Committed local realists agree with EInstein that the idea of nonlocal quantum potential is too cheap. It violates universal Lorentz invariance. All it does is replace the fanciful idea of "passion at a distance" with "potential at a distance".

First, what the wavefunction describes is not a "form of quantum energy". It is a piece of fiction, which may be interpreted as a probability amplitude.

Second, disturbing the wavefunction (e.g., interaction between the two particles) does not propagate faster-than-light (although it is true that for a proper relativistic description of interactions, it is necessary to move on to a quantum field theory).

What does happen effectively instantaneously is the so-called collapse of the wavefunction that happens when a quantum system interacts with an idealized classical instrument. But arguably, this is a mathematical artifact that does not describe real, physical systems, where an instrument, no matter how complex it is and how many degrees of freedom it has, is still itself a quantum system, and its classical representation is an idealization that simply hides our ignorance of its true quantum state.

In any case, the collapse of the wavefunction is not something that can be observed or used for signal propagation. Two observers observing an entangled system at two different locations can both claim that it is they who caused the wavefunction collapse. In the end, while their observations will be correlated, this can only be ascertained after they bring their (classical) results together by classical means (e.g., ordinary slower-than-light transmission or physical travel) for comparison.

In response to the initial question, instantaneous change of the wave function in the whole space is an artifact of nonrelativistic approximations. In particular, the Schroedinger equation in potential is a nonrelativistic approximation to the Dirac equation with quantized electromagnetic potential In relativistic QED. As soon as you get rid of nonrelativistic artifacts, all signals in the theory propagate strictly according to relativistic causality.

Relativistic reformulation of the Schroedinger picture may be found, e.g., in Ch. 7 of Bogoliubov-Shirkov's standard text.

Btw, inconsistency with relativistic causality is the reason why "collapse" of the wave function cannot be anything more than nonrelativistic phenomenology. To claim it as "measurement axiom" is ludicrous.

Just to add to the discussion:

-- I find it useful to clarify that group velocity can be greater than c, but it requires energy exchange with the propagation medium to do so; of course, when one includes the energy stored inside the medium, it is seen that the centroid of the total energy of the system (i.e. wavepacket + medium) never propagates faster than c.

-- So far no one has responded in the context of the de Broglie-Bohm tag, so I'll comment on this aspect of your question from what I know about the theory. (I apologize if it's not exactly what you meant by your question.)

In the context of de Broglie-Bohm, "quantum potential" has a special meaning, being the effect of the so-called "pilot wave" that influences the trajectory of point particles according to the evolution of the wave packet, which, in this theory, does not "collapse" when a measurement is made but rather only represents the probability of where the particle might be found (i.e. the particle is always "there", with the uncertainty coming from the inability to know the particle's initial conditions (e.g. position/momentum)). The "quantum potential" term itself comes from writing the Schrodinger equation in the form of a Hamilton-Jacobi equation (from classical mechanics) and then using the classical interpretation (i.e. find trajectories by dividing the probability current \vec{J} by the probability density \rho).

Now in terms of the speed of light: in this interpretation of quantum mechanics, the physical particle always has a determined position somewhere underneath the umbrella of the wave packet, and the velocity of its trajectory can be calculated. Since the Schrodinger equation itself in non-relativistic, one ought to use the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equation (as mentioned above by another commenter) when looking at particle motion approaching the speed of light. This is a problem though: the Dirac equation cannot be written as a Hamilton-Jacobi equation, so while a trajectory can be calculated using \vec{J}/\rho, it can no longer be justified mathematically. Now while the Klein-Gordon equation can be written as a relativistic Hamilton-Jacobi equation, the formulation of its probability density is not positive definite, so there's no mathematical guarantee that the trajectories would remain casual. As it turns out, though, the trajectories do remain sub-luminal except on scales much smaller than the Compton wavelength, and for such small regions one really should be using quantum field theory instead.

So to recap: the single particle itself still won't move faster than the speed of light even in the context of the de Broglie-Bohm quantum potential.

As V. T. Toth mentioned:

First, what the wavefunction describes is not a "form of quantum energy". It is a piece of fiction, which may be interpreted as a probability amplitude.

I understood that there was a discussion about the wavefunction as fiction and the wavefunction as a real physical presence propagated by de Broglie-Bohm.

I also think that Bohm's idea was that the wavefunction has a non-local nature, so not only maths but reality we live in without looking. 

Looking is something else.

The wavefunction describes the quantum potential which propagates throughout space and guides the quantum particle along a certain path, is in accordance with Bohm I suppose.

by observation the system collapses and bring us in another system.

In fact the factor believe is coming in which resonates with consciousness.

Observation is mostly translated by looking, measuring, but if we translate observation by intuition, consciousness the wavefunction will not collapse and the system will keep its coherence.

Looking is decoherence, is making distance, consequently make the time, intuition is coherence, is keeping the whole together.

This may be a bit off the thread, but i've had a problem with the expression  "collapse of the wavefunction" for a long time. For a massive particle, isn't it just a change in wavefunction? Like a free-electron wavefunction transmogrified into an atom-bound wavefunction?

"The wave-function describes a form of quantum energy called the quantum potential which propagates throughout space."

