Subject: Measurement in quantum mechanics FAQ
From: paul@mtnmath.com
Date: 3 Sep 1996 00:09:12 -0700
Posted-By: auto-faq 3.1.1.2
Archive-name: physics-faq/measurement-in-qm
Measurement in quantum mechanics FAQ
Maintained by Paul Budnik, paul@mtnmath.com, http://www.mtnmath.com
This FAQ describes the measurement problem in QM and approaches to its
solution. Please help make it more complete. See ``What is needed''
for details. Web version: http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm.html
1. About this FAQ
The general sci.physics FAQ does a good job of dealing with technical
questions in most areas of physics. However it has no material on
interpretations of QM which are among the most frequently discussed
topics in sci.physics. Hence there is a need for this supplemental
FAQ.
This document is probably out of date if you are reading it more than
30 days after the date which appears in the header.
This FAQ is on the web at: http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm.html
You can get it by e-mail or FTP from rtfm.mit.edu.
By FTP, look for the file:
/pub/usenet/news.answers/physics-faq/measurement-in-qm
By e-mail send a message to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with a blank
subject line and the words:
send usenet/news.answers/physics-faq/measurement-in-qm
The main sci.physics FAQ is in this same directory with file names
part1 through part4 and can be retrieved in the same way. You can put
multiple send lines in a single e-mail request.
This document, as a collection, is Copyright 1995 by Paul P. Budnik
(paul@mtnmath.com). The individual articles are Copyright 1995 by the
individual authors listed. All rights are reserved. Permission to
use, copy and distribute this unmodified document by any means and for
any purpose EXCEPT PROFIT PURPOSES is hereby granted, provided that
both the above Copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
all copies of the FAQ itself. Reproducing this FAQ by any means,
included, but not limited to, printing, copying existing prints,
publishing by electronic or other means, implies full agreement to the
above non-profit-use clause, unless upon explicit prior written
permission of the authors.
This FAQ is provided by the authors ``as is''. with all its faults.
Any express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, any
implied warranties of merchantability, accuracy, or fitness for any
particular purpose, are disclaimed. If you use the information in
this document, in any way, you do so at your own risk.
2. The measurement problem
Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
The formulation of QM describes the deterministic unitary evolution of
a wave function. This wave function is never observed experimentally.
The wave function allows us to compute the probability that certain
macroscopic events will be observed. There are no events and no
mechanism for creating events in the mathematical model. It is this
dichotomy between the wave function model and observed macroscopic
events that is the source of the interpretation issue in QM. In
classical physics the mathematical model talks about the things we
observe. In QM the mathematical model by itself never produces
observations. We must interpret the wave function in order to relate
it to experimental observations.
It is important to understand that this is not simply a philosophical
question or a rhetorical debate. In QM one often must model systems as
the superposition of two or more possible outcomes. Superpositions can
produce interference effects and thus are experimentally
distinguishable from mixed states. How does a superposition of
different possibilities resolve itself into some particular
observation? This question (also known as the measurement problem)
affects how we analyze some experiments such as tests of Bell's
inequality and may raise the question of interpretations from a
philosophical debate to an experimentally testable question. So far
there is no evidence that it makes any difference. The wave function
evolves in such a way that there are no observable effects from
macroscopic superpositions. It is only superposition of different
possibilities at the microscopic level that leads to experimentally
detectable interference effects.
Thus it would seem that there is no criterion for objective events
Thus it would seem that there is no criterion for objective events and
perhaps no need for such a criterion. However there is at least one
small fly in the ointment. In analyzing a test of Bell's inequality
one must make some determination as to when an observation was
complete, i. e. could not be reversed. These experiments depend on the
timing of macroscopic events. The natural assumption is to use
classical thermodynamics to compute the probability that a macroscopic
event can be reversed. This however implies that there is some
objective process that produces the particular observation. Since no
such objective process exists in current models this suggests that QM
is an incomplete theory. This might be thought of as the Einstein
interpretation of QM, i. e., that there are objective physical
processes that create observations and we do not yet understand these
processes. This is the view of the compiler of this document.
For more information:
Ed. J. Wheeler, W. Zurek, Quantum theory and measurement, Princeton
University Press, 1983.
J. S. Bell, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, Cambridge
University Press, 1987.
R.I.G. Hughes, The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,
Harvard University Press, 1989.
3. Schrodinger's cat
Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
In 1935 Schrodinger published an essay describing the conceptual
problems in QM1. A brief paragraph in this essay described the cat
paradox.
One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up
in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device
(which must be secured against direct interference by the cat):
in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive
substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one
of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps
none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a
relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of
hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself
for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile
no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned
it. The Psi function for the entire system would express this by
having in it the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression)
mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally
restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into
macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct
observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid
a ``blurred model'' for representing reality. In itself it would
not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a
difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a
snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
We know that superposition of possible outcomes must exist
simultaneously at a microscopic level because we can observe
interference effects from these. We know (at least most of us know)
that the cat in the box is dead, alive or dying and not in a smeared
out state between the alternatives. When and how does the model of
many microscopic possibilities resolve itself into a particular
macroscopic state? When and how does the fog bank of microscopic
possibilities transform itself to the blurred picture we have of a
definite macroscopic state. That is the measurement problem and
Schrodinger's cat is a simple and elegant explanations of that
problem.
References:
1 E. Schrodinger, ``Die gegenwartige Situation in der
Quantenmechanik,'' Naturwissenschaftern. 23 : pp. 807-812; 823-823,
844-849. (1935). English translation: John D. Trimmer, Proceedings of
the American Philosophical Society, 124, 323-38 (1980), Reprinted in
Quantum Theory and Measurement, p 152 (1983).
4. The Copenhagen interpretation
Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
This is the oldest of the interpretations. It is based on Bohr's
notion of `complementarity'. Bohr felt that the classical and quantum
mechanical models were two complementary ways of dealing with physics
both of which were necessary. Bohr felt that an experimental
observation collapsed or ruptured (his term) the wave function to make
its future evolution consistent with what we observe experimentally.
Bohr understood that there was no precise way to define the exact
point at which collapse occurred. Any attempt to do so would yield a
different theory rather than an interpretation of the existing theory.
Nonetheless he felt it was connected to conscious observation as this
was the ultimate criterion by which we know a specific observation has
occurred.
References:
N. Bohr, The quantum postulate and recent the recent development of
atomic theory, Nature, 121, 580-89 (1928), Reprinted in Quantum Theory
and Measurement, p 87, (1983).
5. Is QM a complete theory?
Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
Einstein did not believe that God plays dice and thought a more
complete theory would predict the actual outcome of experiments. He
argued1 that quantities that are conserved absolutely (such as
momentum or energy) must correspond to some objective element of
physical reality. Because QM does not model this he felt it must be
incomplete.
It is possible that events are the result of objective physical
processes that we do not yet understand. These processes may determine
the actual outcome of experiments and not just their probabilities.
Certainly that is the natural assumption to make. Any one who does not
understand QM and many who have only a superficial understanding
naturally think that observations come about from some objective
physical process even if they think we can only predict probabilities.
There have been numerous attempts to develop such alternatives. These
are often referred to as `hidden variables' theories. Bell proved that
such theories cannot deal with quantum entanglement without
introducing explicitly nonlocal mechanisms2. Quantum entanglement
refers to the way observations of two particles are correlated after
the particles interact. It comes about because the conservation laws
are exact but most observations are probabilistic. Nonlocal
operations in hidden variables theories might not seem such a drawback
since QM itself must use explicit nonlocal mechanism to deal with
entanglement. However in QM the non-locality is in a wave function
which most do not consider to be a physical entity. This makes the
non-locality less offensive or at least easier to rationalize away.
It might seem that the tables have been turned on Einstein. The very
argument he used in EPR to show QM must be incomplete requires that
hidden variables models have explicit nonlocal operations. However it
is experiments and not theoretical arguments that now must decide the
issue. Although all experiments to date have produced results
consistent with the predictions of QM, there is general agreement that
the existing experiments are inconclusive3. There is no conclusive
experimental confirmation of the nonlocal predictions of QM. If these
experiments eventually confirm locality and not QM Einstein will be
largely vindicated for exactly the reasons he gave in EPR. Final
vindication will depend on the development of a more complete theory.
Most physicists (including Bell before his untimely death) believe QM
is correct in predicting locality is violated. Why do they have so
much more faith in the strange formalism of QM than in basic
principles like locality or the notion that observations are produced
by objective processes? I think the reason may be that they are
viewing these problems in the wrong conceptual framework. The term
`hidden variables' suggests a theory of classical-like particles with
additional hidden variables. However quantum entanglement and the
behavior of multi-particle systems strongly suggests that whatever
underlies quantum effects it is nothing like classical particles. If
that is so then any attempt to develop a more complete theory in this
framework can only lead to frustration and failure. The fault may not
be in classical principles like locality or determinism. They failure
may only be in the imagination of those who are convinced that no more
complete theory is possible.
One alternative to classical particles is to think of observations as
focal points in state space of nonlinear transformations of the wave
function. Attractors in Chaos theory provide one model of processes
like this. Perhaps there is an objective physical wave function and QM
only models the average or statistical behavior of this wave function.
Perhaps the structure of this physical wave function determines the
probability that the wave function will transform nonlinearly at a
particular location. If this is so then probability in QM combines two
very different kinds of probabilities. The first is the probability
associated with our state of ignorance about the detailed behavior of
the physical wave function. The second is the probability that the
physical wave function will transform with a particular focal point.
A model of this type might be able to explain existing experimental
results and still never violate locality. I have advocated a class of
models of this type based on using a discretized finite difference
equation rather then a continuous differential equation to model the
wave function4. The nonlinearity that must be introduced to discretize
the difference equation is a source of chaotic like behavior. In this
model the enforcement of the conservation laws comes about through a
process of converging to a stable state. Information that enforces
these laws is stored holographic-like over a wide region.
Most would agree that the best solution to the measurement problem
would be a more complete theory. Where people part company is in their
belief in whether such a thing is possible. All attempts to prove it
impossible (starting with von Neumann5) have been shown to be flawed6.
It is in part Bell's analysis of these proofs that led to his proof
about locality in QM. Bell has transformed a significant part of this
issue to one experimenters can address. If nature violates locality in
the way QM predicts then a local deterministic theory of the kind
Einstein was searching for is not possible. If QM is incorrect in
making these predictions then a more accurate and more complete theory
is a necessity. Such a theory is quite likely to account for events by
an objective physical process.
References: 1 A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Can quantum-
mechanical descriptions of physical reality be considered complete?,
Physical Review, 47, 777 (1935). Reprinted in Quantum Theory and
Measurement, p. 139, (1987).
2 J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolosky Rosen Paradox, Physics, 1,
195-200 (1964). Reprinted in Quantum Theory and Measurement, p. 403,
(1987).
3 P. G. Kwiat, P. H. Eberhard, A. M. Steinberg, and R. Y. Chiao,
Proposal for a loophole-free Bell inequality experiment, Physical
Reviews A, 49, 3209 (1994).
4 P. Budnik, Developing a local deterministic theory to account for
quantum mechanical effects, hep-th/9410153, (1995).
5 J. von Neumann, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,
Princeton University Press, N. J., (1955).
6 J. S. Bell, On the the problem of hidden variables in quantum
mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics, 38, 447-452, (1966). Reprinted
in Quantum Theory and Measurement, p. 397, (1987).
6. The shut up and calculate interpretation
Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
This is the most popular of interpretations. It recognizes that the
important content of QM is the mathematical models and the ability to
apply those models to real experiments. As long as we understand the
models and their application we do not need an interpretation.
