the underlying assumptions rig the debate

The wave-function is really a 4d entity, and these waves are part of the wave-function. It is a consistent mathematical solution, which obeys causality. Simple as that... its not the interpretation that I use but it has some merits.

Clearly not. Look, let's get something straight here: you are so out of your depth it is just not funny. To explain this stuff to an interested student would take more time than I have right now. To explain this stuff to you, with you thinking you have it all pat, and us scientists haven't a clue, is just a none starter. You need to go get yourself a real textbook on quantum mechanics and start some studying of the basics. You are trying to engage me and argue with me about something in which you have no foundation. We live in a 4d universe. How could it not? We write Psi(x,y,z,t). As I said, you need to go right back to the beginning...

This blurb alone shows you do not understand the terms you are using. Yet you attempt to wield them as if you have some authority in this area. This is highly dishonest and is why I despair of these communications.Wave/particle duality is a vague and incomplete layman description of the possible properties of a wave-function. The term has no place in any serious discussion of this topic.Asking if Iblis denies wave/particle duality on the back of his post is like asking him if he denies that multiplication is a quick form of addition on the back of his exposition of integral calculus. The question reveals the ignorance.No experiment has ever been performed that cannot be explained by wave-function mechanics (quantum mechanics). Quantum Mechanics is all about unitary, deterministic, causal evolution of the wave-function. Wave-functions are not affected by the future, they do not enable FTL, and are completely in line with causality. End of story. All of the odities you are looking at are simply the results of trying to place classical particle-type interpretations on physics which should only be talked about in terms of wave-functions.No scientist of merit (and in my experience, no scientist of merit or otherwise) suggests that future can change the past: not Wheeler, Feynman, Pauli, Dirac, Hawking, etc, etc nor any others that you wish to wheel in.You are simply confused and too stubborn to admit it...

Iblis is correct. I would phrase what he said slightly differently, but he is correct. And my points remain. Name the experiment that cannot be explained by purely causal wave-mechanics.Name the scientist and provide the quote where they say that they believe the past is changed by the present.These are you claimns. Substantiate them. Psi(x,y,z,t) - how can it not?The connections between the function at different times are provided by the Schrodinger Equation (non-relativistically) and the Dirac and Klein-Gordon Equations among others relativistically. These connections are causal. End of story.

So? What has that got to do with it?I repeat, name the scientist and provide the quote where they say that they believe the past is changed by the present. Huh? There are no experiments incongruent with QM. All of these experiments are perfectly explainable by (causal) QM. They leave no room for your bizarre counter-QM ideas... What are you talking about? I haven't even addressed any of this. Why would I refuse to acknowledge the obvious? I disagree with the language used, but that's just sloppy laymanese for you.This has nothing to do with your claim of the past being changed by the present. I state categorically that it is implied by neither QM nor these experiements.Now, name an experiment that cannot be explained by purely causal wave-mechanics.

quote:

---

Wheeler believes that it is only within the confines of a particular experimental situation that reality, phenomenal reality, can be specified.

---

Nothing wrong here...

quote:

---

'There is a sense in which what the observer will do in the future defines what happens in the past - even in a past so remote that life did not exist, and shows even more, that observership is a prerequisite for any meaningful version of reality.'

---

Ok, highlighted: there is sense... as in, yes it looks this way if we try to place our usual definitions of reality on things. But NOTHING ACTUALLY CHANGES. Wheeler does not believe the wave-function is changed. You seem to be confusing "wave" with "wave-function"... these are very different.

quote:

---

What Wheeler means is that the observer literally creates the universe by his observations.

---

NO. Wheeler said Observership. This can be by anything. It is interaction with other wave-functions. We call this decoherence. You do not need a conscious observer to create de-coherence (what you would call collapse). You just need environmental interaction. Oh my, Randman, you do set yourself up high. You see the danger of the internet? Suddenly you are discovering the "problems" of QM just like the great pioneers. I'm so impressed. Let me have your address. I'll send you an honary PhD.

From your own quotes:

quote:

---

What are the key arguments put forward against the possibility of superluminal signaling? Chiao and
Steinberg analyze quantum tunneling experiments and tachyon-like excitations in laser media [24]. Even
though they find the evidence conclusive that the tunneling process is superluminal, and that tachyon-like
excitations in a population-inverted medium at frequencies close to resonance give rise to superluminal
wave packets, they argue that such phenomena can not be used for superluminal information transfer. In
their view, the group velocity can not be identified as the signal velocity of special relativity, a role they
attribute solely to Sommerfeld’s front velocity. In that context, Aharonov, Reznik, and Stern have shown
that the unstable modes, which play an essential role in the superluminal group velocity of analytical
wave packets, are strongly suppressed in the quantum limit as they become incompatible with unitary
time evolution [25].