Energy is not quantum or classical, it is just calculated with a different formalism in QM than in Classical M.

"Disturbing the quantum potential in one location instantly modifies it throughout the whole space."

Where from did you take the "instantly"? The wave-packet, which is the solution of the Schrodinger equation, propagates through space with the group-velocity. Bohm gave us a velocity formula, but this velocity is supposed to belong to the so-called Bohmian particle, and not to the quantum potential. Please indicate the reference where you read that the quantum potential propagates instantly.

Dear Rita De Vuyst,

The confusion of answering this question comes from that; we consider the constancy of the speed of light according to the Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz transformations according to the objectivity. Objectivity required Lorentz symmetry. In this case we keep on continuity as in classical physics. The wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle disappeared according to that in SRT. That causes the difficulty in unification between quantum theory and GR. The problem can be solved very simple by removing the Lorentz symmetry and considering the space is invariant. In this case it is required instead of considering y'=y and z'=z in Lorentz transformations, it must y'=Ry and z'=Rz, where R is the Lorentz factor. This transformation will lead to the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty, and the Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent. According to that it is impossible during the motion in constant speed v the observer on the ground and the observer on the moving train agree at the same time at the location of the moving train at the same point in space on the ground  according to the time dilation and length contraction(In fact Dingle was right). Here the invariance of space is resulted according to the two observers on the ground and on the moving train are agreed at the the length of the moving in direction of the velocity and agree the distance separation between two points in space on the ground during the motion. According to that all the paradoxes are disappeared, and we can interpret faster than light without violation Lorentz invariance same as in the case of the spooky action. In this case we keep on the constancy of the speed of light locally and thus we keep on Lorentz invariance locally, and it is very simple quantization of gravity and then we conclude there is no graviton, it photon mediates gravitation. Review my papers below. In fact if Lorentz symmetry exists realy in Nature as in SRT, then it must not exist the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.04.001

Dear Sofia D. Wechsler,  

Rita De Vuyst is right. In fact according to SRT it is impossible to see faster than light because Einstein proposed in his interpretation to the Lorentz transformations the two observers on the ground and on the moving train must agree at the location of the moving train on the ground by proposing objectivity as in classical physics. By the reciprocity principle the length of the moving must be contracted in the direction of the velocity and the length on the ground must be contracted. When the train stops on Paris, then it stops in Paris for the both the two observers it is right! But before the train stops on Paris -during the motion- how can we know it is now on Paris for the both two observers? Einstein proposed that according to objectivity on the classical physics and according to that he kept on the continuity in classical physics. According to that, he killed the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the Lorentz transformations. If that is not true, why some theories propose a violation of Lorentz invariance as in case Cherenkov radiation, and other theories propose a violation of Lorentz symmetry. Is Lorentz symmetry conserved in all ranges of velocities?

To Sofia Wechsler.  The Quantum potential may travel at faster that the velocity of light, see "Superluminal propagation of the Quantum Potential in the Causal Interpretation of QM."  Vigier, Lettre al Nuova Cimento, 24, 258-264, (1979)

What is this "quantum potential"? Potential of what? Indeed, de Broglie waves can travel faster than light,. and you might think (as i did) that this might explain "spooky actions at a distance". The problem is de Broglie waves travel at the speed of light for photons. And, spooky action at a distant experiments have used photons, e.g. Alain Aspect. So it doesn't seem possible that a measurement  of an entangled photon at one location could effect the measurement of another where the speed of light would have to be exceeded. Clearly we don't understand some very basic aspects of quantum theory.

Francis Redfern,  You need to read the book, The Quantum Theory of Motion, by Peter R Holland, subtitles "An account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics"  The Quantum potential is a relatively simple derivation which arises form the standard Schrödinger equation.  I postulate that it is the delayed EM potential affecting particle motion, in addition to the static potential which is put into the Schrodinger equation to generate solutions.

Dear All,

V. T. Toth Wrote: First, what the wavefunction describes is not a "form of quantum energy". It is a piece of fiction, which may be interpreted as a probability amplitude.

If you prove that the Lorentz symmetry is right in nature and thus in the SRT by proposing objectivity, then I agree that the wave-function is a piece of fiction. Hafele Keating experiment did not prove SRT. H&K experiment (and GPS computing) support Lorentz’s transformation (LT) instead of Special Relativity (SR). because of using the centre of Earth as basic referential frame for relativistic calculations. In SR referential frames are equal, so time dilation should have been computing by the relative velocity of Observer and Source to each other. To evade ‘twin paradox’ of SR it is necessary to introduce a basic referential frame, but with that the experiment support LT. So it is misleading to claim that the H&K experiment (or GPS) prove SR and explain twin paradox, because they try to prove LT, where there is no ‘twin paradox’. 

Please bring to me one experiment proves the reciprocity principle of the SRT! Otherwise the micro  and macro worlds may move according to the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty. It impossible to reach the unified according to the reciprocity principle in SRT. This is the lost key!

Einstein wanted to understand how God created the universe. When God created the universe, God put the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle as a sign for us to understand that the laws of physics are governed by God's Will. Now  this sign is hidden by the reciprocity  principle and thus by objectivity in front of people!!!

