Twisting the non-locality concept in quantum mechanics we introduce the hypothetical concept of retro-information. We analyse the effect of paradoxal coupling on source of retro-information in order to quantify the new means of computing that could be derived from such an hypothetical concept.
The rampant success of quantum theory is the result of applications of the 'new' quantum \nmechanics of Schrödinger and Heisenberg (1926-7), the Feynman-Schwinger-Tomonaga Quantum \nElectrodynamics (1946-51), the electro-weak theory of Salaam, Weinberg, and Glashow (1967-9), \nand Quantum Chromodynamics (1973-); in fact, this success of `the' quantum theory has depended \non a continuous stream of brilliant and quite disparate mathematical formulations. In this carefully \nconcealed ferment there lie plenty of unresolved difficulties, simply because in churning out fabulously \naccurate calculational tools there has been no sensible explanation of all that is going on. It is even \nargued that such an understanding is nothing to do with physics. A long-standing and famous \nillustration of this is the paradoxical thought-experiment of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (1935). \nFundamental to all quantum theories, and also their paradoxes, is the location of sub-microscopic \nobjects; or, rather, that the specification of such a location is fraught with mathematical inconsistency. \nThis project encompasses a detailed, critical survey of the tangled history of Position \nwithin quantum theories. The first step is to show that, contrary to appearances, canonical quantum \nmechanics has only a vague notion of locality. After analysing a number of previous attempts at a \n`relativistic quantum mechanics', two lines of thought are considered in detail. The first is the work \nof Wan and students, which is shown to be no real improvement on the usual `nonrelativistic' theory. \nThe second is based on an idea of Dirac's - using backwards-in-time light-cones as the hypersurface \nin space-time. There remain considerable difficulties in the way of producing a consistent scheme here. \nTo keep things nicely stirred up, the author then proposes his own approach - an adaptation \nof Feynman's QED propagators. \nThis new approach is distinguished from Feynman's since the propagator or Green's function \nis not obtained by Feynman's rule. The type of equation solved is also different: instead of an \ninitial-value problem, a solution that obeys a time-symmetric causality criterion is found for an \ninhomogeneous partial differential equation with homogeneous boundary conditions. \nTo make the consideration of locality more precise, some results of Fourier transform theory are \npresented in a form that is directly applicable. \nSomewhat away from the main thrust of the thesis, there is also an attempt to explain the \nmanner in which quantum effects disappear as the number of particles increases in such things as \nexperimental realisations of the EPR and de Broglie thought experiments.
A number of writers have been attracted to the idea that some of the peculiarities of quantum theory might be manifestations of 'backward' or 'retro' causality, underlying the quantum description. This idea has been explored in the literature in two main ways: firstly in a variety of explicit models of quantum systems, and secondly at a conceptual level. This note introduces a third approach, intended to complement the other two. It describes a simple toy model, which, under a natural interpretation, shows how retrocausality can emerge from simple global constraints. The model is also useful in permitting a clear distinction between the kind of retrocausality likely to be of interest in QM, and a different kind of reverse causality, with which it is liable to be confused. The model is proposed in the hope that future elaborations might throw light on the potential of retrocausality to account for quantum phenomena.
An Axiom is presented and justified which (a) Explains duality in interference without complementarity or “which way” (welcher-weg) observation (b) Shows the equivalence: Coherence and alignment ≡ Interference ≡ No “which way” observation; No coherence or alignment ≡ No interference ≡ “which way” observation (c) Explains Wheeler’s delayed choice thought experiment (d) Explains results of experimental implementations of Wheeler’s experiment which show retro-causality with and without entanglement (e) Explains non-local action at a distance, and (f) Rephrases Albert Einstein’s unanswered question “Is quantum mechanics complete?” at a more fundamental level than just duality and non-locality. The explanation given does not require that the particle (photon) somehow “know” about the test setup or “which way” observation or change its behavior from particle to wave and vice versa as required by currently accepted explanation based on Niels Bohr’s complementarity principle. No new assumptions are made, only a new complete interpretation of probability which is already a fundamental assumption of quantum mechanics.