# Counterfactual definiteness

## Recommended Posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness

Counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is a property of some interpretations of quantum mechanics but not others. It refers to the ability to speak meaningfully about the definiteness of the results of measurements, even if they were not performed.[1]

For example, by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one cannot simultaneously know the position and momentum of a particle. Suppose one measures the position: this act destroys any information about the momentum. The question then becomes, is it possible to talk about the measurement one would have received if one did measure the momentum instead of the position? In other words, if one conducted a different experiment, is there a single alternate time line that would have resulted from it?

Am I right in assuming people don't like theories that support CFD? Because honestly, I've felt that I've been "steered" away from CFD.

• Replies 9
• Created

#### Popular Days

Hi bogz,

It is always prudent to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. And I do believe, in this case, that whoever added the following information does not fully understand Heisenberg Uncertainty (HU):

Suppose one measures the position: this act destroys any information about the momentum.

I'd hope Darby would cross-check me on this if I am the one who is wrong, but I believe this statement about a hypothetical is incorrect. HU describes the relative uncertainty of "coupled" (related) measurements. So in measuring position I believe it is incorrect to state you "destroy any information about the momentum." Rather, you must discuss the relative precision of said measurements. Therefore, one would say something to the effect of "if I increase the precision of my position measurement then I decrease the precision of my momentum measurement." If you were (theoretically) trying to "destroy all information about the momentum", then you would have to (theoretically) measure position with infinite precision... which cannot be realized.As for CFD, I am in your camp, bogz. Unless by "speaking meaningfully" they also include qualitative discussions, because as I describe above we can "speak meaningfully" (qualitatively) of the fact that the uncertainty of our knowledge of momentum does, in fact, go down as we measure position more precisely.

In any event (just to plug my own theory), it is my belief that HU is a necessary condition that results from trying to separate Mass, from Space, from Time. IOW, HU tends to support my theory of the Integrated Matrix of Massive SpaceTime in that once you set out to measure position (which is but one component of the larger Integrated Matrix of Massive SpaceTime) you are introducing error by doing so. That error arises from the assumption that the metric of Space (position) is wholly decoupled from the metrics of Mass and Time. Further, my theory says that precision can only be arrived at in measuring metrics which are fully-integrated measurements of the Massive SpaceTime metric. Momentum is one such "fully-integrated" metric because it involves Mass, Space, and Time. Energy is another "fully-integrated" metric, as a dimensional analysis of energy would show.

In short, I believe my theory of the Integrated Matrix of Massive SpaceTime (IM MST) supports the concept of HU and also explains why it must be so.

RMT

##### Share on other sites

RMT:

Let me start with this first. As a convenience, I use a hypothetical particle of mass I call the FMU or fundamental mass unit. This doesn't have to correspond to an actual particle--the reasoning is based on the observation that if you divide mass into smaller and smaller parts you must come to a final part with mass, the division of which part does not yield smaller parts with mass. In other words, the "atom" of mass.

My point is that physics treats mass as a quantity, or as we would say, a quantity of fmu's. The point is that nature does not distinguish quantity, as such, but only individual fmu.

Let's examine Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation from this approach (F=G m1m2/d^2). While it appears that m1 is multiplied by m2 what one really has is a sum. Each fmu of m1 [n1] relates to each and every fmu of m2, of which there are [n2].So the sum of all these relations is m1m2.

What do you think of this? :)

##### Share on other sites

Well I'm confused, what theories reject CFD, and which ones require it?

##### Share on other sites

Hi PB,

The following are (mostly) just my opinions:

As a convenience, I use a hypothetical particle of mass I call the FMU or fundamental mass unit.

I guess I am glad you didn't choose to name it "MFU". :)
the reasoning is based on the observation that if you divide mass into smaller and smaller parts you must come to a final part with mass, the division of which part does not yield smaller parts with mass. In other words, the "atom" of mass.

IMO, this is the largest fallacy of reductionist physics: that there exists some "smallest realizeable unit". More below...
My point is that physics treats mass as a quantity, or as we would say, a quantity of fmu's. The point is that nature does not distinguish quantity, as such, but only individual fmu.

IMO, I do not even think nature distinguishes mass in this way... hence my theory of Massive SpaceTime. All three are "sticky" (coupled) to each other. IMO, I think that perhaps the best explanation for what constitutes mass is Milo Wolff's Wave Structure of Matter:http://quantummatter.com/articles_html/body_point.html

It is, basically, an "interferometric" explanation for the electron: What we perceive as the electron "particle" is really a standing wave interference between inwaves and outwaves from all points in space. I like it because it avoids the problems of the reductionist model and embraces the notion of systems theory.

Let's examine Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation from this approach (F=G m1m2/d^2). While it appears that m1 is multiplied by m2 what one really has is a sum. Each fmu of m1 [n1] relates to each and every fmu of m2, of which there are [n2].So the sum of all these relations is m1m2.

What do you think of this?