Advocates of this position like to argue that the existing framework
allows us to solve all real problems and that is all that is
important. Franson's analysis of Aspect's experiment1 shows this is
not entirely true. Because there is no objective criterion in QM for
determining when a measurement is complete (and hence irreversible)
there is no objective criterion for measuring the delays in a test of
Bell's inequality. If the demise of Schrodinger's cat may not be
determined until someone looks in the box (see item 2) how are we to
know when a measurement in tests of Bells inequality is irreversible
and thus measure the critical timing in these experiments?
References:
1 J. D. Franson, Bell's Theorem and delayed determinism, Physical
Review D, 31, 2529-2532, (1985).
7. Bohm's theory
Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
Bohm's interpretation is an explicitly nonlocal mechanistic model.
Just as Bohr saw the philosophical principle of complementarity as
having broader implications than quantum mechanics Bohm saw a deep
relationship between locality violation and the wholeness or unity of
all that exists. Bohm was perhaps the first to truly understand the
nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics. Bell acknowledged the importance
of Bohm's work in helping develop Bell's ideas about locality in QM.
References: D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of quantum theory in
terms of "hidden" variables I and II, Physical Review,85, 155-93
(1952). Reprinted in Quantum Theory and Measurement, p. 369, (1987).
D. Bohm & B.J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe: an ontological
interpretation of quantum theory (Routledge: London & New York, 1993).
Recently there has been renewed interest in Bohmian mechanics. D.
D"urr, S. Goldstein, N Zanghi, Phys. Lett. A 172, 6 (1992) K. Berndl
et al., Il Nuovo Cimento Vol. 110 B, N. 5-6 (1995).
Peter Holland's book The Quantum Theory of Motion (Cambridge
University Press 1993) contains many pictures of numerical simulations
of Bohmian trajectories.
8. Lawrence R. Mead rmead@whale.st.usm.ed The Transactional Interpre-
tation of Quantum Mechanics
The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (J.G. Cramer,
Phys. Rev. D 22, 362 (1980) ) has received little attention over the
one and one half decades since its conception. It is to be emphasized
that, like the Many-Worlds and other interpretations, the
transactional interpretation (TI) makes no new physical predictions;
it merely reinterprets the physical content of the very same
mathematical formalism as used in the ``standard'' textbooks, or by
all other interpretations.
The following summarizes the TI. Consider a two-body system (there are
no additional complications arising in the many-body case); the
quantum mechanical object located at space-time point (R_1,T_1) and
another with which it will interact at (R_2,T_2). A quantum mechanical
process governed by E=h0, conservation laws, etc., occurs between the
two in the following way.
1) The ``emitter'' (E) at (R_1,T_1) emits a retarded ``offer wave''
(OW) \Psi. This wave (or state vector) is an actual physical wave and
not (as in the Copenhagen interpretation) just a ``probability'' wave.
2) The ``absorber'' (A) at (R_2,T_2) receives the OW and is stimulated
to emit an advanced ``echo'' or ``confirmation wave'' (CW)
proportional to \Psi at R_2 backward in time; the proportionality
factor is \Psi* (R_2,T_2).
3) The advanced wave which arrives at 'E' is \Psi \Psi* and is
presumed to be the probability, P, that the transaction is complete
(ie., that an interaction has taken place).
4) The exchange of OW's and CW's continues until a net exchange of
energy and other conserved quantities occurs dictated by the quantum
boundary conditions of the system, at which point the ``transaction''
is complete. In effect, a standing wave in space-time is set up
between 'E' and 'A', consistent with conservation of energy and
momentum (and angular momentum). The formation of this superposition
of advanced and retarded waves is the equivalent to the Copenhagen
``collapse of the state vector''. An observer perceives only the
completed transaction, however, which he would interpret as a single,
retarded wave (photon, for example) traveling from 'E' to 'A'.
Q1. When does the ``collapse'' occur?
A1. This is no longer a meaningful question. The quantum measurement
process happens ``when'' the transaction (OW sent - CW received -
standing wave formed with probability \Psi \Psi*) is finished - and
this happens over a space-time interval; thus, one cannot point to a
time of collapse, only to an interval of collapse (consistent with
relativity).
Q2. Wait a moment. What you are describing is time reversal invariant.
But for a massive particle you have to use the Schrodinger equation
and if \Psi is a solution (OW), then \Psi* is not a solution. What
gives?
A2. Remember that the CW must be time-reversed, and in general must be
relativistically invariant; ie., a solution of the Dirac equation.
Now (eg., see Bjorken and Drell, Relativistic QM), the nonrelativistic
limit of that is not just the Schrodinger equation, but two
Schrodinger equations: the time forward equation satisfied by \Psi,
and the time reversed Schrodinger equation (which has i --> -i) for
which \Psi* is the correct solution. Thus, \Psi* is the correct CW for
\Psi as the OW.
Q3. What about other objects in other places?
A3. The whole process is three dimensional (space). The retarded OW is
sent in all spatial directions. Other objects receiving the OW are
sending back their own CW advanced waves to 'E' also. Suppose the
receivers are labeled 1 and 2, with corresponding energy changes E_1
and E_2. Then the state vector of the system could be written as a
superposition of waves in the standard fashion. In particular, two
possible transactions could form: exchange of energy E_1 with
probability P_1=\Psi_1 \Psi_1*, or E_2 with probability P_2=\Psi_2
\Psi_2*. Here, the conjugated waves are the advanced waves evaluated
at the position of R_1 or R_2 respectively according to rule 3 above.
Q4. Involving as it does an entire space-time interval, isn't this a
nonlocal ``theory''?
A4. Yes, indeed; it was explicitly designed that way. As you know from
Bell's theorem, no ``theory'' can agree with quantum mechanics unless
it is nonlocal in character. In effect, the TI is a hidden variables
theory as it postulates a real waves traveling in space-time.
Q5. What happens to OW's that are not ``absorbed'' ?
