Foundations of Physics 15 (8):871-887 (1985)

Abstract
Quite often the compatibility of the EPR correlations with the relativity theory has been questioned; it has been stated that “the first in time of two correlated measurements instantaneously collapses the other subsystem”; it has been suggested that a causal asymmetry is built into the Feynman propagator. However, the EPR transition amplitude, as derived from the S matrix, is Lorentz andCPT invariant; the correlation formula is symmetric in the two measurements irrespective of their time ordering, so that the link of the correlations is the Feynman zigzag, and that causality isCPT invariant at the microlevel; finally, although the Feynman propagator has theP andCT symmetries, no causal asymmetry follows from that. As for Stapp's views concerning “process” and “becoming,” and his Whiteheadean concept of an advancing front, I object that they belong to “factlike macrophysics,” and are refuted at the microlevel by the EPR phenomenology, which displays direct Fokker-like space-time connections. The reason for this is a radical one. The very blending of a space-time picture and of a probability calculus is a paradox. The only adequate paradigm is one denying objectivity to space-time—but this, of course, is also required by the complementary of the x and the k pictures, which only “look” compatible at the macrolevel. Therefore, the classical “objectivity” must yield in favor of “intersubjectivity.” Only the macroscopic preparing and measuring devices have “factlike” objectivity; the “transition” of the “quantal system” takes place beyond both thex and thek 4-spaces. Then, the intrinsic symmetries between retarded and advanced waves, and statistical prediction and retrodiction, entails that the future has no less (but no more) existence than the past. It is the future that is significant in “creative process,” the “elementary” forms of which should be termed “precognition” or “psychokinesis”—respectively symmetric to the factlike taboos that “we can neither know into the future nor act into the past.” It is gratifying that Robert Jahn, at the Engineering School of Princeton University, is conducting (after others) conclusive experiments demonstrating “low level psychokinesis”—a phenomenon implied by the very symmetry of the negentropy-information transition. So, what pierces the veil of “maya” is the (rare) occurrence of “paranormal phenomena.” The essential severance between “act” and “potentia” is not a spacelike advancing front, but the “out of” and the “into” factlike space-time. Finally, I do not feel that an adequate understanding of the EPR phenomenology requires going beyond the present status of relativistic quantum mechanics. Rather, I believe that the potentialities of this formalism have not yet been fully exploited
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00738320
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,077
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics.Henry P. Stapp - 1982 - Foundations of Physics 12 (4):363-399.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

On Time, Causation and Explanation in the Causally Symmetric Bohmian Model of Quantum Mechanics.Joseph Berkovitz - 2017 - In Christophe Bouton & Philippe Huneman (eds.), Time of Nature and the Nature of Time. Springer International Publishing. pp. 139-172.
Path Integral and Transactional Interpretation.Leonardo Chiatti - 1995 - Foundations of Physics 25 (3):481-490.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox Re-Examined.David H. Sharp - 1961 - Philosophy of Science 28 (3):225-233.
The Vacuum in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory.Michael Redhead - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:77 - 87.
Separable Hidden Variables Theory to Explain Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.S. V. Bhave - 1986 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (4):467-475.
Field or Print.Hip Groenewold - 1995 - Synthese 102 (1):1 - 59.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.Bas C. Fraassen - 1974 - Synthese 29 (1-4):291 - 309.
Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, and Shannon.Asher Peres - 2005 - Foundations of Physics 35 (3):511-514.
Quantum Logic, Conditional Probability, and Interference.Jeffrey Bub - 1982 - Philosophy of Science 49 (3):402-421.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-10-30

Total views
135 ( #79,898 of 2,454,544 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #117,366 of 2,454,544 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes