the underlying assumptions rig the debate

No, it's not. How many times... Causality lies at the heart of QM. There have been no repeatable sound experiments that have EVER suggested a breakdown in causality... ever. Entanglement has nothing to do with causality.Those interpretations that you like using advanced wave solutions actually impress a more *fixed* view of space-time, coinciding with the relativistic view of a solid interwoven fabric of space-time, and causality is not only preserved, it is immutable.I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: in no way does QM does support your viewpoint. Oh dear...

Hmmm, well you better catch up with all my students as well then and let them know they were taught incorrectly... No, I know the implications, and I'm just pointing out that you have them mistaken. I shone long long ago I have zero need to do it now and here...But this paper... you mean this unpublished paper? That generated a lot of publicity? I can guess where... that said, you say this may be related to my field. Check out reference [18]. That would have probably been co-authored with me if I had accepted a certain invitation the year before.Anyway, the paper... it is a fanciful attempt to look at the limits of temporal separability of a quantum state. It is by no means rigorous - probably why it has not achieved publication. In any case, it is not in any way an opening to the present affecting the past in the way you imagine. It has meaning within the micro-era surrounding the "collapse" of a state towards some observable, which is much more formally approached in the decoherent histories approach to QM. Causality is precisely that that says present events DO NOT affect the past. Anything to the contrary is A-causality. And acausality has no basis in QM.

Believe me, I'm not. I would never try to. I have nothing to defend other than a true reading of QM because I hate the idea of readers and lurkers getting a false impression of what QM says. There is far too much BS on the web as it is, and if I can clean up one small patch, I will. I may not get paid to teach QM anymore, but old habits die hard. What you are arguing is that QM holds a mechanism where-by causality can be violated - "present events can affect the past" being such a violation.I am simply pointing out that QM has no such mechanism.

Are they? Can you provide support?And shall we talk about misrepresentation and honesty? Do you understand the concept of "invitation"? And who said anything about these guys? They live in a quantum optics department!!! What the hell has that to do with me? The invite came from the author of reference [18], Professor Chris Isham, one of the foremost quantum gravity guys and also codeveloper of the decoherent histories approach to QM.Do you want to try again?And please don't quote New Scientist at me as some sort of recommendation. It's not exactly renowned for getting its facts straight.The paper was released 28 months ago and how many citations does it have? No, and you wouldn't have a clue if I did. No one here (with the posible exception of some lurkers) would. So what's the point? I'm not objecting to their maths anyway, I just have some qualms about their logic and applicability. The fact that THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED tends to give some comfort that I'm not misreading the situation. Why do you think the paper has not been published?There is no onus on me to spend valuable time explaining dubious papers to you.There is an onus on me due to integrity and honesty to point out bogus and bullshit claims regarding my sciences.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Sorry, I'm not with you... can you elucidate?But well done on talking through this stuff. At the end of day, as you have pointed out, Randman is using Wiki, New Scientist, popular science, dubious websites, etc, to develop his understanding of the most mis-represented area of physics, and is quite naturally hopelessly confused and misguided.

What does it matter? It has nothing to do with what you are claiming so it is irrelevant.

Just like yours but with surprisingly fewer words

It is so easy for a layman to throw out some words like this and completely miss the fact that they have no clue about what they are talking. And as my science is QUANTUM gravity, it is not just about GR that I am so (I wish it were so) knowledgable.Yes, similar ideas have been discussed, researched, and developed into whole bodies of work long ago, of which I played but a small part. None of it supports ANY of your fanciful claims.

A paper on what? "Why Randman's ideas of present affecting the past are wrong?" Papers are generally not written to debunk stupid ideas. Similarly, I do not waste my time going through the whole mathematics of entanglement just to prove to you that it contains no element of your claims. It's not my job. Readers of this site can either accept my credentials and believe me, or think I'm just making it all up for some bizarre reason. It's their perogative.On the other hand, if someone starts a thread on, say - can someone explain the mathematics of entanglement? - well, I'll show up and start talking... I'm just a sucker for that. No, they are not. They are your misguided interpretations of some experiments, not helped by the sources you go to for your information. Explanation of what? Of why science doesn't back your claims? It is your job to prove why science does back your claims, and my job to cry bullshit at appropriate moments.

The use of English in all of the descriptions is where it all goes wrong and is why you have these misguided ideas. English tends to force a classical interpretation on purely quantum phenomena. This is (fairly)advanced quantum mechanics. Basic quantum mechanics is a nightmare to describe in English without introducing incorrect concepts. This is the same, just much worse.Let's just look at Gribben's quote above

quote:

---

The strange thing is that interference depends on "single photons" going through both slits "at once",

---

Notice the quotes? They are there because these quoted concepts are bogus and partly the source of the confusion.There is a wave-function that evolves deterministically, based upon the constraints set up by the apparatus. Simple as that. There is no individual particle that can "know" something. There is an extended wavefunction... that is all. As soon as you try to interpret this classically, it all goes horribly wrong... as we see in this thread.

BTW, if you hadn't noticed, this thread is all about YOUR assertions, which you are trying to back up with bogus and/or irrelevant references. I, and others, are just pointing out that your references do not support your claims.Can you cite specifically those references that state emphatically that the present does affect the past. "seems to affect" does not cut it.

Can it? Why? What background do you have that gives you the confidence to say this? Let's start with something simple like a mixed state. What is a mixed state, in English? NO, the wavefunction DOES NOT evolve such that it appears it "know in advance" something. That is the whole point. The wave-function's evolution is goverened by QM and THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY WHATSOEVER that it can be affected by something in the future.It is the classically interpreted notion of the "single photon" that appears to "know in advance" and this is where the confusion lies.

quote:

---

How does photon s know that we put the polarizer there?

---

Because there is no "photon", only the extended wave-function. Nothing in these experiments is outside conventional deterministic qunatum mechanics. It just seems weird when it is brought from the mathematics into the real-world.

No, I don't rule them out. In fact I referred to them earlier in this thread, where I pointed out that they actually weave a more fixed, absolute view of space-time, more akin to GR, than is usually considered within QM. I would say that this interpretation probably has implications for the hope that QM would somehow rescue free-will from an otherwise deterministic universe... as in, dashing that hope...

Will have to get back to you as the family is already late for church becasue of this