A5. Inasmuch as they do not stimulate a responsive CW, they just
continue to travel onward until they do. This does not present any
problems since in that case no energy or momentum or any other
physical observable is transferred.
Q6. How about all of the standard measurement thought experiments like
the EPR, Schrodinger's cat, Wigner's friend, and Renninger's negative-
result experiment?
A6. The interpretational difficulties with the latter three are due to
the necessity of deciding when the Copenhagen state reduction occurs.
As we saw above, in the TI there is no specific time when the
transaction is complete. The EPR is a completeness argument requiring
objective reality. The TI supplies this as well; the OW and CW are
real waves, not waves of probability.
Q7. I am curious about more technical details. Can you give a further
reference?
A7. If you understand the theory of ``advanced'' and ``retarded''
waves (out of electromagnetism and optics), many of the details of TI
calculations can be found in: Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 58, July
1986, pp. 647-687 available on the WWW as:
http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html
9. Complex probabilities
References; Saul Youssef Quantum Mechanics as Complex Probability
Theory, hep-th 9307019. S. Youssef, Mod.Phys.Lett.A 28(1994)2571.
10. Quantum logic
References: R.I.G. Hughes, The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics, pp. 178-217, Harvard University Press, 1989.
11. Consistent histories
References: R. B. Griffiths, Consistent Histories and the
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Journal of statistical Physics.,
36(12):219-272(1984)
M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle, in Complexity, Entropy and the Physics
of Information, edited by W. Zurek, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the
Sciences of Complexity Vol. VIII, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1990. Also
in Proceedings of the $3$rd International Symposion on the Foundations
of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, edited by S.
Kobayashi, H. Ezawa, Y. Murayama and S. Nomura, Physical Society of
Japan, Tokyo, 1990
R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2201 (1993)
R. Omn`es, Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 339 (1992)
In this approach serious problems arise. This is best pointed out in:
B. d'Espagnat, J. Stat. Phys. 56, 747 (1989)
F. Dowker und A. Kent, On the Consistent Histories Approach to Quantum
Mechanics, University of Cambridge Preprint DAMTP/94-48, Isaac Newton
Institute for Mathematical Sciences Preprint NI 94006, August 1994.
12. Spontaneous reduction models
Reference:
G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini and T. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 34, 470 (1986).
13. What is needed?
All comments suggested and contributions are welcome. We currently
have nothing but references on Complex Probabilities, Quantum Logic,
Consistent Histories and Spontaneous Reduction Models. The entries on
the following topics are minimal and should be replaced by complete
articles.
+ Copenhagen interpretation
+ Relative State (Everett)
+ Shut up and calculate
+ Bohm's theory
Alternative views on any of the topics and suggestions for additional
topics are welcome.
14. Is this a real FAQ?
Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
A FAQ is generally understood to be a reasonably objective set of
answers to frequently asked questions in a news group. In cases where
an issue is controversial the FAQ should include all credible opinions
and/or the consensus view of the news group.
Establishing factual accuracy is not easy. No consensus is possible on
interpretations of QM because many aspects of interpretations involve
metaphysical questions. My intention is that this be an objective
accurate FAQ that allows for the expression of all credible relevant
opinions. I did not call it a FAQ until I had significant feedback
from the `sci.physics' group. I have responded to all criticism and
have made some corrections. Nonetheless there have been a couple of
complaints about this not being a real FAQ and there is one issue that
has not been resolved.
If anyone thinks there are technical errors in the FAQ please say what
you think the errors are. I will either fix the problem or try to
reach on a consensus with the help of the `sci.physics' group about
what is factually accurate. I do not feel this FAQ should be limited
to noncontroversial issues. A FAQ on measurement in quantum mechanics
should highlight and underscore the conceptual issues and problems in
the theory.
The one area that has been discussed and not resolved is the status of
locality in Everett's interpretation. Here is what I believe the facts
are.
Eberhard proved that any theory that reproduces the predictions of QM
is nonlocal1. This proof assumes contrafactual definiteness (CFD) or
that one could have done a different experiment and have gotten a
definite result. This assumption is widely used in statistical
arguments. Here is what Eberhard means by nonlocal:
Let us consider two measuring apparata located in two different
places A and B. There is a knob a on apparatus A and a knob b on
apparatus B. Since A and B are separated in space, it is
natural to think what will happen at A is independent of the
setting of knob b and vice versa. The principles of relativity
seem to impose this point of view if the time at which the knobs
are set and the time of the measurements are so close that, in
the time laps, no light signal can travel from A to B and vice
versa. Then, no signal can inform a measurement apparatus of
what the knob setting on the other is. However, there are cases
in which the predictions of quantum theory make that
independence assumption impossible. If quantum theory is true,
there are cases in which the results of the measurements A will
depend on the setting of the knob b and/or the results of the
measurements in B will depend on the setting of the knob a.1
It is logically possible to deny CFD and thus to avoid Eberhard's
proof. This assumption can be made in Everett's interpretation.
Everett's interpretation does not imply CFD is false and CFD can be
assumed false in other interpretations. I do not think it is
reasonable to deny CFD in some experiments and not others but that is
a judgment call on which intelligent people can differ.
It is mathematically impossible to have a unitary relativistic wave
function from which one can compute probabilities that will violate
Bell's inequality. A unitary wave function does satisfy CFD and thus
is subject to Eberhard's proof. This is a problem for some advocates
of Everett who insist that only the wave function exists. There is no
wave function consistent with both quantum mechanics and relativity
and it is mathematically impossible to construct such a function.
Quantum field theory requires a nonlocal and thus nonrelativistic
state model. The predications of quantum field theory are the same in
any frame of reference but the mechanisms that generate nonlocal
effects must operate in an absolute frame of reference. Quantum
uncertainty makes this seemingly paradoxical situation possible. There
is a nonlocal effect but we cannot tell if the effect went from A to B
or B to A because of quantum uncertainty. As a result the predictions
are the same in any frame of reference but any mechanism that produces
these predictions must be tied to an absolute frame of reference.