                 Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam! (Cato the Elder)

Cannot help adding a few words on the term "nonlocality" and its misuse in contemporary quantum physics. Its rigorous definition is "action at a distance". E.g., a potential interaction of two particles is nonlocal, because each feels immediately the position change of the other. Similar nonlocality is exhibited by the nonrelativistic Schroedinger equation, where a local modification of the wave function spreads immediately to the whole space. This "nonlocality of the first kind" is well understood as an artifact of nonrelativistic models.

It is much worse as far as "nonlocality of the second kind", better known as "nonlocality of quantum mechanics", is concerned. Till early 1960's, all quantum effects observed in the lab were phenomenologically classical. That is, QM was needed in order to explain them, while results of the observation could be described in classical terms. The textbook example is black-body radiation. Phenomenologically speaking, Planck's curve is yet another probability distribution. To be surprised, you should at least have heard about the equidistribution theorem. And you should then be REALLY surprised, because there is no way to avoid the said theorem, and thus to explain Planck's curve, in classical statistical mechanics. Observation of Planck's curve is therefore the experimentum crucis, which proves insufficiency of the classical physics irrespective of any details of the light-matter interaction.

Today we all know that quantum effects need not be phenomenologically classical. Here the role similar to the equidistribution theorem is played by Bell's inequalities. These must hold for any classical phenomenology irrespective of any interaction details. In Bell's argument, "nonlocality" emerges as reduction ad absurdum: Bell's inequalities follow assuming classical statistics and locality. Since we know that QM is a local theory, Bell's inequalities must hold unless macroscopically observable correlations in QM may violate classical statistics even on a purely phenomenological level. This is another way of saying that not all quantum effects are phenomenologically classical. Experiments of Aspect's group did show this to be true. (Interestingly, I once heard Aspect to admit, that his initial motivation was to show that Bell's inequalities do hold.)

How on earth quantum effects proving insufficiency of classical statistical phenomenology, subject to locality of quantum mechanics, came to be called "quantum nonlocality", is yet another mystery of the human mind.

To ALL those that say that the wave-function is fiction!

The wave-function (wave-packet) passes through field and bends, or is reflected/refracted, etc. by those fields. On WHAT act those fields? On fiction? MATTER acts on MATTER.

Our OWN BODIES are built of atoms, whose INTERNAL structure is described by a wave-function. The wave-function DICTATES the electrons to cloud around the nucleus in a particular way, according to levels, etc. Since when MATTER is governed by a fiction? Only MATTER interacts with MATTER.  

Even Bohm, didn't say that the wave-function is a fiction, to the contrary, he said that there exists a quantum potential acting on a particle. So, which fiction?

Whatever one doesn't understand, one declares that it is FICTION? The HONEST declaration is WE DON'T UNDERSTAND AT PRESENT. There is one single conclusion: we have to continue to INVESTIGATE, to examine new ideas/possibilities.

What is truth?  What is reality?  Pass me the hemlock, Socrates could not answer these questions.  All we can do in physics is construct a self-consistent theory, which may be based on a few "Prima Causa" (primary causes) and construct a theory from that.  We cannot see Electromagnetic fields except by observing some event, which we may suppose is "caused" by some field, but no one can "see" a magnetic field, we just postulate that they exist and go from there.  Similarly with the "wave-function" and its reality, it can't be decided, but we can do  calculations based on it, so we could call it "real" or we could say that there is a deeper "reality"  from which the wave-function emerges whilst the SE is itself not reality, but it might be the EM field which "drives" the atoms.  All atoms are electromagnetic objects after all, so why doesn't Schrodinger's Equation emerge from EM.  In fact it does (sort of), but then we meet the "reality" of EM fields, whose "reality"  can't be decided either.  This all becomes a circular argument, where all we must seek is a self-consistent explanation, the whole of which then, itself, become a "reality".

Any one expecting the Schrodinger Equation to conform fully to special relativity is more optimistic than I am.  The SE is a non-relativistic formulation and so should not comply with S Rel in all cases.  The surprise should be that it does predict correctly,  in some instances.  For a relativistic formulation of QM you must use the Dirac Equation, but that has fewer analytical solutions and so less predictive, except for things like spin.

@Sofia D. Wechsler

I doubt anyone in their right mind would claim the wave function is a fiction. The question is only how much of it is observable.

There is a goodwill from all sides to overcome the problem; Sofia D. Wechsler is very right to stress the word fiction because in history there was a discussion about and for Bohm it was indeed very difficult to explain his insights with meaning. We always have difficulties with the words, here reality and meaning can easily overlap. What has a meaning is real, and we need to make the abstraction in order to explain.

Bohm also said that quantum physics was not enough to explain reality, we need something new that embraces the real and fiction which can be translated as abstraction. Calculations are not enough, we can't make a philosophy based on numbers only, experience has to come in which has also a fiction-side. I got many endorsements for science-fiction although my ideas are based on experience. But this we can't measure only see the results. Once again I think that synchronicity, which can be coupled with immediate, non-locality, can come in as a factor. We can’t neglect the time Pauli was thinking about it.

Is it necessary as Bruce Hartly said to look already for a theory before all the elements are known.

All we can do in physics is construct a self-consistent theory, which may be based on a few "Prima Causa" (primary causes) and construct a theory from that. 