---

quote:

---

Few scientists accept Nimtz's claim that a signal can be propagated faster than the speed of light.

---

End of story

No, of course not. Why would I ever admit such nonsense? QM contains no mechanism for this whatsoever.

Of course, there always have been. However, no-one has ever managed a repeatable demonstration of true information transfer at superluminal speeds. This sending of music that Randman refers to is not well regarded and most (as in pretty much all) scientists dismiss it. The superluminal guys have cried wolf so many times it is just not funny. How many New Scientist and Sci Am reports can you find over counteless years claiming superluminal transport, and what is there to show for it today? Nothing.I have never said it is not possible, just that it is not possible within the framework of our current theories. Quantum mechanical entanglement is certainly NOT an example of a superluminal process, nor is anything else in QM.As pointed out in the paper, non-linear extensions to QM introduce superluminal possibilities, but then trying to construct a sensible theory here is very difficult.At the moment there is no danger that SR is going to be torn down, which is quite a good job as most of our advanced solid-state technology rests upon it to some degree!

Yes, and that difference is the whole story... That is because you do not understand the topic. No, absolutely not. I never say this. No information means NO INFORMATION period. No information gleaned, interpreted, or translated. There is no difference. Who suggested there was? Has the foul stink of a New Sci article... No you don't, and this is precisely what entanglement isn't. It is this erroneous view that has lead RAZD to his objections to the whole affair. Entanglement is nothing to do with knowing the state of one "particle" becasue you know the state of the other. Take two boxes and one marble. But the marble in one box. Take the boxes to opposite sides of the universe. Open a box. Instantly you know the contents of the other box, billions of light years away. Big deal. This has nothing to do with entanglement, though this is precisely how it is often presented in layman and popular science. Completely, utterly and totally wrong.NON-LOCAL has NOTHING to do with superluminal transfer.Non-locality is a perfectly fine feature of QM. To get superluminal transfer, you need to non-linearise QM into something that is not QM, and which then contradicts SR/GR.

Randman, this was my f'ing profession. I used to teach this stuff (Advanced Quantum Mechanics) at the f'ing University of Cambridge to the gradutaes.. got it??? I'm starting to get a little pissed that some layman has the nerve to start telling me what I'm confusing...The rest of your post is the funniest stuff I've read yet. You have to back away and realise just how out of your depth you really are, before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.I've had enough... anyone else?

Yeah, I just wet myself reading Randman's reply It's at this point that I realise I am not only wasting my time, but my life is actually slipping away before my eyes... I may have to bow out for a while

This is meaningless. You cannot formulate meaningful questions without actually understanding what you are talking about. I know you think you know what you are talking about but it has zero connect with real physics. You need to learn the basics, else you are going to continually spout gibberish that might, just might sound impressive to some in the lurker gallery.

Randman, I do not dodge, and I do not lie. If I tell you, your question is meaningless, that is what I mean. You have this idea that I have some predetermined idea of how I want the universe, and I'm twisting and evading any evidence that counters that idea. You could not be more wrong.I study the universe. I have devoted over half of my life to it. And all I do is ask questions. I am only interested in truth. The reason I am so hard on you is becasue you insist on (unintentionally) making misrepresentations and misinterpretations of physics, not helped by much of what you have read from secondary and tertiary "literature".If I see conclusive evidence of superluminal transfer, it will blow my mind. But I have seen many many claims by many many scientists over the years, and have yet to see anything worth noting.For all of my life I "knew" that the universe was decelerating in its expansion. Towards the end of my life in academia I hear that the universe is possibly accelerating. Incredulity was quickly replaced by awe and fascination AS THE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE CAME IN. Of course, the wave-function comes in from the infinite past. It evolves through time. That is the entirety of quantum mechanics: the evolution of wave-functions through time. Just like any other function (quantum or classical) defined over the universe, e.g. the metric, thhe em field, the strong field, the weak field, the fermionic matter fields, etc, etc. Yes, "appears". The photon's path is not real. It is the result of a question/observation. It is not something in the past, it is the present "understanding" that tries to reconcile what has been observed with what "must have" happened in the past. But it is wrong/misguided. There is only the wave-function. No, the "photon's path" IS our "knowledge", our misguided understanding. The wave-function of the entangled pair extends over the entire universe.