Back FROM The Future 1

Jack Sarfatti · science forum Guru Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 487

On Jun 28, 2006, at 10:13 AM, ibison@earthtech.org wrote:
Dear Creon

I fully agree about the future boundary condition.

Jack wrote: "Right, but so is the pi phase shift Cramer needs to cancel
out all retro-causal advanced quantum wave signals (in addition to the
electromagnetic classical wave signals) from the emitter to keep signal
locality. Obviously this cannot happen and it is the advanced signals
back to the initial inflation Big Bang singularity that makes the
entropy of the early universe small to create the irreversible Arrow of
Time of the Second Law of Thermodynamics along the lines laid out in
general by Moddell last week at the AAAS USD Pow Wow. You remember I
mentioned this at end of the meeting and Moddell seemed to get what I
was talking about here in relation to Penrose's objection against
inflation in The Road to Reality. The cosmic scale signal nonlocality
reduces the entropy Weyl curvature emergent from the initial singularity
in a globally self-consistent Novikov loop in time."

It is a crucial issue & unsolved. An effort to address that problem is
contained in my submission to the proceedings (most of which I did not
get to talk about in the
conference). Briefly, I argue that in an open universe the WF future
boundary condition is met by cosmological red-shift. A nice consequence is
that the cosmological & electromagnetic arrows of time are then directly
linked. I talked with JC about the problem. He has another proposal to do
with the historical boundary condition which I think might also work - I'm
not sure.

Cheers,

Michael

Jack,

Sounds like that was a fantastic conference. Once in a lifetime!

One thing that has always bugged me, and I think,Ibison & everybody else
about Cramer's T.I, as well as Wheeler-Feynman electrodynamics &c, is
the problem of the future boundary:

If Tipler's right, and we live in a closed universe, then no problem.
However, according the concordance cosmology with its accelerating
expansion, we seem to have a problem. Ever since the CMBR era the
universe has been transparent to radiation. The mean free path of most
photons is effectively infinite. There is no final singularity. "All
roads" (world lines) don't lead to the omniscient omega point in the far
future which could close the loop.

It seems that in our universe the vast majority of retarded photons
(Wheeler-Feynman) or "offer waves" (Cramer) are destined to never be
absorbed in the future. Hence, very few advanced "star-waves" ever get
emitted from future absorbers to travel back in time and complete the
transaction. Hence, very few transactions.

So the bulk of, e.g., matter exists only as potential. Most of the
psi-waves "offered" by atoms in the sun will never be accepted. Hence
the atoms never get to emit actual radiation. Just offers, in all
directions, for all time, which are never accepted. Shouldn't the sun
stay much hotter in that case?

It seems, according to the T.I. that the Moon really isn't there when
nobody looks.

Am I missing something?

I'll take the DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation, thank you. The weirdest
thing it asks us to accept is that the Moon is indeed there when nobody
looks. The moon is a so called "hidden variable" - a nomenclature
coined by Bohm. A nomenclature that he later called his "biggest
mistake".

Obviously. In fact PSI is a mental information wave, but it is
physical - ontological not only epistemological.
On Jun 27, 2006, at 9:21 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

And I suppose this is the kind of thing that led Bohm back to realism
in quantum theory.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jun 27, 2006, at 8:17 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Interesting paper.

I note that Cramer comments on the Copenhagen interpretation of the
wave function:

"Since the late 1920s the orthodox view, as embodied in the
Copenhagen interpretation
of quantum mechanics, has been that a wave function is not
physically present in space,
but rather is a purely mathematical construct used for calculation,
which can be interpreted
as a mathematical function encoding the state of knowledge of some
observer. While the
Copenhagen view is self-consistent, it prevents the visualization
of quantum mechanical
processes. Further, careful considerations of the implications of
the Copenhagen
interpretation have generated a number of “interpretational
paradoxes”, e.g., Schrödinger’s
Cat, Wigner’s Friend, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, the
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen nonlocal
paradox, and so on, that lead into very deep philosophical waters."

One thing that emerged from our discussion of the energy
eigensolutions for the hydrogen atom
is that the difficulties with the orthodox interpretation of the
psi function are not simply a matter
of visualization (wave picture as "psychological aid"); the
interpretation of psi as representing a
physical wave *tells us how to solve the Schroedinger equation*, by
requiring continuity of the
function and its first derivatives as you enter "classically
forbidden" regions where, in particle
terms, E < V.

This seems inexplicable if one restricts the interpretation of psi
to a "purely mathematical
construct used for calculation, which can be interpreted as a
mathematical function encoding
the state of knowledge of some observer", since the most natural
piecewise solution for such
a probability amplitude in the classically forbidden regions is psi
= 0 (=> E < V forbidden for
particles). It is the wave picture that tells us instead to use the
continuity conditions to obtain
the physically meaningful solutions of the equation, and thus,
unlike the orthodox model for
psi, can be said to *predict* the tunneling phenomenon.

Z.

Right.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I am still in San Diego till Sunday AM then driving back to San
Francisco.

Google