Also the quantum biology is still difficult to describe.

Cited L. I. Plimak

Two observers observing an entangled system at two different locations can both claim that it is they who caused the wavefunction collapse.

This is difficult to represent, or, the two observers had to be in telepathic contact with each other as they have to observe the system at the same moment, or the first observation will cause the wavefunction collapse. Or is there still another way.

Rita, congratulations!

You placed the finger on the most severe problem of the entanglements:

Bohm Interpretation (BI) holds that results of measurements are caused by some reality present in the wave-function prior to the measurement. People which refute BI, place their trust in the collapse, by which the measurement results are decided upon at the measurement time. But, there is no measurement time for entangled particles. There exist frames of coordinates by which one particle is measured first, and other frames by which another particle is measured first.

Thus, going with the collapse postulate, each one of the measurements can be claimed as producing an independent result because the other measurements weren't done yet. And though, the correlations are preserved. How so, there comes information from future?

Bohm solved this problem in a way which contradicts the relativity: BI requires PREFERRED FRAMES. In other words, BI implies that the evolution of the entangled particles obeys the wave-function written for some frames of coordinates, and disobeys the wave-function written for other frames of coordinates, NON-PREFERRED.

Experiments for detecting non-preferred frames were done by N. Gisin, but the results were non-conclusive. It can be said that the premises of the experiments were too much particular.

Bottom line, we are in the situation to choose between two BAD things: either collapse, or preferred frames. The only way to get out from the impasse, is to put BI to experimental tests. BI relies on additional premises besides those of QM, and these additional premises have to be tested.

Dear ALL,

No doubt that we have difficulty in understanding what is the wave-function and how it works. But, that doesn't give us the right to say that it is a fiction. This "fiction" we MEASURE in our experiments. When something is difficult, to say that it is a fiction, means to RUN AWAY in front of difficulties and declare capitulation. People which have the ambition to understand the nature, have to think of new ways to investigate it.

Recent experiments show that wave function is real. Concept of nonlocality is a metaphysical one. No signal in EPR type of experiment is being propagated with superluminal speed. It is possible that we need to revise our present understanding of the concept of space-time. The fluctuations of  vacuum may generate quantum potential. I have published a paper in Phys. Lett A in 1986 in this direction . However, the flcutuations of space time of the vacuum ( both four components) may lead to consider a higher dimensional space.

Yes, what you say Charles Francis seems logic because for many years that was the accepted thing.

Bohr's own words: There is no quantum world. There is only abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to think out how nature is. Physics only concerns what we can say about nature.

But now the questions are coming in. And the answers must finally get connection with our mind, our neurons, our thinking, but also with our actions. Bohm also said that we may draw the line from particle to human being and see the correspondences.

With this he gave it a direct meaning which I accepted but most of the Copenhagen group not. Some also called the ideas of Bohm metaphysical, the same as Sigir Roy called the concepts of nonlocality a metaphysical one.  I think that we can't use that word if we want to search the bridge.

What I read about Bohm in the book of Jim Al-Khalili: even though the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is not the most popular one among physicists; a number of different versions of it exist. The common basis of the different approaches is that particles have well-defined positions that evolve according to deterministic equations of motion.

As far as I understood Bohm he always inserted a notion of creativity. In this way he was very close to art but not to metaphysics. His mind was one and it is that unity that we inherited of him. Naturally because of all the problems, he got 3 heavy depressions and even electric shocks. 

To Charles,

Did you read Bohm's formalism? Did you read his basic articles? The Bohmian velocity is proportional with the quantum CURRENT of probability, not with the quantum LINEAR MOMENTUM.

In my naive opinion, there is no way of knowing in which eigen state a wave-function will exactly collapse, when disturbed ! We can just predict the probabilities of finding the value corresponding to an observable in a certain range, when the wavefunction is known apriori. That explains that there is no "deterministic predictability" that we can use to transmit a message. After writing this I just realized that I am just repeating the story of "quantum entanglement and FTL" issue in a very crude manner. 

Is it not dangerous to drop Bohm and bring up von Neumann. The truth must be the sum of all the best. I just could read:

The mathematician John von Neumann appeared to have provided a mathematical proof in 1932 that ruled out the possibility of hidden variables interpretations, lending support to the Copenhagen view that certain properties of a quantum object cannot be said to exist until we measure them. It was only many years later that physicists discovered that von Neumann's proof was wrong. Provided you allowed for nonlocality, there was no reason why you couldn't have an interpretation based on objective reality such as that of Bohm.

Talking authorities, would someone versed in Bohmian formulation please enlighten me, if it can be taken as far as, for instance, calculating vacuum polarization in spinor QED. Or Cooper pairing, to name just two Nobel-prize-winning results of the XXth century...

Dear friends,

and  Charles Francis in particular,

Mathematics may betray you. With suitable axioms, one can prove that 1 + 1 = 15. So, mathematics alone, without comparing the results with the experiment, is dangerous.

Bottom line, if one wishes to make an opinion on some physical issue, one should read a good amount of articles: of authorities, and also of people who criticize those authorities, etc. In short, there is no escape from investing serious work. 

