sethoflagos

I've given you the links to Jeff Tollaksen's paper. Perhaps you could find the time to study it and then you'll have a better explanation than any I could give you.

What I'd like better is not having this thread derailed quite so much by off-topic soapboxing.

Based on my limited knowledge, I see no 'explanations' in quantum mechanics. Only (startlingly accurate) predictions of certain experimental observations. I think the only 'necessity' as far as the various interpretations are concerned is in being able to match those predictions..

To put some meat on the bones of the video I posted, most of the material Tollaksen refers to can be found in a paper 'New Insights on Emergence from the Perspective of Weak Values and Dynamical Non-locality', Journal of Physics: Conference Series 504 (2014) It's available for download at https://www.fetzer-franklin-fund.org/media/emqm13-time-symmetric-formulation-quantum-mechanics-weak-values-classical-limit-quantum-mechanics-2/ ... or via my attached copy (hope this not against the rules) Much of it is a little opaque for my level of comprehension, but I did find a few aha! moments. 1742-6596_504_1_0120292.pdf

Coincidently, a new video in the 'Closer to Truth' series that is highly relevant to many issues discussed above showed up on Youtube today. Key notes: Causality; Dynamic non-locality; Future impacts Present.

All is clear. Thanks!

Important dietary component for the African Openbill (though they tend to take freshwater snails first). They're the only Ciconiid I get to see on a regular basis so I'd certainly miss them if they disappeared.

I'm finding it a bit difficult to extract that information. At least, I can't correlate your symbology with that presented on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality. When I posed the OP I was quite happy to proceed on a 'no hidden variables' assumption (local or non-local), and was actually focussed on the variation of 'now' across some region to observers in different inertial reference frames. The spread of those 'nows' resulting in some observers seeing Alice 'pull the trigger' and others, Bob in the EPR experiment. (@Markus Hanke says it was Charlie who dunnit.) The QM implications were really for later after the SR stuff had been sorted out.

Thanks Markus. So at some point, my line of reasoning has become simply a personal preference over other quite valid viewpoints. I'm okay with that. I watched a Youtube video recently on superdeterminism by Sabine Hossenfelder. She's clearly very expert in her field, and I'm sure that this interpretation fits the data too. I just don't like it as much. Many, many years ago I had a vision of an ancient transistor radio (see how long ago it was), floating in the vast emptiness of deep space long after humanity had been and gone. With its final flicker of power it sent a 'request for clarification' back to the dawn of time, which responded in the only way it could - by creating a universe that one day in the far, far future would see an ancient transistor radio floating in the vast emptiness of deep space. I've lived with that picture for a very long time and whether it's true or false I've grown comfortable with it.

Surely this is no more than a temporary common property of the pair? An entire description would include a mapping of their kinetic timeline for example, wouldn't it?

I don't have quite enough hubris to imagine that I can advance physics, but I would like to have at least a consistent picture in my head of what might be going on. Isn't there an 'advanced wave' available in the wave equation that might assist with the time reversed signalling?

I'm seeing the initial correlation created as the point exp(i * pi / 4) on a unit circle. (That's not so much of an issue). Then I'm seeing a local observation as this correlation being multiplied globally by exp(+/- i * pi / 4), thus selecting |0 1> or |1 0> at random. It's this second global transformation that is problematic. Parsimony would suggest to me some mechanism whereby a 'request for clarification' is sent (yes, ok, backwards in time) to the source which then applies the requisite 45 degree twist one way or the other to its correlation initiating the collapse. This would seem to solve a couple of issues: 1) It removes any possibility of simultaneous measurement by Alice or Bob yielding uncorrelated results that might result if either of them initiated the collapse. If the collapse is executed back at the source, it can only occur once and the correlation must hold. 2) Having two distinct timelines, one overwriting the other would appear to cover all possibilities of observations made from other reference frames where the apparent order of events may vary. 3) No 'spooky action at a distance', just a brief time reversal. Nothing is exceeding c.

I'm familiar with the basics of these in as much as they apply to acoustics and process control theory amongst other fields, so fire away.

The poles would be in permanent twilight which would I guess tend to stabilise the Antarctic ice sheet and see the northern ice sheets extend over northern Eurasia and North America. The ITCZ would stabilise over the equator giving permanent cloud cover to the tropics, and reducing seasonal rains in the subtropics. Subtropical deserts would therefore extend towards the temperate latitudes, which would enjoy an 'interesting' climate given the intensification of the north-south temperature gradient. Most of these processes would markedly increase the earth's albedo and perhaps even reverse the current warming trend. Sounds like a good attempt at restablishing snowball earth. So no noticeable seasons. Not much of anything really.

I hesitate to say 'yes' in case you're about to launch into a bunch of Green's functions. If it gets dense it'll take me a bit of time to get my head around it, though I will eventually.

