…the key elements.. would be:

1. We would of course cite the earlier stuff by Aharonov, and the papers by Unruh etc. in Savitt. But we would observe that
the Aharonov formalism by itself does not go as far as we want to go, because it still allows (assumes? we need to read...)
the use of elementary measurement operators which are grossly, completely time-asymmetric.

2. We would start out by observing that a large number of physicists are now committed to the proposition that "It shouldn't
matter whether cats have souls or not." The measurement formalism SHOULD BE DERIVABLE
from quantum dynamics, in a reasonable but unavoidable sort of way. Until this is done, the foundations of physics are
not really complete or closed or well-worked out. And of course we can elaborate...

2a. Part of the elaboration is the observation that modern quantum optics and such IMPLICITLY take the Von Neumann-Wigner
point of view. Whenever the physical characteristics (like the speed) of a measurement device actually become a real issue,
we always switch to a more complete model; for example, instead of modeling a polarizer as a simple Copenhagen projection
operator, we switch over to a condensed physics kind of model, based on master equations and whatnot. This is something
Yanhua and even I have seen dozens of times over in modern work on quantum information science.

3. But then again... just as important... is the argument that issues about causal regions in the greater universe
(whether BIg Bang or steady-state, an issue we should not take sides on here) really should be based on
an analysis of the quantum dynamics and the physical situation. We should not restrict our choice of cosmological models based on a fluke of
how we do the measurement bookkeeping in experiments we do here on earth, in a region which we know has a forwards
arrow of time at the MACROSCOPIC level.

*****4. Because the laws of quantum dynamics are time-symmetric, but the current simplified (Copenhagen) models
of measurement are not, there is NO WAY that the latter could possible be deduced from the former, without inserting
additional information. BUT WHAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? Like Thomas Aquinas in his "proofs" of the existence of God,
we could try to use clever logic somehow to fill in the information. But common sense tells us that the REAL PHYSICAL
REASON for the time asymmetry of the experiments we do in earth is the macroscopic arrow of time we must work with
in every minute of our lives. THEREFORE, the most reasonable way by far to close the incompleteness in quantum physics is
to derive the measurement rules from the COMBINATION of two pieces of real information -- the quantum dynamics, AND
the macroscopic arrow of time. In so doing, we must also bear in mind that this macroscopic arrow AS IT APPLIES TO EARTH
is well known to be the consequence of BOUNDARY conditions -- the light flowing into the earth and the free energy
back from the creation of the earth.

POINT 4 (in some form, perhaps more logical after Huw works it over) should be the central thesis of the paper.

And then...

5. If we take this approach, we can find a justification for a measurement formalism which is VERY CLOSE to Heisenberg,
but not quite exactly the same... we require a few subtle changes which do not have consequences under normal circumstances,
but may have some consequences under extraordinary consequences.

6. AS I explained at length in an earlier email... we still would have a justification for assuming a time-forwards
action, say, when we are describing the behavior of light or photons at an energy level much higher than the
thermal emission frequencies of the objects we use in the experiment. Thus photon counters and
laser, for example, can still be modelled as time-forwards objects, BECAUSE their function is driven by an
injection of forwards-time free energy (a special boundary condition which is
really just a "transmitted" version of the free energy we get from the sun which ultimately powers our experiments).
BUT OTHER OBJECTS like polarizers and slits should be represented, in principle as
time-symmetric objects! We must allow the Aharonov formalism to be modified to accommodate such changesl;
when it is so changed, it becomes the "Markhov Random Field" measurement formalism I have spoken about.

7.  Within the realm of quantum dynamics, the most conservative new polarizer model is to code up
(into probability distributions) the assumptions that: (1) the partial probability of ABSORBING an optical
frequency photon linearly polarized at some angle is very small, but nonzero, EQUALLY so in the forwards-time
and backwards time direction; (2) the partial probability of a photon being "twisted" -- coming in at an oblique angle,
but coming out at the preferred angle of the polarizer -- is also very small but nonzero, equally so in both time directions;
(3) the partial probability of a double twist is (very small)**2; (4) the partial probability of light coming in AND going
out at the preferred angle is quite high... actually 1.0, in essence, if it is a perfect polarizer. In fact,
the probabilities of (1) and (2) respectively are a1*(cos(theta - theta P)**2) and a1*(sin(theta - theta P)**2),
where theta is the angle of the light and thetaP the angle of the polarizer. This is basically just
the time-symmetrized version of the usual measurement operator.