I think that is another interesting way to look at Newton's approximation, and certainly one could write what you are talking about as an integral relation (which is a summation). While Newton's approximation has been extremely useful in our macroscopic engineering of our world, we need to go beyond it. IMO one way that we go beyond it is by transcending the notion of the "m1" and "m2" as point-mass-particles. That is not only a large error because it ignores the mutual (and non-linear) interactions of n1xn2, as you say, but the larger error comes from the fact that mass is not temporally static, as implied by Newton's universal law of graviation. In reality, at very small timescales (approaching Planck timescales) the electrons, protons, and neutrons are all vibrating and transforming themselves. This is precisely why I make a distinction between Mass (the assumed temporally static measurement of inertia) and Matter (a dualistic mixture of Mass and Time in much the same vein as the dualistic fabric we call SpaceTime). Matter is comprised of MassTime just like Motion is comprised of SpaceTime. The mathematical, dimensional analysis behind this then shows us that what we call "proper Time" is dictated by Matter in Motion, which reduces to the density of Mass over some control volume in Space. This jives with Relativity, since we know that as you accelerate faster your relativistic mass increases and your clocks run slower. Hence, as mass density in your "local bubble" increases, your relative time slows down (with respect to a relatively stationary observer).Enough babble. As for your question, bogz, I have no freaking clue! I just ignore things that I think are BS, and I think CFD is along those lines! :)

RMT

##### Share on other sites

I just ignore things that I think are BS, and I think CFD is along those lines!

Ahh, ok. I wasn't even sure what you thought about it until you said it that way hehe.

I don't reject CFD, I reject local realism. Until I read about Bell, I thought ALL quantum theories rejected CFD. So are there any quantum theories you know of that support CFD and reject local realism? Even if it was BS when you read about it I wanna check it out...

Doesn't local realism mean that entangled photons are "sending information faster than light to each other"? Doesn't it require energy to _send_ information? How can a photon stay entangled if it's constantly expending energy to send information (faster than light, over great distances).

##### Share on other sites

yo,

I don't reject CFD, I reject local realism. Until I read about Bell, I thought ALL quantum theories rejected CFD. So are there any quantum theories you know of that support CFD and reject local realism? Even if it was BS when you read about it I wanna check it out...

I don't know about supporting CFD, but I do know that David Bohm's theories of Implicate vs. Explicate Order allow (indeed, require given Bell's Theorem) violation of locality. Bohm describes "Active Information" as a "pilot wave" that directs how the quantum wave function collapses. From Wiki:
The Bohm interpretation always wants to preserve realism, and it needs to violate the principle of locality to achieve the required correlations.

Doesn't local realism mean that entangled photons are "sending information faster than light to each other"?

If one assumes the information is actually transiting DeSitter space, then yes, I believe this is true. This is why "signal non-locality" is such an attractive area of study.
Doesn't it require energy to _send_ information?

Good question! If you assume you cannot violate locality, then yes it requires energy to encode, propagate, and decode information. All information channels that we know of and quantify today are stochastic and must obey the second law of thermo. Hence, there are energy losses in encoding, propagation, and decoding. But if there is a non-local means for transferring information it may be possible that this means this is a way for getting around the energy conservation laws. As I say above, this would mean you have to somehow "get around" moving through DeSitter space.
How can a photon stay entangled if it's constantly expending energy to send information (faster than light, over great distances).

Photons do not expend energy, they ARE energy at a specific frequency. The theory that many physicists cling to is that the two photons remain entangled via non-local signaling.RMT
##### Share on other sites

Or as the physicist John Cramer who may just be done or doing his experiment about the photons and entanglement states -- maybe it is a matter of time causing the entanglement and time travel is different than space travel -- he is seeing if the entanglement was caused backwards in time (or if the photons did that before appearing to drift apart in Space - in the future - or when they were perhaps closer together - or something like that.)

Essentially that is also Born's Law -- that the wave ends up being a Set instead of just a single answer wave. A Set is perhaps like all the integer numbers of math: I(intergers) = [1,2,3,4,5......] vs. just one single integer like 3.

Like stated elsewhere -- only 30% of you is actually here, the other 70% of you they can not find in quantum theory.

##### Share on other sites

Very good TNZ, I can see you're doing your homework! :) Thanks for sharing!

Or as the physicist John Cramer who may just be done or doing his experiment about the photons and entanglement states -- maybe it is a matter of time causing the entanglement and time travel is different than space travel -- he is seeing if the entanglement was caused backwards in time (or if the photons did that before appearing to drift apart in Space - in the future - or when they were perhaps closer together - or something like that.)

Very good points. And this is why I believe, once again, this points to "complete entanglement" of Mass, Space, and Time (Massive SpaceTime Matrix). If you attempt to alter any one of these metrics, both of the others are "orthogonally" affected as well. So if you wish to "travel in time", you must necessarily manipulate both Mass and Space...hence energy density is the key, as Einstein has stated all along.
Like stated elsewhere -- only 30% of you is actually here, the other 70% of you they can not find in quantum theory.

True, but some might even say the 30% number is high! If we accept that our bodies are composed of only baryonic matter, this only accounts for about 3% of the total energy in the universe, with dark matter and dark energy making up the lion's share... this is "the stuff we can't see but know is there".RMT
##### Share on other sites

They are ordered, m1 to m2 through the loss of generality of the gravitional field G, over the square of the light cone d. The force (F) is apparent in this system. The action of which your are eluding to is converges of field lines along if decomposition of the light cone, creating subsets for (f1m1, ... , fnmn) as a iterate function, this would account for all masses and resulting forces, thus making the "atom" of mass the point-source isotropic region of the gravitional plane wave and is a resource to the explanation of General Relativity ;) [/color]