There is a certain Alice in Wonderland quality to arguments on these
issues. Many physicists claim that classical mathematics does not
apply to some aspects of quantum mechanics, yet there is no other
mathematics. The wave function model is a classical causal
deterministic model. The computation of probabilities from that model
is as well. The aspect of quantum mechanics that one can claim lies
outside of classical mathematics is the interpretation of those
probabilities. Most physicists believe these probabilities are
irreducible, i. e., do not come from a more fundamental deterministic
process the way probabilities do in classical physics. Because there
is no mathematical theory of irreducible probabilities one can invent
new metaphysics to interpret these probabilities and here is where the
problems and confusion rest. Some physicists claim there is new
metaphysics and within this metaphysics quantum mechanics is local.
References:
P. H. Eberhard, Bell's Theorem without Hidden Variables, Il Nuovo
Cimento, V38 B 1, p 75, Mar 1977.
Subject: Re: What is the Theory of Relativity?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 07:36:22 GMT
throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>: glird@gnn.com (glird)
>: The (truly mythical) "rest frame" is simply Einstein's empty space,
>: the one in which light has a definite velocity c.
>Except of course that Einstein said no such thing; he said light
>has a definite velocity c in coordinate systems as set up per
>definition of time interval given earlier in the paper.
How is it possible to know the outcome of this definition unless one
knows how light actually travels in space (or unless one at least
makes an assumption regarding same)?
The only way Einstein could make a definition and know its outcome is
by knowing in advance exactly how light behaves as it moves between
two clocks. Einstein uses light signals to calibrate his clocks, so
he must know all about them (or at least make some definite
assumptions about their propagation thru space).
He did make the necessary assumption: He assumed that any given light
ray's absolute speed never varies (in "empty" space). And as it
turned out (in 1977), this assumption was true.
You cannot define time by light signals unless you know what's
happening with your light signals. This is elementary, Mr. Throop.
>: There are NO observers other than the ones in the chest whose velocity
>: they will internally measure. IF, then, you assert that the spinning
>: disk will REALLY distort (as viewed by the only observers present, at
>: rest to the origin of that disk); then thank you very much. You have
>: just agreed that Minkowski's theory, that all deformations are only as
>: viewed by a differently moving slice of his spacetime continuum, is
>: false. q.e.d.
>All well and good, but that's not what I said. I said that the
>disk would NOT be distorted in that frame; which immediately
>implies it WOULD be distorted WRT the (mythical, imaginary)
>One True Frame that glird is attempting to detect.
Is this a real distortion due to absolute motion or merely an
observer-dependent "distortion"? Only actual (or real or intrinsic or
whatever floats your boat) distortion can have an effect on the
outcome of an actual experiment performed in an actual (not some
mythical or purely imaginary) lab on a real earth, etc., etc., etc.
You cannot have both real distortion AND mere relative distortion in
the same dadburn theory. Make up your mind.
>Since the "simultaneity" of clock settings WRT that frame implicitly
>depends on the disk not dynamically distorting in that frame, the fact
>that it does so (and not WRT the co-moving observers) means you haven't
>gotten a method of setting clocks simultaneous-in-the-one-true-frame.
>q.e.d.
>: Btw, IF the plane of the disk does distort, the local observers will
>: be able to measure that distortion and, from that alone, calculate the
>: absolute rate of rotation and from that, their own inertial velocity.
>Wrong again. The disk disorts WRT the rest frame. It is an ordinary
>disk WRT the co-moving frame. Which is exactly why it Einstein-synchs
>the clocks.
Again, real or observer-dependent distortion?
If merely seen-as-distorted WRT the "rest" frame, then this type of
mythical distortion cannot affect the outcome of any experiment.
>: There are physical realities built into the relativistic equations.
>: The device measures one of them: the value of v in the local time
>: equation, t'=t-vx/c , in which t' is the "time" of clocks on plate 1,
>: t is the "time" of clocks on plate 2, the plates are mounted parallel
>: to each other a distance x apart as measured by the chest observers
>: themselves, and the plates are oriented exactly perpendicular to the
>: direction of absolute motion previously found by another device, the
>: zyroscope.
>And this particular gadget doesn't work because the "perpendicular" rod
>on the rim of the disk is only "perpendicular" in the co-moving frame;
>it also is einstein-synchronized, and hence can't measure any
>imaginary, mythical "absolute velocity.
>There are indeed physical realities built into the relativistic
>equations. And these physical realities have to do with relative
>velocity only.
An amazing statement, to say the least! He is saying that mere
relative motion (no one knows if he is really in motion thru space or
not) somehow pertains to physical reality.
So, the next time I sit in a train, and the train next to me appears
to move, and yet I wonder if it's my train that's moving, this merely
relative motion has to do with some phsical reality.
What can this mean? Does it mean that "I am really moving"? Or does
it mean that the other observer (other train) is really moving?
Somehow, someway, we must find something in this that pertains in some
way to physical reality, and all we have here is relative motion,
since Throop doesn't believe in absolute motion.
>: How about if it is made of ordinary matter that doesn't "really"
>: distort except where "really" means "as measured by a differently
>: moving observer"? Being the only observer that exists in the empty
>: chest moving all by itself in empty space, if he CAN do that, he then
>: has an experimental value from which to calculate his own abv.
>Well, glird is still confused about which frame distorts the disk. Sigh.
Sigh, Throop is still confused about which type of distortion he is
talking about -- actual distortion that would hurt the experiment in
some real way, or mere observer-dependent distortion. If there is
real distortion (the ONLY kind that matters in a real experiment),
then something must cause it. Guess what this might be. It might be
that very absolute motion whose existence Throop so vehemently denies
>--
>Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
> throopw@cisco.com
Someday, Throop must make up his mind about reality vs relativity.
Hope it's soon, don't you?
--BJ
Subject: PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:27:40 GMT
Remember the ``Coal Mine Rescue'' episode on the documentary TV series
``Spirit of Survival"?
