----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:55 AM Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM
> What I have a hard time understanding is the (real long term) problem with > "backwards in time signals". > I see it repeated that you cannot violate causality, but most of the > examples I've seen given (perhaps they were oversimplifications) seem to > illustrate what amounts to an optical illusion. (In discussions about FTL) The TI interpreation has real, not illusionary signals coming back from the effect to the cause. In principal, these can span billions of years. > I understand the principle that states that cause cannot precede effect. > *That* is quite easy to understand. > And I seem to recall that there is some axiom that says there are no > privileged frames or points of view. > > But couldn't it be that "backwards in time signals" are part of an > underlying backbone or framework that underlies reality, normally > unobservable? It could. But, the problem with that is, if you allow real, unobservables, with no addition to the predictive power of the theory, then you open things way up. As I said before, with that sort of latitude one could resurrect the aether. Indeed, with that type of latitude, I could generate a geocentric universe. > And that, like in most of the QM I have read, observation would change >those signals, therefore they would be inaccessible? Not really. The signals have to be hidden, or else we would see violations of otherwise well verified laws of physics. > I guess my real question is "why cant there be a channel for backwards in > time signals?" There could be. There also could be a lot of other things. One thing that typically identified realists is that they were loath to accept unseen things that had no visible tracks. Part of the theory of these hidden variables is that they had to forever remain hidden. > And I suppose my proposal is "if the simpler explanations have not >worked, perhaps trying a higher level of complexity might". But, the simpler approach worked. Detailed predictions have been verified, to many significant figures. So, why add metaphysical baggage? > I really wish I had a greater understanding of QM and how it differs from > relativistic theory. I can repost some of my several years old discussions of spacelike correlations, if there is an interest. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