In any case we must accept the hidden things, not only the hidden variables. Hidden things can't be measured, we can't even discuss them but they belong to physics as the unconsciousness belongs to consciousness. There is the implicate order, the pre-existence, which is not a good translation I feel. Indeed for this we need a frame. 

Charles Francis,

By math you could hide the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle in SRT. You let SRT adopts objectivity by the reciprocity principle only by Geometry. Reciprocity principle does not exist in nature. There is no any experiment proves the reciprocity principle. H&K experiment (and GPS computing) support Lorentz’s transformation (LT) instead of Special Relativity (SR).because of using the centre of Earth as basic referential frame for relativistic calculations. In SR referential frames are equal, so time dilation should have been computing by the relative velocity of Observer and Source to each other. To evade ‘twin paradox’ of SR it is necessary to introduce a basic referential frame, but with that the experiment support LT. So it is misleading to claim that the H&K experiment (or GPS) prove SR and explain twin paradox, because they try to prove LT, where there is no ‘twin paradox’. If you want to believe that macro world moves according to objectivity, then prove to me the reciprocity principle. Now we understand "Why didn't QM and gravitation merge yet?"

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_didnt_QM_and_gravitation_merge_yet

We should be careful when looking at mathematical formulations which are meant to describe physical processes or entities.  Mathematics, used to describe physics, cannot always be restricted to only those things which are physical in nature.  Likewise a physical theory will also be confined only to those things which are inherent in its axiomatic foundations.  It would be surprising if a mathematical theory completely covered only those things which are physically realisable.  A complete overlap of physics and maths would be rare indeed and likely impossible.  Gödel's proof shows that an axiomatic system cannot be both consistent and complete.  Is mathematical physics an axiomatic system?  If yes, then Gödel's proof applies.  If no, then what would it be based on?

We never may impose a system with authority, we may search to find a common root. It's a fact that always the consciousness has to come in, and this is not working with the precept, she is, It must be possible to bring everything together in a synchronic system because the whole nature is beautiful working synergetic, all the rest is distortion, decoherence, chaos. If we are agree that the nature is coherent, order out of order, then we are close to quantum biology and don't need the measurement, neither the collapse. Then we live in the system and don't observe it.

Apparent faster than light propagation should not concern us too much, especially when we consider such artefacts as the quantum potential or the wave function.  Let me quote a line from Gordon Belot, Understanding Electromagnetism, Brit. J Phil Science 49, 531-555, (1998):- "..changes in the vector potential can propagate with infinite velocity even though electric and magnetic radiation propagate with finite velocity." (page 542) and atoms are EM devices after all is said and done.

Charles Francis

You failed to reach to the unified theory according to objectivity in SRT. You failed to describe the motion of the universe according to objectivity in SRT. You proposed graviton while it is illusion!  It is photon and there is noting named graviton... it is only  illusion, because objectivity is illusion, it is only Geometric not physics!!! ;)

By modifying Lorentz transformation according to Copenhagen school by removing the reciprocity principle and then objectivity, it is resulted the Lorentz transformations express about the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the motion of the moving train is described by the Schreodinger equation, where it is for micro and macro world. In this case the Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent, and the Lorentz factor is equivalent to the refractive index in optics.  From that we get the Helmholtz equation for phenomena periodic in time, with a frequency of f=ω /2π inside the moving plane for the observer on the ground. Helmholtz equation equation is given according to

                                 ∇2 φx(x)+ (Rω2 /c2)φx (x)=0

Where R is the Lorentz factor equivalent to the refractive index. Remember the moving plane must defined locally according to my transformation for the observer on the ground by the Schrodinger equation according to the wave-particle duality. 

For the observer on the moving train, it is equivalent to existing in a higher potential comparing to the observer on the ground. And that is meaning the observer stationary on the ground exists in negative vacuum energy relative to the observer on the moving train. In this case it is equivalent to the refractive index to be purely imaginary for the observer on the moving train. Then the solution of Helmholtz's equation is called an evanescent mode, which leading to measuring faster than light without violation Lorentz invariance or causality according to our new transformations. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.04.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

Charles Francis,

what is clear that you do not have enough information to discuss. That's clear from your previous posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_didnt_QM_and_gravitation_merge_yet?_tpcectx=qa_overview_following&_trid=55c38e125f7f712e7a8b45b4_

You do not have what to say!

It is only time! and then the reality will appear for all. You understand well the death of objectivity in Lorentz transformation by the death of reciprocity principle is the death of materialism and Atheism forever. Review Zeno's Paradox ! ;)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_didnt_QM_and_gravitation_merge_yet?_tpcectx=qa_overview_following&_trid=55c38e125f7f712e7a8b45b4_

Can Ans Shapendonk be edited out of this conversation?

Dear Bruce Hartley,

Infinite velocity can't be understood basis on objectivity in the interpretation  of Lorentz transformation in SRT by adopting the reciprocity principle. According to objectivity in classical physics both the observer on the ground and the observer on the moving train must agree at the location of the moving train at any point in space on the ground at the same time, and that's ok according to Galilean transformation according to t'=t. According to SRT we can't say at the same time because of time dilation, where according to SRT interpretation to the Lorentz transformation t' must not equal to t. Einstein kept on objectivity by proposing the relative simultaneity and thus it is resulted the concept of space-time continuum. According to objectivity in SRT it is resulted also the continuity as in classical physics.