I'll need to have a good think about that one. Thank you.

How about some observers knowing the result of Alice's measurement before she's made it, and other's having similar foreknowledge of Bob's result? These are observables aren't they?

Now that response I did not expect. If there is no communication between the particles post preparation, then how are they able to self-correlate when one or other is measured? So my logic breaks down at step d)? Really?

Are you saying the paradoxes don't truly exist? In particular, that different observers may disagree on whose measurement collapsed the wave function. That's not to mention the superluminal implications.

That's a valid and honest response. Thank you.

Good point, Markus. Buddhism being the most obvious example.

Let me add a few thoughts from an entirely godless entity who next monday will be celebrating his 19th wedding anniversary to a devout Christian. Everybody needs some sort of world model within their heads to assess the consequences of their actions before they commit to them. Some models give different results in different aspects of life. But they are vital since they are integral part and parcel of the full package of that person's personality. Trying to deprive an adult of such a vital part of their being can only diminish them. My wife is more than I deserve as the full package and therefore I have learned to respect her religious views, as she has learned to accept my entirely materialist world view. A second lesson I have learned is that while her religion tends sometimes to give her a more optimistic attitude than I might feel certain situations merit, that isn't such a bad thing. It does at least make me examine whether I'm taking too safe an approach at times. The diversity of viewpoints is a good thing and makes us stronger together than apart. And there are areas where I know her judgment is simply better than mine. Particularly in assessing the dynamics going on between the people around us and how they are likely to respond to our activities. Science is as yet generally a very poor guide in such matters. Of course organised religion must be strongly opposed where it tries to prevent the proper teaching of sciences, etc., but I think we should take care when we consider beeing so vehement towards individuals who differ from us only in their private personal philosophy.

Recent discussions in the thread https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128407-the-nature-of-time/ have got me scratching my head again over the relationship between past-present-future in both the quantum and classical realms. My starting point is case 1 of Bohm's variant of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in which Charlie at point C will operate a gadget to launch an entangled spin singlet along the x axis: an electron leftward towards Alice at point A and a positron towards Bob at point B. At some point Charlie will simultaneously release the pair and broadcast a light speed timing signal to alert Alice and Bob of when they should measure the z-spin of their respective particles. As the tests are made Alice and Bob similarly broadcast the results of their measurements. For simplicity's sake Alice, Bob and Charlie are all stationary within their common inertial reference frame, but sufficiently distant for the two measurements to be non-local. Consider what is recorded by independent observers in arbitrary inertial reference frames. Am I correct in thinking that: a) all observers will agree that Charlie's timing signal occurred before either of Alice and Bob's measurement signals. b) irrespective of the actual distance between point A and point B, some will observe Alice make the first measurement, some Bob. c) some few observers may observe simultaneous measurement signals from Alice and Bob and have no problem interpreting this as instantaneous collapse of the wave function at point of measurement. d) other observers may deduce that wave function collapse must have occurred before Alice's measurement; others that it occurred before Bob's. e) there are apparently different 'histories' being observed by different observers suggesting that there are different timelines of the wave function in play. And now we get into the speculative rabbit hole. f) if there are different histories being observed does this not imply that different observers are seeing different stages in a dynamic editing process of the wave function - ie that history is undergoing a transformation from a superposition of possible futures to a classically deterministic past for example. g) the paradoxes chiefly arise from seeing entanglement as some sort of physical link stretching across space, rather than connections within the complex vector space in which the wave function is set. h) for 'reasons' linkages within this complex vector space between 'gadget' at t=0 (specifically!) and electron-positron pair at t>0 are not unreasonable in themselves, and being unobservable, cannot pass real information to the past, and therefore do not conflict with causality. i) therefore an interpretation of the commencement of Alice's measurement process of a z+ electron inducing an overwrite of its wavefunction back to the gadget, and forwards again as an unambiguous z- positron for Bob would seem to resolve the paradox. j) simultaneous measurements by Alice and Bob imply the need for some sort of handshaking back and forth until the wave function resolves to a consistent solution. I stress that these are just general impressions of subjects that I find challenging, that have sunk in over the years and must surely break down at some point in the reasoning. But I'd be most grateful to find out where they do actually begin to collapse.

Lucky you!

What @Bufofrog says is true. And yet condensing steam can readily provide the highest heat transfer coefficients commonly found in industrial processes, often up to 15,000 Wm-2K-1. This is typically 5 times higher than for liquid heat transfer media. Another factor to consider is that the strong thermal convection above your cooking pot draws a lot of air into the steam rising from it that both cools it and provides a partially insulating 'mitten'. Immersing your hand in a stream of pure dry saturated steam would be an altogether different experience. Not to be tried at home or anywhere else for that matter.