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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
H. P. Stapp,Found. Phys. 12, 363 (1982).
H. Mehlberg, “Physical Laws and the Time Arrow,” inCurrent Issues in the Philosophy of Science, R. Feigl and N. Maxwell, eds. (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1961), p. 105.
R. G. Jahn,Proc. IEEE 70, 136 (1982).
B. J. Dunne, R. G. Jahn, and R. D. Nelson, “An REG Experiment with Large Data Base Capability” (Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, 1981).
R. D. Nelson, B. J. Dunne, and R. G. Jahn, “A Psychokinetic Experiment with a Random Mechanical Cascade” (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, 1983).
E. P. Wigner,Symmetries and Reflection (M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1967), pp. 171–184.
A. Einstein, inRapports et Discussions du Cinquième Conseil Solvay (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1928), pp. 253–256.
O. Costa de Beauregard,Compt. Rend. 236, 1632 (1953).
O. Costa de Beauregard,Physis 22, 211 (1980).
O. Costa de Beauregard,Found. Phys. 6, 539 (1976).
O. Costa de Beauregard,Found. Phys. 10, 513 (1980).
O. Costa de Beauregard,Am. J. Phys. 51, 513 (1983).
D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley,Found. Phys. 14, 255 (1984).
E. Recami and G. Ziino,Nuovo Cimento A 33, 205 (1976).
E. Recami and W. A. Rodrigues,Found. Phys. 12, 709 (1982).
O. Costa de Beauregard, “CPT revisited,” inThe Wave Particle Dualism, S. Dineret al., eds. (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984), pp. 485–497.
O. Costa de Beauregard,Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 867 (1983).
J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich,The Theory of Photons and Electrons (Addison-Welsey, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1955), pp. 408–410.
V. Fock,Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 60, 1157 (1948).
S. Watanabe,Rev. Mod. Phys. 27, 26 (1952).
J. von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, 1955), Chap. 5.
W. Ritz and A. Einstein,Phys. Z. 10, 323 (1909).
H. Schmidt,Found. Phys. 8, 464 (1978).
A. D. Fokker,Time and Space, Weight and Inertia (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1965).
L. Boltzmann,Lectures on Gas Theory, S. G. Brush, translator (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1964), pp. 446–448.
L. Brillouin,Science and Information Theory, 2nd edn. (Academic Press, New York, 1967).
A. Schopenhauer,The World as Will and Idea (Keegan Paul, London, 1883).
R. Descartes,Correspondence, C. Adam and P. Tannery, eds., re-edition (Vrin, Paris, 1974), letter CCCII, Vol. 2, p. 663 (see also p. 666).
E. P. Wigner,Symmetries and Reflections (M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1967), pp. 171–184.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Costa de Beauregard, O. On some frequent but controversial statements concerning the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations. Found Phys 15, 871–887 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00738320
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00738320