Hi Paul,

Thank you so much for your very nice comments and comparison with your essay. As I wrote on your page, I really liked your concept of subtime and how you related that to entanglement. Your explanation and development is very lucid and intelligent, and I enjoyed your essay very much. I still want to think about your question some more, and it's very intriguing. Although Elitzur's phenomena is a specialized example giving insight into entanglement and information, your approach may suggest that Elitzur's arrangement might key into something more fundamental from the onset, providing a model for how the universal nature of entanglement can be demonstrated. Perhaps it could be used as a way to actually map out subtime interactions - e.g. proverbially shining light onto a dark photon. It's great how our essays both navigate from different angles and end up converging on several ideas.

Looking forward to seeing how these ideas progress, and thanks again.

Sincerely,

Steve Sax

Dear Steven,

You describe a series of intriguing quantum experiments to claim that

"information is causal to physical reality, if not at least symbiotic with it".

Well done. Although I am familiar with the many topics you introduce (entanglement, decoherence, quantum Zeno and so on), I learned from you much.

In particular, I have to read ASAP "Salih et al direct counterfactual communication" which seems close to the subject of my essay.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

Congratulations and a high rate from me now.

Best regards,

Michel

Steven,

Great essay. Sorry I came to it so late (I failed the readathon!).

I struggled with your; " measurement need not involve a particular observer; rather it is any interaction that determines the property of a system to a description that it is acceptable to be used in another interaction."

Yet; "...Anything that computes makes measurements."

I can't fully resolve this logically (it is QM after all!) If two brains or instruments detect a signal, must they both find precisely the same, even if in different places (as they must be) or states of motion?

Your analysis of the Bell Inequalities was excellent, so good that I would beg a moment of your time to consider an entirely new approach with a 'non-local' (in Bells terms) variable seeming to support von Neumann's assertion for consistent QM not relying on causality at Alice and Bob.

The model predicted an orbital asymmetry should be found in time resolved or single particle experiments. Searching Aspects papers I eventually found just this in his French thesis. Did you know he discarded ~99.9% of his results as the anomaly couldn't be explained at the time?. Statistical methods are 'blind' to it.

Please ignore my dense abstract which puts many off, the paper is very readable, with comments including; "groundbreaking", "significant", "astonishing", "fantastic", "wonderful", "remarkable!", "superb", etc. I hope that makes you at least curious, and perhaps none may be better qualified to comment.

Very well done for yours. Top Marks. Perhaps it's lower rated as your sentence/para structure was a bit too much like my abstract! But no problem for me.

Very best wishes, and greatly look forward to your comments and advice (after the contest would be fine). The Intelligent Bit.

Peter