…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 (

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

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,

Paul

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.