process” and “becoming,” and his Whiteheadean concept of an advancing front, I object that they belong to “factlike macrophysics,” and are refuted at the microlevel by the EPR phenomenology, which displays direct Fokker-like space-time connections. The reason for this is a radical one. The very blending of a space-time picture and of a probability calculus is a paradox. The only adequate paradigm is one denying objectivity to space-time—but this, of course, is also required by the complementary of the x and the k pictures, which only “look” compatible at the macrolevel. Therefore, the classical “objectivity” must yield in favor of “intersubjectivity.” Only the macroscopic preparing and measuring devices have “factlike” objectivity; the “transition” of the “quantal system” takes place beyond both thex and thek 4-spaces. Then, the intrinsic symmetries between retarded and advanced waves, and statistical prediction and retrodiction, entails that the future has no less (but no more) existence than the past. It is the future that is significant in “creative process,” the “elementary” forms of which should be termed “precognition” or “psychokinesis”—respectively symmetric to the factlike taboos that “we can neither know into the future nor act into the past.” It is gratifying that Robert Jahn, at the Engineering School of Princeton University, is conducting (after others) conclusive experiments demonstrating “low level psychokinesis”—a phenomenon implied by the very symmetry of the negentropy-information transition. So, what pierces the veil of “maya” is the (rare) occurrence of “paranormal phenomena.” The essential severance between “act” and “potentia” is not a spacelike advancing front, but the “out of” and the “into” factlike space-time. Finally, I do not feel that an adequate understanding of the EPR phenomenology requires going beyond the present status of relativistic quantum mechanics. Rather, I believe that the potentialities of this formalism have not yet been fully exploited.

ENERGY--MOMENTUM QUANTA IN FRESNEL'S EVANESCENT WAVE.

Fresnels theory of the evanescent wave in total reflection entails that the propagation vectork and the momentum quantaħk have an imaginary component and, thus, a projection on the reflecting plane that is larger (in units such thatc=1) than the angular frequencyω and the energy quantaħω. We discuss the ‘tachyon properties’ of these energy-momentum quanta and propose an experimental test using absorption or stimulated emission by an atomic or ionic beam. We then show that the Maxwell-Minkowski tensor (although certainly appropriate to discuss the macroscopic energy-momentum exchange between wave and diopter) does not describe adequately the energy-momentum density of the quanta in the evanescent wave, this stemming from its too remote connection with the generator ∂i of space-time displacements. On the other hand de Broglies energy-momentum tensorAk[∂i]Bjk is the density canonically associated with the generator of space-time displacements; we show that it describes quite satisfactorily both the energy fluxes (as measured through the longitudinal Goos-Hänchen and our new transverse shifts of the reflected beam in total reflection) and the momentum densities of the quanta inside the evanescent wave. Finally, we show that it is the gauge which is transverse in the diopters rest frame that directly yields the physically measured energy fluxes. We take this fact as a new argument, strongly supported by experimental evidence, in favour of the physical reality of electromagnetic potentials.

On the zigzagging causality EPR model: Answer to Vigier and coworkers and to Sutherland

The concept of “propagation in time” of Vigier and co-workers (V et al.) implies the idea of a supertime; it is thus alien to most Minkowskian pictures and certainly to mine. From this stems much of Vet al.s misunderstandings of my position. In steady motion of a classical fluid nobody thinks that “momentum conservation is violated,” or that “momentum is shot upstream without cause” because of the suction from the sinks! Similarly with momentum-energy in space-time and the acceptance of an advanced causality. As for the CT invariance of the Feynman propagator, the causality asymmetry it entails is factlike, not lawlike. The geometrical counterpart of the symmetry between prediction and retrodiction and between retarded and advanced waves, as expressed in the alternative expressions 〈B|UA〉=〈BU|A〉=〈B|U|A〉 for a transition amplitude between a preparation |A〉 and a measurement |B〉, is CPT-invariant, not PT-invariant. These three expressions respectively illustrate the collapse, the retrocollapse, and the symmetric collapse-and-retrocollapse concepts. As for Sutherlands argument, what it “falsifies” is not my retrocausation concept but the hidden-variables assumption he has unwittingly made.

S-matrix, Feynman zigzag and Einstein correlation

Abstract An inherent binding between Einstein correlations and the S-matrix formalism entails full relativistic covariance, complete time symmetry, and spacelike connexions via Feynman zigzags. The relay is in the past for predictive correlations between future measurements, and in the future for retrodictive correlations between past preparations (Pflegor and Mandel). An analogy and a partial binding exist between intrinsic symmetry together with factlike asymmetry of (1) “blind statistical” prediction and retrodiction (retarded and advanced waves, information as cognizance and as will) and (2) positive and negative frequencies (particles and antiparticles). As advanced waves are required for completeness of expansions, “antiphysics” obeying blind statistical retrodiction should show up in appropriate contexts, “parapsychology” being submitted as one of them.

“Hidden momentum” in magnets and interaction energy

Abstract Coleman and Van Vlecks formula for the mass center associated with the Darwin Lagrangian entails an interesting corollary to an earlier remark by De Broglie and Brillouin.

Causality as Identified with Conditional Probability and the Quantal Nonseparability

This is for prediction. Retrodictively, the same formula holds, with ] A ) and (Cl denoting the final occupation numbers of the final states. In this, we have an instance of Loschmidt’s reversibility. Considering the shape of the ABC zigzag, where B denotes the collision, either in space-time or in the momentum-energy space, we can say that equation 2 is the same for A and V shapes of the zigzag. Equation 2 also holds if A denotes the initial state and C denotes the final state of a molecule; then ( A IC) denotes the intrinsic transition probability, IA) denotes the initial occupation number of the initial state, (Cl denotes the final occupation number of the final state, and IA) (Cl denotes the overall transition probability. The classics, including Boltzmann, multiplied ( A I C) by IA), but not by (Cl. This, however, was “intrinsically illogical” because multiplication by I A ) implies “statistical indistinguishability,” and, if so, there are (Cl ways in which a transiting molecule can reach the C state. Physics, of course, vindicates equation 2, thus revealing that there are two sorts of particles: bosons, which are such that IA) = (Cl = 0, 1, 2, . . . , and fermions, which are such that [ A ) = (Cl = 0 , l . Let us say that in this case, the ABC zigzag has a ( or a Cshape. What has been shown is that, in statistical mechanics, equation 2 for an overall collision or transition probability has a topological invariance with respect to distortions of the ABC zigzag into V, A, or C shapes in either space-time or the momentum-energy space. 1‘4) (Cl= 1’4) (’410 (Cl= IC) (CIA) (-41.