It was broadcast on the Discovery Channel a dozen times over the past
three years -- and it'll probably be aired again.
The following lengthy article, which appeared in the Hazleton (Pa.)
Standard-Speaker on May 30, 1990, sheds much more light on the
subject. It was published shortly after the death of David Fellin, 84,
one of the two entombed miners.
---------------------------------
> Copyright (c) 1990
> Ed Conrad
> All Rights Reserved
--------------------------------
Conclusive evidence of life after death actually has been available
for more than a quarter-century.
This opinion is shared by two of the world's foremost authorities on
death and dying, Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross and Dr. Bruce Greyson.
They agree that the proof had been provided by a pair of Pennsylvania
coal miners who, back in 1963, revealed that Pope John XXIII had
appeared to both of them at the same time during their 14-day
entombment following an underground cave-in near Hazleton, Pa.
Pope John had died in a hospital in Rome, Italy, on June 3, 1963, some
10 weeks before the cave-in.
David Fellin, one of the miners, personally had told Dr. Kubler-Ross
about the appearance of the deceased pontiff and provided details of
other mysterious, supernatural experiences which he, then 58, and
Henry ``Hank" Throne, then 28, had shared while cut off from the rest
of the world during the first five days of their grueling ordeal.
Among the remarkable things Fellin had told Dr. Kubler-Ross during a
day-long conversation in her home in Headwaters, Va., were the two
separate occasions that he insisted he and Throne had been out of
their physical bodies at the same time, during which they actually had
engaged in conversation.
Dr. Kubler-Ross, the internationally acclaimed author of numerous
books on death and dying, said she believed Fellin and stated that the
miners' miraculous rescue, the appearance of the deceased pope and the
out-of-body experiences shared by two persons at the same time --
never before documented -- is ``the evidence . . . that life does not
end when our physical body dies."
Dr. Greyson, then a psychiatrist at the University of Connecticut
Health Center and an official of The International Association for
Near-death Studies, had become acquainted with the incredible details
of the supernatural events connected with the cave-in only in the last
year of Fellin's life but had found them fascinating.
> ``I am most intrigued by the simultaneous experiences of David Fellin
> and Hank Throne, who apparently conversed while out of their bodies,"
> he stated. ``If they can corroborate each other's accounts, they could
> provide evidence for the reality of `The Other Side' beyond anything
> yet available."
When making that statement, Dr. Greyson, then the editor of The
Journal of Near-Death Studies, hadn't been aware that such
corroboration actually had taken place soon after Fellin and Throne
had been dramatically rescued.
After being pulled to the surface through a 17 1/2-inch bore hole on
Aug. 27, 1963, the two miners had been interviewed individually, then
together, by a pair of psychiatrists and a third staff member from the
Institute of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
These intriguing interviews, the subject of an article in the American
Journal of Psychiatry, offered the evidence that both men undoubtedly
had been mutual participants in a series of mysterious, supernatural
events, including the appearance of the late pontiff, and their joint
out-of-body experiences.
The Journal article stated that ``neither man exhibited evidence of
psychosis or marked mental abnormality when examined,'' yet dismissed
their similiar experiences as ``fantasies" and ``hallucinations." The
authors felt they had been caused by the miners' life-threatening
situation when entombed.
This was their conclusion even through both men independently had
described a variety of similiar unexplained occurences underground.
They had mentioned, among other things, that their darkened chamber
suddenly was illuminated with a bluish light; the deceased pontiff
appearing to them; and seeing a large number of men who were neither
miners nor members of the rescue party.
Fellin also revealed that, shortly after being rescued, he had been
interviewed for more than seven hours by the U.S. Navy Survival Team
headed by Lt. Richard Anderson, a medical doctor and psychiatrist.
Fellin said the day after his interview, Lt. Anderson visited his
hospital room and told him he was absolutely certain his experiences
were factual because Throne also had been interviewed for several
hours -- something Fellin hadn't even been aware of -- and their two
stories had meshed perfecltly.
> ``Dr. Anderson told me that our story MUST be true because it would be
> impossible for two people to concoct a story that would stand up so
> well during such lengthy interviews," said Fellin.
> "In fact, he told me if the President (Kennedy) or the pope (Pope Paul
> VI, who succeeded Pope John XXIII) would say our story wasn't true, I
> shouldn't argue with them but simply walk away because he KNOWS it's
> true."
It should be noted that all attempts to obtain a copy of Fellin's
taped interview or a transcript from the U.S. Navy in recent years has
been unsuccessful. In fact, Navy officials first denied knowledge of
Lt. Anderson but later -- in response to a request for information by
a U.S. congressman -- admitted that he had resigned from the Navy in
1964, the year following the cave-in and rescue..
Dr. Kubler-Ross said Fellin's revelations are ``obviously true'' and
emphasized that she is convinced that Pope John XXIII had much to do
with their survival.
``From the moment of the late pope's appearance until they were moved
out of the drillholes, he illuminated their cave with a bluish light
radiating from him," she stated.
> Dr. Kubler-Ross also was greatly impressed by the manner in which the
> two miners had survived the first five days following the cave-in,
> calling it ``a guideline for our miners, soliders, mountain climbers
> and all those at risk to face a similiar ordeal one day."
> She referred to their battle to stay alive as ``a story of faith,
> courage, and mutual care and respect . . ."
Concerning Fellin's claims of having shared two out-of-body trips with
Throne at his side, Dr. Kubler-Ross said she is certain they indeed
had taken place, calling them ``very real, as I am happy to witness
form my own life experiences."
Throne actually was the first to reveal the supernatural experiences
after being rescued, even though Fellin emphatically had warned him
not to do so. He said, just before Throne had been hauled to the
surface, he had grabbed him by the shirt and told him he'd better not
say a word about them because ``If you do, right away they'll say
you're nuts."
