Bohm Pilot Wave Post-Quantum Theory

Jack Sarfatti 1, a)

a)

Internet Science Education Project

San Francisco, CA 94133

Corresponding author: internetscienceeducation@gmail.com

Abstract. David Bohms 1952 pilot-wave/hidden-variable (aka beable) interpretation of quantum

theory has been generally misunderstood by quantum theorists. It has undergone a major revolution
in recent times by Antony Valentini and Roderick Sutherland. Valentini has shown that the Born
probability rule, and its consequent no entanglement signaling restriction, is not fundamental.
Sutherland has shown how Yakir Aharonovs retrocausal weak measurement technique applies in
the Lagrangian framework to give a relativistically covariant post-quantum theory in which there is
two-way action-reaction between the qubit pilot waves and their beables (e.g. classical particles and
classical local gauge fields) without the need for configuration space for many-particle
entanglement. Indeed, the no-signaling restriction and the Born probability rule come from the lack
of direct back-reaction of beables on their pilot waves. This is very much like removing the backreaction of matter on spacetime geometry to eliminate gravity as curvature. The post-quantum backreaction corresponds to computation around closed timelike curves in which P = NP with profound
implications for quantum cryptography code breaking. We expect Prigogine pumped open
dissipative structures with Frohlich macro-quantum coherence to be post-quantum systems. Its a
great calculational advantage of Sutherlands local real retrocausal weak measurement formalism
that we can use LOCAL field equations without second-quantization even when the beables are
entangled. Getting rid of configuration space in dealing with many-particle entanglements may turn
out to be as useful practically as Feynmans diagrams.

0. A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF QUANTUM THEORY

There are several different interpretations of orthodox quantum theory. All of them, with the exception of
David Bohms 1952 pilot wave/hidden variables interpretationi formulated at Princeton under Einsteins
influence, assume that the quantum wave function is a complete description of fundamental physical
reality. Albert Einstein, in his famous debates with Niels Bohr never accepted this assumption.ii Bohr went
so far as to claim that a detailed physical description of phenomena in the four-dimensional spacetime of
Einsteins classical special and general theories of relativity was not possible. Bohm showed that this was
not true at least in the case of classical particles moving under the influence of the quantum wave function
corresponding to Louis de Broglies earlier double-solution pilot wave interpretation.iii Bohm showed
that John Von Neumanns celebrated proof against hidden variables,iv in the case classical particle
world lines in Einsteins spacetime, was incorrect in one of its assumptions that actually was inconsistent
with other parts of orthodox quantum theory. Nevertheless, Bohms 1952 theory did have problems. Like
all the other interpretations without hidden classical variables, the spooky telepathic nonlocal action-at-adistance (allegedly coined by Einstein) nature of entanglement, as first discovered by Erwin Schrodinger
and later developed by Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky, was hard to reconcile with the local realism of
Einsteins relativity. Olivier Costa de Beauregard showed how to solve this problem with retrocausality
back in the 1950s although his idea was basically ignored. I. J. Good, Fred Hoyle and Yakir Aharonov had
similar ideas in the 1960s, which were also largely ignored in the mainstream orthodox quantum
community. Yakir Aharonov and his students have recently resurrected the locally realistic retrocausal
explanation of the violation of John S. Bells locality inequality as have Huw Price and Ken Wharton. Bell