Suppose a plane is flying from London to Paris in constant speed v. Einstein proposed implicitly as in classical physics  when the plane arrives Paris then it arrives Paris for both the two observers on the ground and on the moving plane. Suppose when the plane arrives Paris for the observer on the ground according to his ground clock is one endpoint, and suppose when the plane arrives Paris for the observer on the moving plane according to his plane clock is another endpoint. According to SRT by proposing objectivity these two endpoints must be coincided in space by length contraction according to the reciprocity principle. 

Now if we consider space is invariant, and that means the observer on the ground and the observer on the moving train are agreed at the length of the moving plane during the motion in the direction of the velocity, and also they are agreed the distance between London and Paris during the motion, and thus by refusing the reciprocity principle, we get these two endpoints must be separated in space according to time dilation. For example if the velocity of the plane is 0.87c, and if the observer on the ground sees the plane now on Paris according to his ground clock. At this moment for the observer on the plane according to time dilation his plane is not on Paris now, it is in the middle distance between London and Paris. And if the observer on the ground could stop the Plane on Paris, then the observer on the plane will find his plane on Paris suddenly, where his plane transformed from the middle distance between London and Paris to Paris at zero time separation, and this is exactly what happened in case of entanglement.  According to this interpretation, in Lorentz transformations, it must y'=Ry and z'=Rz in order to keep on the constancy of the speed of light locally, and thus keep on the Lorentz invariance locally. If you review this transformation, you get it expresses about the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and it is vacuum energy dependent which is depending on potential.

Now we can understand what is Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it is simply says it is impossible that the observer on the ground and the observer on the moving plane agree at the location of the moving plane at any point in space on the ground at the same time because of time dilation. And thus we can understand from where the wave-particle duality comes from according to the Lorentz transformation. In case negative vacuum which causing faster than light is produced by the separation the two endpoints in space which is related to time dilation. In fact events which happen in negative vacuum energy are happening in a faster rate than our events on our lab. That is equivalent the potential in our lab is higher than the potential on negative vacuum energy.  

Let's go back to infinity, proposed by Charles Francis:

Bruce, Godel's proof applies to mathematical systems containing the axiom of infinity. Physics can escape it if infinity is not physically realised.

If we could solve that problem we could have a dialogue.

Can we see infinity and nonlocality as congruent, in what should laying the difference. Infinite of time and space is an idea that exists because we imagine it. 

It is hard to imagine that physics can escape infinity. 

Charles Francis

You repeat again same post from the time you begin to discuss with us in the previous RG.

Who is aggressive? From the time you begin to discuss with us, you have never said any comment regarded to criticize my work by physics, only by impolitely words.  Haven't you reviewed your posts regarded to who criticize relativity. You do not respect any comment which is against relativity, and at the same time you do not reply to any comment against relativity by any physics. 

Charles Francis

Why you separate between the concept of faster than light in  this RG and the quantization of gravity and how all of that are related to potential, and that required there is no space time continuum, it is only time. How that is related to removing the reciprocity principle in SRT, and how that is agreed completely with Sagnac effect and Hafele Keating experiment.

Why you ignore all of the experimental results. One of them in this paper and you refused to discuss about it J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008

In this paper Franson calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation.

Charles Francis,

 regarded to your comment: "There is no place in scientific discussion for those who will not study them."

It is same what is written in the Bible in Revelation 13:17

"and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name".

 Revelation 13:4

"And they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to wage war against him?"

Revelation 13:6

"He began to speak blasphemies against God: to blaspheme His name and His dwelling--those who dwell in heaven."

Revelation  13:7

And he was permitted to wage war against the saints and to conquer them. He was also given authority over every tribe, people, language, and nation.

Charles Francis,

Now you understand what is the meaning objectivity in SRT, and how it is related to the reciprocity principle. Objectivity is proved only by Geometry, and there is no any physics could prove objectivity by proving the reciprocity principle. Now the quantization of gravity is impossible according to objectivity and the reciprocity principle in SRT. Because of that all of these past years you failed to quantization of gravity according to objectivity in SRT. The only way is removing objectivity in SRT by removing the reciprocity, and that will lead to the Lorentz transformation expressing about the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and in this case all the problems in physics will be solved from Higgs to Galaxies. Now I assert that the two beasts in the Bible are SRT and quantum theory. By these theories according to objectivity and the reciprocity principle in SRT, you spoke blasphemies against God: to blaspheme His name and His dwelling--those who dwell in heaven.

Everything will be different when we unify between these two theories and then removing objectivity by removing the reciprocity principle in SRT, and everything will be clear for all. When SRT changed, then everything will change. 

The problem is only understanding....no more!!!

Revelation 13:18

"Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six."

We must not be afraid of disagreement, it's a theory of life that everyone has his own view of reality, that is what consciousness is about.

In art we are pride to be original, because that is the way to be authentic. Something special points to inspiration. An artist wants to shock with new ideas and insight. Afterwards, science has introduced some theories about it, some schools, some periods, but no artist has ever accepted this and so we need a review of the past of art with the eyes of physics, because in consciousness it all comes together. Until now this is the big omega without any definition.