Throne failed to heed the advice and, in fact, had told several nurses
and attendants at Hazleton State General Hospital about a few of the
mysterious occurences soon after being flown there in a U.S. Navy
helicopter.
Throne also mentioned some of these mysterious events during an
exclusive interview he had granted to The Associated Press which had
appeared in newspapers worldwide. Fellin also had been interviewed by
the AP, during which he corroborated some of the things his companion
had related.
Commented Throne while being interviewed by AP:
> ``There were times we saw people who weren't there and lights that
> weren't there and doors that weren't there. Imagine seeing a regular
> house door down in the bottom of a mine.
> ``I'd sleep! I'd wake up. I'd see all kinds of lights and the actual
> figures of people. They now tell me these were hallucinations but the
> crazy thing is that Davey would see the things the same as I did."
Commented Fellin during his interview:
> ``Now they're trying to tell me those things were hallucinations, that
> we imagined it all. We didn't! Our minds weren't playing tricks on us.
> I've been a practical hard-headed miner all my life. My mind was clear
> down there isn the mine. These things happened! I can't explain them.
> I'm almost afraid to think what might be the explanation."
Fellin said just after granting these interviews to the wire service,
psychiatrists and psychologists began inferring that Throne, whose
interview was published first, temporarily had lost his sanity inside
the mine. This undoubtedly explains why Throne, who is still living,
had been reluctant to discuss these experiences after freely talking
about them in the first few days following his rescue.
Fellin decided to say nothing further about them for years because he
said he had become extremely angry that his companion's sanity had
been seriously questioned.
``If they wouldn't believe Hank (back in 1963), they sure as hell
wouldn't have believed me," said Fellin.
However, over the past five years before his death, Fellin had left
numerous notarized letters and taped conversations -- both audio and
video -- in which he vividly detailed a number of supernatural events
in which he insisted he had participated.
Fellin said he was absolutely certain he and Throne had been out of
their physical bodies because, the first time it happened, they
suddenly found themselves STANDING some 40-50 feet from the refuge
area with a crowd of normal-looking men on both sides of them. He said
he then looked over his shoulder and saw him and Throne still SITTING
back in the enclosure.
Fellin said he needed additional proof that it wasn't a dream or a
hallucination, therefore extended his right hand in front of one of
the men standing next to him to see if it would cast a shadow, which
it did.
> ``That's when I knew for sure I wasn't going crazy," said Fellin.
> ``If that hadn't happened, I never would've mentioned a word
> about the strange things which had taken place."
Due to Fellin's age and very poor eyesight, the letters had been
written on his behalf by veteran newsman Ed Conrad of the Hazleton
Standard-Speaker, who had met the longtime miner for the very first
time a week before his 80th birthday at the wake of a mutual friend.
Conrad had been greatly impressed with Fellin's almost total recall of
events concerning the cave-in and rescue and also was impressed with
his intelligence and tremendous humility.
When Fellin revealed some of the strange events which had transpired
while he and Throne were entombed, Cornad pursued the role of an
investigative reporter.
Fellin's letters had been based strictly on what he had told Cornad
during their conversations, the vast majority of which had been taped.
Each letter had been read to Fellin, who signed it and had it
notarized only after it had met his complete satisfaction as being
totally accurate.
Conrad also arranged for Fellin to take a polygraph concerning his
revelations about the validity of his experiences and he emphaticlaly
agreed to do so.
> One question asked of Fellin was: ``After your chamber suddenly
> lit up with a mysterious bluish light, did you and Hank see Pope John
> XXIII, then Hank asked you `Who's that fella?' "
> He answered ``Yes."
> Fellin also was asked: ``When you and Hank were out of your enclosure
> for the first time, did you find yourself walking among a large crowd
> and then look back and see you and Hank still sitting in the chamber?
> He answered ``Yes."
Ann Marie Panishak, the certified polygraphist who had administered
the test, had stated in writing that the answer to both questions had
revealed ``no reactions indicative of deception."
In one of his letters, Fellin testified that when it was apparent that
neither he nor Throne would get out of the mine alive, he had gotten
angry with God and said a ``prayer'' in which he had demanded that the
Creator at least have the decency to let him know what evil he had
done in his lifetime that he was being forced to die ``a thousand
deaths'' while facing mental and physical torture inside the mine.
He said a short while later, what appeared to be three tiny bluish
fireflies suddenly appeared in the total darkness, began expanding and
soon filled the entire chamber with a bluish light.
Fellin testified that the bluish light, which cast not shadow, had
provided perfect visibility. He also said the small enclosure where
they had been trapped expanded, enabling them to move around.
Fellin further testified that, when the bluish light enabled them to
see, he noticed Pope John XXIII at an elevation in the distance,
visible only from the waist up.
He said the pontififf, who was 81 when he died, appeared to be about
half that age, his arms were folded in front of him and he was
grinning at them.
Fellin said Pope John, who had been elected the Catholic church's
262nd pontiff in 1958, was wearing a black cassock ``like that of a
poor parish priest.
> ``It wasn't a vision and it wasn't a picture," he remarked. ``It was
> him: Pope John! I'd have recognized him anywhere."
Fellin said he hoped Throne wouldn't see the pope -- fearing Hank
would go berserk if he realized a dead man was with them -- but the
younger man definitely saw him because he had pointed at the pontiff
and excitedly asked: ``Who's that fella?"
Fellin also testiified that Pope John remained with him and Throne
right up to the time they were hauled to the surface (a week later)
wearing parachute harnesses and football helmets while newspapermen
from around the world were assembled at the mine site.
Pope John, one of 13 children of an Italian sharecropper, was admired
for his tremendous humility. In his first appearance to a huge crowd
assembled in the Vatican courtyard following his election, he came out
wearing only a cassock and surplice to the great surprise of the huge
crowd and the utter shock of church hierarchy.
Fellin, during the last years of his life, insisted he had made
numerous incredible journeys to ``The Other Side" of death.
>``I was shown `The Other World'," he stated. ``This is NOT the real
> world. We have to earn our place in the real world. I KNOW
> because I made the whole trip."
Fellin, interestingly, said a multitude of persons who have come close
to death and later insisted they had traveled through ``a tunnel of
light" are mistaken.
``This is because they're unknowledgeable about tunnels." he
explained. ``I spent more than 50 years working inside tunnels in the
mines and even helped build many of them, so I should know a lot about
tunnels -- and I do!
``These people didn't travel throught a tunnel. Actually, there's an
umbrella of light over their head and it moves along with them as they
move along in the darkness."
Much of what Fellin had seen and experienced during his journeys to
``The Other Side" is detailed in additional notarized letters.
It should be noted that, during their second joint out-of-body
journey, Fellin and Throne had come across beautiful marble doors
which were open and revealed stairs.
Throne told Fellin they should walk up the stairs because they would
lead to the surface and safety. However, when Throne was in the
process of taking his very first step toward the doors, they suddenly
closed and he became extremely angry, threatening to break down the
doors. When he did, he and Fellin were returned to their physical
bodies.
Following that incident, Throne made no additional out-of-body trips,
although Fellin insisted he made many, many others past the marble
doors.
Among Fellin's most remarkable revelations were journeys he insisted
he had taken back in time which had afforded him an opportunity to
witness monumental events of history as they actually occured.
He tesitifed, for example, that he had watched the construction of the
pyramids in Egypt and had been aboard Christopher Columbus' ship --
unseen by Columbus and his crew -- during his journey to discover
America.
As for the time-honored question of how the pyramids were built,
Fellin said, based on what he had observed, it was nowhere near the
gargantuan task as is generally theorized. He emphasized that it did
not require thousands of men working for hundreds of years because not
a single multi-ton rock had to be hauled to the site from a great
distance.
Meanwhile, Fellin said Columbus -- whom he described as having yellow
hair and a red beard -- was Tyrolean, not Italian, and that the secret
of his success was simply because he had mastered the use of the
compass.
The compass assured Columbus that, if he didn't reach land by the time
half of the crew's food supply was depleted, he'd simply turn his
vessel around and head in the opposte direction to make it back to his
home port.
Fellin told Conrad that he had learned that Columbus' real name wasn't
even Columbus.
> ``He was called Columbo, which is Latin for pigeon, but it was only his
> nickname," he explained. ``Columbus had earned the nickname
> by sailing to points unknown and always returning safely. So people
> around the docks started calling him Columbo -- meaning that he was
> a homing pigeon that always returned to its nest.
"Of course, they didn't realize Columbus was using the compass -- a
very large compass which was right in the middle of his very small
cabin -- to earn his reputation as an excellent seaman. Back then, the
compass had been regarded as nothing more than a child's toy, not as a
navigating instrument."
Explicit details of Fellin's out-of-body journeys which enabled to
watch the pyramids being built as well as to observe Columbus during
his trip across the Atlantic to discover America in1492 are revealed
in several of his notarized letters.
The mine rescue operation, unprecedented in the annals of mining
anywhere in the world, had become a top news story only after contact
had been made with Fellin and Throne who had been given up for dead.
The two miners had been discovered to be alive after a six-inch bore
hole had been drilled into the earth in a million-to-one shot. The
objective had been to reach an area where three men who had been
inside Oneida No. 2 mine might have found shelter if, indeed, they
hadn't perished in the cave-in.
~MINE MIRACLE," headlined the Los Angeles Times in its edition of
Moday, Aug. 19 (1963), although erroneously reporting that all three
miners -- including Louis Bova, 54 -- were alive.
The rather incredible news that two of the men were still alive after
five days underground was major news and remained so until their
rescue.
Mining officials, engineers and men who had worked inside that
particular mine had helped determine the placement of a stake at the
most probable location where the original bore hole should penetrate
the earth a distance of more than 300 feet.
Only in the last years of his life did Fellin learn that the
bull's-eye hole, which had enabled contact with the outside world,
hadn't even been drilled at the original stake.
One of the men in charge of the rescue operation had admitted n a
newspaper article on the fifth anniversary of the cave-in that the
heavy rig containing the drill, which had been driven to the mine site
from a distance of many miles, actually had experienced mechanical
failure some 20-30 feet from the stake.
It was then decided, since the unprecedented attempt to reach the men
through a bore hole bordered on the impossible, that drilling be done
precisely where the truck had broken down.
Once contact had been made with Fellin and Throne, the only hope of
rescuing them was to drill a much larger bore hole, through which the
men could be pulled to the surface.
The bit used to drill the 17 1/2-inch-wide hole, through which they
eventually were hauled to the surface, had been flown to the site free
of charge by one of billionaire Howard Hughes' drilling companies in
Texas.
Bova died as a result of the cave-in in the mine located only a
half-mile from Fellin's home and his body was never recovered. A
tombstone had been erected above the area where the cave-in had
occurred.
Fellin and Throne, who had been underground a total of 329 hours and
17 mintues, had received a telegram from President Kennedy, who would
be assassinated in Dallas less than three months later.
>``Congratulations," JFK had wired them. ``The stamina, courage and
>spirit which you and your rescuers have exhibited in recent days have
>earned the admiration of all Americans. I wish to join with them
> in expressing my heartfelt good wishes for your speedy recovery."
The cave-in and rescue had been featured as part of the ``Survival!"
television documentary series in the mid-1960s and the program --
complete with actual film clips of the rescue -- had been telecast
several times.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Over the last three years, portions of the the ``Survival!"
television series had been incorporated into an updated segment,
``Coal Mine Rescue," on The Discovery Channel's ``Spirit of Survival''
documentary series. Hank Throne and Ed Conrad were interviewed.
Unfortunately, Fellin had passed away before the series was produced.
===================
(Portions of the material in the above article are fully protected by
previous U.S. Copyrights -- in 1985, 1986 and 1987 -- acquired by Ed
Conrad.)