really only proved that locally real hidden variables that obeyed retarded causality, i.e., past causes of
present effects, contradicted the statistical predictions of orthodox quantum theory. This retrocausal picture
has been supported with brilliant experiments in post-selected weak measurements by Lev Vaidman,
Aephraim Steinberg and others including the surreal trajectories. However, the mainstream is still
dominated by Bohrs metaphysical bias that classical spacetime events somehow have to be actualized in
some kind of collapse of the quantum cloud called Hilbert space by the mathematicians. This led to the
still vexing reality and measurement problems. Roderick Sutherland solves both of these problems
trivially in Bohms pilot wave picture as modified recently to include retrocausality and weak
measurements.v Retrocausality means that what actually happens here and now has active causes in the
future there and then as well as in the past there and then. This seems to conflict with the arrow of time
in which we age irreversibly and time travel to the past is seemingly impossible. If we could change the
past, that would mean parallel universes and indeed David Deutsch has an orthodox quantum many-worlds
theory in which the past can be changed in the sense that the time traveller would jump to a universe next
door. Alternatively, Igor Novikov has the global consistency conjecture in which there is only one actual
universe, and any attempt to create a back-from-the-future time travel paradox, like killing your father
before you are conceived, will fail. Model calculations using Feynman diagrams of particles through
traversable wormholes so far are consistent with Novikovs conjecture. Bohms pilot wave theory posits
only one actual classical material universe influenced by the quantum pilot wave information field.
Therefore, there is a tight connection between the pilot wave interpretation and the Novikov proposal. Of
course, the Hilbert space of pilot waves does decompose into different channels depending on what John
Archibald Wheeler calls the observer-participators free will. These channels are also the many worlds
of the Everett interpretation. Max Tegmark calls Bohms actual classical general relativity universes
Levels I and II. The quantum universes of Hilbert space are Level III. How Levels I and II actualize are
the reality and measurement problems for all the non-Bohmian interpretations of the orthodox quantum
theory. Retrocausality only works in the traditional block universe at the core of Einsteins classical
theories of special and general relativity. In other words, the passage of time is a persistent illusion of our
own consciousness. Einsteins math professor Hermann Minkowski already understood this back in 1908
when he reformulated Einsteins 1905 special theory of relativity as a rigid four-dimensional flat spacetime
geometry in which physical influences could not propagate faster than the speed of light in vacuum. The
spacetime geometry told particles how to move along geodesics in the absence of real electromagnetic
forces. However, all particles had to be test particles, which were acted upon, but did not react back on
the geometry. It took Einstein another ten years to correct this important omission with the help of the
equivalence principle connecting Newtons pseudo gravity force with the off geodesic proper
acceleration of what is now called a Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) at the center of mass of a small
detector. Indeed, the special theory of relativity is based on the idea that the speed of light in classical
vacuum is exactly the same number for all Local Inertial Frame (LIF) observers. These LIF observers are
all weightless in zero-G and this is the essence of Einsteins Equivalence Principle at the core of his 1915
general theory of the gravitational field. Indeed, all real gravity fields, as measured by the relative
kinematical accelerations of neighboring freely falling test particles, are caused by the direct back-reaction
of source mass-energy that curves the four-dimensional spacetime geometry. Unlike, the case in special
relativity where the spacetime geometry is rigid non-dynamical, the actual space-time geometry is
dynamical the geometrodynamical field. This same general idea also appears in the Bohm pilot
wave/hidden variable theory of 1952. David Bohm and Basil Hiley in their book Undivided Universe
first pointed out that the reason quantum entanglement couldnt be used as a direct stand-alone
communication channel without needing a classical signal key to decode the message, is because, like
special relativity, orthodox quantum theory lacks direct back-reaction of the particle and local gauge field
hidden variables on their respective guiding quantum pilot wave functions. Post-quantum theory permits
retrocausal entanglement signaling in violation of several no-signaling arguments in orthodox quantum
theory. This is no surprise because a more general theory containing a more special theory as a limiting
case always predicts new physics not found in the latter. For example, special relativity could not predict
black holes and closed timelike curves that at least allow one to conceive of time travel to the past as well
as to the future. Time travel to the future is, of course, conceivable in special relativity. Antony Valentini
vi
has discussed the technological possibilities of stand-alone entanglement signaling. His sub-quantum
non-equilibrium functionally equivalent to Rod Sutherlands action-reaction Lagrangian in that both imply
retrocausal entanglement signaling in violation of the no-signaling axiom of modern orthodox quantum
information theories.vii

David Deutsch and Seth Lloyd have also pointed out how closed time like world lines in curved spacetime
allow computing beyond quantum computing.viii Post-quantum entanglement signaling is effectively
functionally equivalent to CTC computing. This is also no surprise since Leonard Susskind et-al have
pointed to a profound world hologram EPR = ER duality between quantum field theory entanglement
on a horizon boundary and wormholes in the interior bulk curved spacetime. I first suggested this kind of
idea in the 1975 book Space-Time and Beyond.
The aim of this paper is to start where Rod Sutherland finished in his contribution to these proceedings. His
key new physics insights are summarized in his abstract reproduced below and in the excerpt from his
paper that follows it.

Sutherlands key sentence in his paper on many-particle entanglement is

The particle equations of motion, the field equation, the conserved current, action-reaction, the energymomentum tensor, etc., are all easily derivable in a self-consistent way from a single expression.
The key words in the above sentence are action-reaction. Sutherlands new equations are non-statistical
beyond statistical orthodox quantum theory. He then shows in considerable detail how to take the limit,
essentially averaging over all future information and setting his new action-reaction Lagrangian between
the particles and their advanced and retarded Bohmian pilot waves to zero. Finally, David Bohm with Basil
Hiley showed why orthodox quantum theory is merely a limiting case of a more general post-quantum
theory in the same way that special relativity is merely a limiting case of general relativity and pretty
much for the same deep reason action-reaction.
Finally, it should be pointed out that unlike what happens with Maxwells equations for example, the
Schrodinger equation for the quantum field does not have any sources, nor does it have any other way by
which the field could be directly affected by the conditions of the particles. This of course constitutes an
important difference between quantum fields and other fields that have thus far been used. As we shall see,
however, the quantum theory can be understood completely in terms of the assumption that the quantum
field has no sources or other forms of dependence on the particles. We shall go into what it would mean
to have such dependence and we shall see that this would imply that the quantum theory is an
approximation with a limited domain of validity. In this way, as well as in other ways, we will see that our
ontological interpretation permits a generalization of the laws of physics going beyond the quantum theory,
yet approaching the quantum theory as a suitable limit within which physics has thus far been contained.
P.30 The Undivided Universe