In religion there are also different philosophies, as they all point to the same omega they must fuse together. Everyone has in fact his own gods and prophets.

It has been a big error in history to make the gap between all this and start from a paradigm without fundamental roots; the axiom.

We may not forget that nature is too much entangled to make separations. We must go back to the unity of things instead of divisions. because each thought has its consequences even in politics, even for the children, even for those who come after. 

It's very excited to help redefine what we think there is.

Charles, Art is not science?  "It is the pursuit of a literal depiction of the appearance of matter, guided by perception and perspective.  Although interpreting art may lead to difficulty and confusion, seeing and interpreting are personal and so can't be disagreed with."  For artistic people the concepts of 2+2 = 5 has appeal because this can give extra meaning to realities and relationships. This is why art means different things to different individuals and why science with all  its definitiveness can still make good art.  Even supposedly random daubs of paint (al Jackson Pollock) can have meaning and beauty.  And I'm a scientist.

Ans Schapendonk:  If you haven't anything sensible to say in this conversation, then get off it.

We can't discuss the truth because we are searching the truth, 

Truth will be reached, when all people become aware of the same reality. 

Indeed beauty is a factor which can't be denied, it's an attribute of the wise. So we make circles around Plato. 

Can it be that the pure idea is nonlocal, carrier of space-time-consciousness.

The quantum potential could be related to that idea, as the information needed for the reality in time. 

Two systems connected by a bridge of information.

Ans,  If you can't see that your posts have nothing to do with the topic of this b;log, which is quantum theory and non-locality of interactions, then I can just pity you.

Ans,  If you can explain in physical terms and not in the perverse terminology and word play that you are employing, just how Vedic Astrology relates to the non-locality of the wave function, in terms that we all know and understand, then I will take your hand.  There's a challenge for you.

Aleksei Bykov, There are papers in serious journals that suggest that the quantum potential does propagate at faster than the velocity of light and even suggestions that the EM vector potential does as well.  I don't knew whether it is trick of the mathematics or of the frames of reference but the papers are in serious journals and could be found with a web search.  Look for paper by Vigier 1979, Superluminal propagation of the quantum potential.

 At the end it will all come together because QM brought the consciousness in and the bio-centrism brought it in the center. 

By extrapolation of consciousness it's only one quantum jump to call the composers in the circle and the poets to see that consciousness itself is the nonlocality and that time is a fiction.

Such an interpretation which is not a theory would prevent an atomic war.

Weird, magic, miracle are  expressions for the nonlocality which always was and always will be.

Without any explanation everyone knows in which fields these terms are used.

What would be the difference. 

I haven't been following this thread, except for the emails i get from RG. However, i'd like to make a few points. Maybe someone has mentioned this in a post i haven't seen, but you can look at this "spooky action at a distance" as something nature must do to preserve conservation principles.

Consider two entangled photons created with zero total spin traveling in opposite directions. How can one measured with left circular polarization preserve spin angular momentum conservation if the other photon has previously been measured also with left circular polarization? This can happen if nature doesn't have a way to deal with it. However, i'm thinking that this conservation only holds in a statistical sense. The uncertainty principle says the number of photons and the phase differences in a beam cannot be simultaneously measured.

De Broglie waves (the original justification for the wave function) travel at a phase speed of c/v, where c is the speed of light and v is the speed of the particle. De Broglie himself showed this had to be true in special relativity. These waves are sometimes referred to as "waves of simultaneity". However, the group speed of these waves is that of the particle, i.e., less than that of light.

All the experiments i've read or heard about that deal with entanglement contradict the idea of hidden variables.

Francis Redfern, Your final sentence.  There are a number of papers on the "hidden variables", argued by Bell, Vigier and others.  I take the question as being, undetermined as yet.  After all, interactions at the atomic level are electromagnetic, and if analysis on those bases does not give quantum behaviour, then we should identify exactly what must  be added to give quantum  behaviour.  Are these the "hidden" variables?  There are serious papers, which argue that quantum can be derived from proper analysis of EM and the boundary conditions which necessarily must be applied.  If the spooky action at a distance is not derivable from EM, then we need "hidden"  variable.  If we need them then what are they?  They must have a physical basis.  I don't believe in them as I see no evidence for them or alternatively a formal identification of what they must be an how they interact.  Atomic physics is just EM.

Well, Bruce, i'd like to know what these serious papers are. However, i am pretty sure the answer to spooky actions at a distance is not to be found in EM theory. If that were true the question would already be closed. Nature is maintaining its conservation laws by some means of which we are apparently not aware.

Francis, I have sent you an email about the Hidden  Variables.  You should also look at papers by Schott (1930) Goedecke (1962).  I will email. There are too many papers to list in this blog unless other really want to see them as well.

I remember somebody gave the general  demonstration why quantum entanglement can't be used for the faster than light signaling. But I forgot who made this.

For me, I think the simplest answer is: Only when you use coincidence method of measurement you see the entanglement  and the non-locality. How ever, if some one want to receive signal he must do the local measurement.   

Dear Shuyu, I believe we are on the same wavelenght.

