On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 6:23:43 AM UTC, richali...@gmail.com wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 9:13:43 AM UTC-5, ben...@hotmail.com wrote:   
   > > On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:25:23 PM UTC, richali...@gmail.com wrote:   
   > > > On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 11:53:17 AM UTC-5, ben...@hotmail.com   
   > ...   
   > > If an observer saw Alice's measurement for the positron travelling   
   backwards   
   > > in time to the Source, then that observation/measurement would render the   
   > > pair of particles to be no longer entangled, and so not a pair entitled to   
   > > be in a Bell experiment.  I admit that I either do not understand 'weak   
   > > measurement' or believe it to be a measurement which is not provable to be   
   > > on a single particle.  A non-weak measurement to me is one  which changes   
   > > the spin sign of a particle.   
   > >   
   >   
   > I am not talking about time reversal.  There is no attainable speed   
   > at which an observer would see a positron travelling from Alice   
   > back to the source.   
   >   
      
   Not sure why you say this.  My meaning was that an observer who measured   
   the positron between source and Alice would destroy the entanglement and   
   render the particle pair void in the Bell experiment.  Unless some form   
   of supposed weak measurement was made which I do not understand.  I did   
   not mean to imply that an observer could recognise backwards-in-time   
   motion in his/her measurement on the positron.   
      
   > What I mean by retro-causality is that a particle (photon or a   
   > massive particle) will not be emitted until, by some as yet mysterious   
   > process, there is a definite location in the future for it to end   
   > up.  As I said, this is a very controversial idea, but not unrecognized,   
   > and I hesitate to assert it too forcefully as there is much unknown   
   > about how this would work.   
      
   I am in sympathy with retro-causality as I have met something like it   
   maybe in a Feynman video where he describes the minimised-in-some-way   
   path of a photon travelling through two media to its target.  Also I   
   have read (but not able to read it very deeply alas, despite my   
   mathematics degree) a book reproducing Feynman's PH.D. thesis in which   
   there is a commentary amplifying the thesis. There is some discussion of   
   his initial doubts about introducing apparently retro-causal effects,   
   unless I completely misunderstood it. There is also minimised Action via   
   Lagrangians which I met in an online video course by Susskind.  These   
   seem to imply that the target is involved in the calculation to minimise   
   a quantity over the whole path.  Not easy using only forward-causality?   
   (But I am only an amateur.)  Also, relativity gives lack of absolute   
   certainty about which cause is forward and which is backward.   
      
   > One justification for it is inhibition of emission of photons by   
   > atoms in certain situations.  For example, an atom in a resonant   
   > cavity that does not support a mode at the photon frequency will   
   > not emit that photon.  Emission is suppressed.  This is related to   
   > so called "hole burning" in lasers where a population of atoms that   
   > can emit a wide range of wavelengths will show dips in the population   
   > on the resonant modes of the laser cavity.  I have read of experiments   
   > demonstrating this in a more direct way, where the decay of atomic   
   > states is extended when atoms are in a suitable cavity.   
   >   
   > What I'm suggesting is something very similar to what Feynman and   
   > Wheeler were suggesting in the early 1940s where the emission of a   
   > photon is a process that involves a transaction between the emitter   
   > and absorber.  The "retro-causality" reference here is that if that   
   > future absorber atom does not exist, the photon will not be emitted.   
   > There is no transmission of information from future to past, only   
   > that there exists, somewhere in the future, something capable of   
   > accepting that photon.   
   >   
   > Rich L.   
      
   I need to read up on emission suppression and hole burning but I am   
   already in sympathy with your idea due to Feynman and Susskind.   
      
   Returning to positrons moving backwards in time.  I am now in a position   
   to write an amateur paper on this despite not having answers to my main   
   query about the nature of the distribution of hidden variables after a   
   measurement.  But some more points below.   
      
   In my preon model, a photon with spin +1 is an exact antiparticle of the   
   photon with spin +1.  This means that I can apply time reversal to spin   
   +1 photons as well as positrons.  A complication is that every   
   elementary particle is an equal mix of preons and anti(particle) preons.   
      
   As I described in an earlier post, the effect of time reversed positrons   
   on a Bell experiment is to send a beam of electrons to Bob which are   
   pre- measured in the direction of Alice's vector a.   This reduces the   
   experiment to be a Malus experiment.  The Bell analysis of these data   
   breaks the inequalities and the Malus experiment gives just two cells   
   extracted from the Bell experimental 2x2 table of results.  The Malus   
   results conform to the usual Malus Law formula and are directly   
   equivalent to the breaking of the Bell inequalities.  In a normal   
   forwards-in-time Bell simulation the hidden variables vectors of the   
   beam of electrons are at random and the inequalities are not broken.   
   Breakage in my scenario using hidden variables requires time reversed   
   antiparticles.   
      
   Analysing results using Malus bypasses the weird effects of entanglement   
   in the Bell analysis of the same data and makes entanglement less   
   central to these results.   
      
   My search is still on. for a later paper. to find what is the   
   distribution of hidden variables after a measurement by Alice.  A random   
   distribution of vectors on a hemisphere only works when b-a is 0 deg or   
   90 deg and not anywhere in between. It may be that the 'pole' (vector a)   
   of the hemisphere acts as an attractor with fewer vectors pointing at   
   the 'equator' than at the 'pole'.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)