1. REVIEW OF KEY IDEAS IN SUTHERLANDS LAGRANGIAN FORMALISM

No need for configuration space to handle entanglement. Costa de Beauregards zig-zags allow locally
realistic retrocausal field equations in four-dimensional space-time consistent with many-particle
entanglement.
Bohm pilot wave theory made relativistic using a variation on Aharonovs retrocausal weak measurements
in the Lagrangian-based action principle in the block universe.
No need for a preferred global frame of reference that would violate both special and general relativity.

Einsteins action-reaction organizing principle formulated as part of the non-statistical post-quantum

weak Lagrangian connecting the pilot wave to its beables.

Post-quantum Action-Reaction Signaling

The non-statistical retrocausal post-quantum action-reaction piece of the weak Lagrangian must be
set to zero in the limiting process to the statistical orthodox quantum theory with the unbiased
irreducibly uncontrollably random Born rule in projective strong Von Neumann measurements.
Antony Valentini has argued that a violation of the Born rule allows entanglement signaling. Steven
Weinberg has given a model in which the Schrodinger equation is modified with nonlinearity, i.e.,
the Hamiltonian energy operator is no longer a linear Hermitian operator, therefore, and the time
evolution is no longer unitary between strong Von Neumann projection operator measurements. In
this case there is also entanglement signaling. Polchinski has also investigated this problem.ix
Sutherlands new weak measurement equations in the post-quantum case with action-reaction
between strong measurements are nonlinear and nonunitary and should also allow entanglement
signaling.

Rod Sutherlands email to me

The factor in my equations that you like to quote, namely, actually needs to be generalised to: to
include a special case I overlooked. Specifically, the upper sign applies as usual when and are both
timelike or both spacelike, whereas the lower sign applies when and are different. No doubt youll
complain that this doesnt look as neat, but it cant be helped and it still supports both of our aims.
To deal with this adjustment, Ive actually chosen to write Eqs. (62), (72) and (82) in terms of the
derivative instead, but you might prefer to use the right hand side of Eq. (A27). Either way, Eq.
(A28) then yields the special case of standard QM.

Sutherlands weak-measurement post-quantum action-reaction factor when set to zero is de Broglies

guidance constraint.

jweak
0weak

0weak =
j

(x)

weak

(j

weak weak

(1.1)

f x x i
f i

(1.2)

Sutherlands post-quantum Lagrangian is

LQMWave

f x

LQMWave
f x

j ( weak ) j
weak
0 u ( particle )

0( weak ) f x

j ( weak ) j
+ 0 u ( particle )
weak
0( weak ) f x

(1.3)

The new post-quantum pilot quantum wave source terms are on the RHS of (1.3). The RHS is zero in
orthodox quantum theory.

The corresponding post-quantum free-particle Euler-Lagrange Dirac Equation for Yakir Aharonovs preselected retarded history spinor wave is1

j
i x i m x i = 0 u particle weak x i
0weak

(1.4)

The RHS is the post-quantum back-reaction source term for the Bohm pilot waves that is missing in
orthodox quantum theory in the same way that the back-reaction of matter on spacetime geometry is
missing in special relativity, but is restored in general relativity.

0 =

( ))

1 3 ! !
x xp
u0

(1.5)

For example, given a Hilbert space fiber bundle pre-selected
pair state whose position representation is

Similarly,

xi =

i arbitrary generally entangled two-particle

x ,x ' i

1
f ' x ' j 0' x ,x ' i d 4 x '

(1.6)

1
f x ,x ' j 0 x i d 4 x

(1.7)

f ' x' =

We must do the integrals over all spacetime with the same initial and final boundary conditions for
manifest Poincare group invariance. For mathematical simplicity and physical clarity, I assume spacetime
is globally flat. There is a consistency constraint between (1.5) and (1.6).
1

There is a dual equation for the post-selected advanced destiny wave <f|x>.