8. Within the "extended Aharonov" or "MRF" formalism, we cannot think of any experiments where item 7 would
lead to predictions different from those of the ordinary Copenhagen formalism, based on polarization of photons
and experiments entirely on earth. In essence -- the probability of a spontaneous backwards time "absorption"
(i.e. emission) is very small. The ordinary forwards-time absorption would also be very rare, because optical-frequency
photons in general would be rare, EXCEPT for the fact that we have other forwards-time sources of light, not just
polarizers. Once a forwards-time optical photon "MUST" be there, because of the sort, the RELATIVE probabilities of the two
outcomes (absorption or twisting) is all that comes into play, and there we have the same assumption as ordinary
quantum theory.

9. When we apply that formalism to the case of Bell Theorem experiments, we still get the usual predictions, but an interesting
story. The Aharonov story (EVEN with conventional quantum dynamics) would tell us that there is some mix
or probability distribution of two scenarios, after the BBO but before the two polarizers; in both scenarios, the two photons
are perfectly entangled, but in one of them the left photon has the orientation of the left polarizer, while in the other
the right photon has the orientation of the right photon. Yet this is completely a quantum mechanical story!!
We do not need to demand realism to get there!  (AFTER we get there, the jump to realism is not so great...)

10. On the cosmology side here, the main conclusion is that we should not rule out the kind of thing
Huw has talked about. If the "absorbing" future time body is in a part of the universe governed by a different
set of boundary conditions, it should not have the same kind of rigidly time-forwards behavior we observe in OUR
photomultiplier tubes. If there is a reasonable chance that a two-zone model of the greater universe might be true, we really should try to test out this possibility,
probably by using SPDC technology, perhaps using very hot targets.... (here I grow fuzzy...) as a preliminary step
in developing the technology. (Maybe we should discuss this one more... Certainly Yanhua's ideas would be a critical
part of whatever we say about this! I am glad to hear Yanhua is interested... no one knows empirical quantum optics better than him...)

11. And then there is the Popper experiment. I think it is fair to say that preliminary indications suggest
that this one cannot be reconciled with strict, traditional forwards-time approaches. (Huw would need a citation
on this. By the way, it may be reassuring to know that Yang of Yang-Lee -- one of the very most respected physicists
in the world --  has looked over this experiment, and been stunned by the same point which stuns me.) We can say
that more precise replications and analyses are needed. But for now... the wave function "on the right" has
only a tiny overlap with the physical "mask" in which the slit is located. Maybe less than 10% of the
energy in the wave function touches the mask. Yet the receptive field is doubled in diameter... something which could not happen
if only the 10 percent were affected. The only possible explanation is that the presence of the mask
creates solutions of Maxwell's Laws which converge on any allowed right-counter location... solutions which
transfer angular momentum at the edges of the slit... so that the angular momentum transferred to the slit
is causally influenced by the choice of counter plane!!! If the slit were  modelled as a simple
position-measurement projection operator, such effects would not be possible.


POints 10 and 11 could still do with a bit of sharpening (or else some aspects could not be discussed).

But still... in general... what do you think? Is such a paper still feasible and desirable?

Huw -- what questions would you have before trying to get started on a draft? Do you think
Nature is a feasible target, given your experience so far? If we are not really ready, what do we need next?

Best regards,


P.S. Yanhua may be interested to know three related things. First, the black cat still looks good,
even after a tough re-analysis. There is a very nice analogy to VCSELs as well
as to charged-pion exchanges in nucleon collisions. Second, I can make sense of the polarizer in solid state physics terms.
In essence... the same model applies at each thin LAYER of a polarizer, except that there is a high probability
of light simply passing through unaltered at its original polarization if the layer is very thin. The "sin**2/cos**2" ratio of probabilities
is based on matrix elements for the two channels, which comes from basic quantum dynamics; there is a kind of Boltzman effect as well,
but it is based on the overall energy level, and provides the same (small) multiplier to the probability along
both channels. (Of course, the Boltzmann term is the same, whether the energy hit comes all in one place
or is broken into two; that's the key property of the exponential function, which explains why it works in thermodynamics.)
Third, re the Popper replication... I have gotten very strong independent corroboration
of the story we heard from ORNL about their overall budget situation, which I was initially somewhat suspicious about.
I do hope all else is going well -- with Masha for example.