Regards,

Rita

Nature is maintaining its conservation laws by some means of which we are apparently not aware, is what Francis wrote

This gives the impression that science starts with the idea that everything has to be understood which is not the ultimate aim of life.

They also speak about weird and spooky while a magic experience gets a downvote. Magic sounds much better than spooky and a miracle is the consequence of an entanglement.

I let the church in the middle and if Shuyu is still present I would like to read more about his point of view. Are there more concrete events or something more extended.

The fact is that in science the words are very limited and even these few words as hidden variables, entanglement and coincidence are working out on different conscious levels and on different technical levels. They constantly change their content regarding the context.

In my experience special coincidences are labelled as synchronicity; things that happen without any logic connection because some hidden variables are working out. Ideas which are coming manifest as the connection between mind and matter. Because in these cases the timespace is changing under influence of consciousness, we can speak about entanglement.

The idea of synchronicity is studied very deeply by Pauli, but in that time he couldn't come up with his ideas so he had to go to Jung who has given his own interpretation.

It is also possible that the East will now come with an idea that is connected with the old religions forgotten by the West. We must be open for that, it is still possible that consciousness is liable to reduction.

Dialogue is necessary in order to make peace which is important in this time of religion wars who turn the clock 1000 years back.   

Well, i don't know if my post "gives the impression that science starts with the idea that everything has to be understood". The idea i have is that we try to understand more through scientific investigation. We may eventually run up against a brick wall. Or, as some have suggested, science is near the point where there is nothing left to learn. Right now i don't see a brick wall or the light at the end of the tunnel. It took humankind 2000 years just to get the solar system right so i don't think quantum theory has proved to be the brick wall yet. Here in the USA there is a definite anti-science current. Some of it is driven by greed and some of it by religious dogma. It's not religion i'm so much worried about  but the dogma that often comes along with it. I think there is a sort of thread of causality in entaglement. Looks to me like principles of conservation are upheld thereby. This does strike me that there must be some causal link of which we just don't know yet, just as Kepler didn't know why the planets seemed to be attracted by the sun. (The history of gravity is one of the great stories of how science works.)

We understand each other, but we look from another corner. We don't only use our logic thinking but always the intuition is coming in. Also by intuition we understand the things.

The old paradigm of science ‘objectivity’ is not accepted anymore by scientists in the first place. So the real science is not objective.

Christian I understand very good, you see the things from both sides, but it is hard to defend it because of supervision.

Claiming objectivity is dangerous because it closes the doors for religion and art.

Quantum physics has opened the gate to subjectivity because  consciousness is part of it, so objectivity doesn't exist anymore. 

More and more life itself is coming in the middle which everyone can accept. From the beauty of the cell, the organs, the organism, the society we can open the dialogue much easier. Any way that radicalism must vanish, and from the side of science and from the side of religion or we end up in degradation which probably is already a fact.

Why not follow the way of Pauli and Bohm, In fact, synchronicity, which I know very well, and for sure I can tell more if someone should follow, is the core of the reality. Indeed it is not reproducible and that is just how nature is, everything happens just once, all the rest is misunderstanding.

The other knowledge concerning art has also a scientific side, musicians and artists are sometimes very intelligent and have seen the shortcomings of science and made an oeuvre out of inspiration and brains. Well, it is my commission to bring that to the order. The science of art is something every scientist is afraid of. But how it comes that on each university there is a history of art, a department of literature and musicology. There is not even a link between musicology and the science of music, because music reach much further and here science has to stop. 

Yes Francis I used the word understanding because in my world it is entangled with experience; understanding plus experience is one. It is nearly a crime to put nature under the microscope without any feeling of the magic of life.

I am not anti-science we need it much more than is given to us; communication between folk and science is quasi zero, the media doesn't give any information. 

We see the causality in the entanglement because without causality the logic disappears. But by accepting the implicate order of Bohm which has a link to god, everyone can be satisfied.

"The old paradigm of science ‘objectivity’ is not accepted anymore by scientists in the first place."

Well, i'm a scientist and i accept objectivity. And subjectivity. Of course, no one is completely objective. Some scientists have their pet theories, for example. I tend to be biased toward relativity, SR and GR, just because they have, so far, worked so well.

Objectivity in science really involves the whole scientific community. Consider the sorry story of Jan Hendrik Schoen, a physicist who got away with an extraordinary amount of fraud before he was found out. His supervisors at Bell Labs wanted to believe his results, so much so that they lost objectivity. However, continued experiments and investigations finally shot him down. Same sort of thing with "cold fusion" years ago. One scientist - or even a few - can go off the deep end. Famous scientists such as Eddington and Einstein. The objectivity that has made science so successful is the combined work of many scientists.

As a scientist i feel the "magic" of nature by putting it under a microscope. I go out to West Texas to backpack and study the geology (science, objectivity). That does not take away from my ability to be fascinated by the beauty of the Chihuahua Desert. Or the fabulous sunsets you see through the Window in the Chisos Basin. Or the awe at looking at a fossil of a creature that lived hundreds of millions of years before me. Or the expanse lit up across the Sierra del Carmen by the full "blue" moon on New Year's eve while shivering in the upper reaches of Telephone Canyon. Objectivity, subjectivity - it's not one or the other.