Wave-Particle Time Asymmetry

[RJBeery]

Greetings! My (speculative, layman's) interpretation of QM, to which I request discussion and feedback, is the following:

Wave-Particle Time Asymmetry
It is only particles, not waves, which exist in our timelined reality. The apparent wave-particle duality is an artifact of the advanced (read: 'from the future') waves coming from potential quantum absorbers (see shooting gallery). The existence of these absorbers is 'advertised' to quantum particles seeking emission. The quantum pathing choices are based upon the same principle as our macro-level pathing determinations, namely, the Principle of Least Action.

This interpretation requires a broadening of the definition of the word Causal to include those possible causes which occur "after" their effects, but those causes are limited to being wave-like in nature. In this light-cone picture we can see all potential causes of event E: the particle-like causes are shaded in blue, while the wave-like causes are shaded in green. The blue causes would include the experimenter's physical setting up of the lab, while the green causes would include the future measurements of the "entangled" quantum particles A and B. Under this interpretation, the EPR paradox is resolved by assigning a discrete spin to both particles at the time of emission. The problems associated with determining "when" a measurement takes place and/or "when" a wavefunction collapses dissolves because the physicality of the particles in question existed in full at event E, the point of their emission.

WPTA exhibits the following characteristics:

1) Under its redefinition, Physics is purely Causal, meaning there is nothing which has no explanation, only that which has an explanation unavailable to an information set (such as an observer's knowledge at a particular point in time). God plays no dice.
2) Physics is Real. Photons, electrons, etc are allowed a full and objectively real existence which persists outside of observation.
3) Physics is Local. C is respected, while "spooky action at a distance" is explained - in WPTA the advanced waves, traveling at a velocity v where |v| < c, are the effective carriers of the apparent and elusive "hidden variables".
4) A consequence of #1 and the Principle of Least Action is that Physics is Deterministic.

All comments welcome, and thanks in advance.

 

[prometheus]

Pointless waste of time. Shouldn't be cesspooled. That's too good for it.

 

[RJBeery]

Not horribly constructive, but I'll consider that a vote of doubt by Prometheus.

 

[BenTheMan]

GThis interpretation requires a broadening of the definition of the word Causal to include those possible causes which occur "after" their effects, but those causes are limited to being wave-like in nature.

...

1) Under its redefinition, Physics is purely Causal,

This is hardly a high point of your theory, RJB. You've redefined ``causal'' so that it means the opposite of what it normally means?

 

[RJBeery]

Agreed, Ben. Maybe I should replace the word with another? Note, though, that removing the temporal restriction in the definition of "Causal" does not make "The Universe == Causal" via a truism. There would still be theoretical room for "acausal" effects (think quantum foam). However, this interpretation attempts to show that "acausality" does not exist which I feel is a positive aesthetic.

I would also point out that between Locality, Reality and Causality, something had to be redefined due to QM as Einstein was suggesting.

 

[Pete]

Hi RJ,
You have interesting postulates!
Now there's nothing else to say, unless you take Ben's advice:
[post]2175088[/post]

i guess the argument boils down to this: I would say that one cannot gain any deep physical intuition into a problem unless you can also do some calculations. Said another way, intuition is meaningless if you can't show that your intuition is right. In my mind, sitting around and speculating, without the ability to calculate anything, is on the same level as a bunch of 13 year old boys sitting around and talking about the girls they could sleep with---sure, it's possible that they're right, but until they actually go out and prove that they're capable of getting past the sweaty palms phase, then it's all just a bunch of meaningless talk.

There are lots of ideas that are interesting, but just don't work out at a calculational level. So i can say things like "oh, man, wouldn't it be awesome if all of matter were just bound states of photons." it sounds great---imagine how simple the universe would be if everything were composed of photons. But then you try to calculate something, and you find you can't---for example, there's absolutely no way you can calculate qcd bound states if you assume everything is made of photons. (i know, because i've done the calculations.)

 

[RJBeery]

but...but...I COULD sleep with her if I really wanted!

Point taken, Pete. And Ben's comment is well founded. Let me work on it. It shouldn't be that hard to test this theory against the double-slit experiment or Hardy's Paradox. I did think of an experiment to test the theory BTW: it seems to me that if reality is purely particle-based then there should always be a direct particle path between emitter and absorber (compensating for other effects such as gravity). In other words, if a particle was able to move from emitter to absorber following the oscillating path of a wavefunction in a manner not available to a direct particle then this theory needs improvement.

 

[Pete]

This is hardly a high point of your theory, RJB. You've redefined ``causal'' so that it means the opposite of what it normally means?

Antecedence is strongly correlated with causation, but I don't think it is inherent in its meaning.
I think that a greater difficulty might be in what happens to reverse causation at the macro level.

 

[RJBeery]

Well reverse causation can already been experienced at the macro-level in any typical EPR experiment, according to the theory. Macro-level causation of past events would be extraordinarily rare, if not impossible, but I must give it further thought...

 

[RJBeery]

Pseudoscience...hmm. I'm assuming a construct showing that purely advanced waves is mathematically viable would revive this thread?

If you deemed this to be pseudoscience based upon my proposed redefinition of Causal then you might want to reconsider.

Strong-causality principle. A cause must always precede all of its effects in any reference frame. Information, microscopic or macroscopic, can never be transmitted over a spacelike interval or over a negative timelike or negative lightlike interval.

Weak-causality principle. A macroscopic cause must always precede its macroscopic effects in any reference frame. Macroscopic information can never be transmitted over a spacelike interval or over a negative timelike or negative light-like interval.

Here's his paper.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

There would still be theoretical room for "acausal" effects (think quantum foam).

Given your problems with grasping undergrad physics, I don't think you're really in a position to start throwing out terms like 'quantum foam'.

 

[RJBeery]

AlphaNumeric: Please provide specific references to posts when making such allegations.