Sutherland wrote (slightly modified notation)

Eq. (1.5) shows clearly that the new wave function

x i is dependent on the final boundary conditions f

of the other particle, indicating a retrocausal effect. It is important to realise that the idea of including
retrocausality here simply amounts to imposing final conditions as well as the usual initial ones and
assuming that both sets of boundary conditions have an influence on the particle at intermediate times. Two
questions now arise. First, is the introduction of a separate wave function for the 1st particle compatible
with the correlated statistics predicted by the usual configuration space wave function

x ,x ' i for the

two-particle system? Second, is the state of the 1st particle at the present time dependent on this particles
own final boundary conditions f as well as on the final boundary conditions of the other particle? These two
questions will be found to be related because, as will be shown later in Sec. 8, an affirmative answer to the
first question is obtained once the second point holds true.
Note the temporal self-entanglement even for a single particle.
Sutherland also clears up previous objections to Bohms pilot wave theory in the relativistic spin 0 KleinGordon case where, assuming a local inertial frame of reference for mathematical simplicity, the singleparticle current density operator is

!
j = 1
! "2im
#

g = diag +1111

(1.8)

Sutherland wrote:
6. Hidden trajectories between measurements
The time (or zeroth) component of the 4-current density vector in Eq. (1.7) alternates between positive and
negative values. This means that the current lines in spacetime must have sections which point backwards
in time, in addition to the usual forwards-in-time parts (see, e.g., Fig. 2 in [6]). These lines also curve
continuously and smoothly, which means the current density 4-vector must pass through spacelike
directions as well. This may seem surprising but it should be remembered that, under a particle
interpretation, the standard 4- current density provided by the Klein-Gordon equation has the same
properties. In any case, this behaviour does not pose any conflict with experiment in the present
circumstances because the form of expression (8) indicates that this transluminal behaviour always
occurs between measurements and is never actually observed9. Such an observation would require a
position measurement whereas, as (8) shows, the next measurement is generally of a different variable f. In
these circumstances, the fact that the time component of the 4-current density is not positive definite is not
important because it is only describing the direction of this 4- vector in spacetime and need not have a
probability interpretation.
Particle/Beable Eq. of Motion

d owu

) =

j
j w
w
+u

x
x
x
0w

(1.9)

Sutherlands equation above is analogous to the Lorentz force in electromagnetism, with the weak value of
the pilot wave 4-current density analogous to the electromagnetic 4-vector potential. It is curious that the

Meissner effect repulsion of magnetic field from the bulk interior of a superconductor has the super current
density proportional to the vector potential.
2. HERBERT FROHLICHS BIOLOGICAL COHERENCE
Biological systems are expected to have a branch of longitudinal electric modes in a frequency region
between 1011 and 1012 sec1. They are based on the dipolar properties of cell membranes; of certain bonds
recurring in giant molecules (such as H bonds) and possibly on pockets of non-localized electrons. In
Section 2 it is shown quit generally that if energy is supplied above a certain mean rate to such a branch,
then a steady state will be reached in which a single mode of this branch is very strongly excited. The
supplied energy is thus not completely thermalized but stored in a highly ordered fashion. This order
expresses itself in long-range phase correlations; the phenomenon has considerable similarity with the lowtemperature condensation of a Bose gas.x
The great success of molecular biology arises from the establishment of the atomic structure of biological
systems such as DNA or proteins. The activity of these systems does, however, not follow in a simple way
from structure as it frequently can be switched on or off. From the point of view of physics this must be
expressed in terms of non-linear excitations. Quite different types of excitation often have common general
features, which have given arise to Hakens synergetics [l]. Establishment and maintenance of such
excitations requires the supply of energy. Energy supply, in general, leads to heating. In cases, which are of
biological interest, however, metabolic energy supply leads to the establishment of organisation,
Prigoginess dissipative structures [2]. Whether the one or the other holds must be investigated in detail for
each system. No general rule has been found, so far, which would permit a decision between the two
possibilities from structure only.xi
Abstract: We consider the case of a peculiar complex behavior in open boson systems sufficiently away
from equilibrium, having relevance in the functioning of information-processing biological and condensed
matter systems. This is the so-called FrohlichBoseEinstein condensation, a self-organizing-synergetic
dissipative structure, a phenomenon apparently working in biological processes and present in several cases
of systems of boson-like quasi-particles in condensed inorganic matter. Emphasis is centered on the
quantum-mechanical-statistical irreversible thermodynamics of these open systems, and the informational
characteristics of the phenomena.
Keywords: Frohlich condensate; dissipative structures; synergetics; systems biology; informationprocessing systems xii
Frohlichs theory is controversial. Some claim it does not work.xiii

3. NON-EQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAM ICS OF FROHLICH COHERENT

PUMPED OPEN MANY-BEABLE DISSIPATIVE SYSTEM S.
I make the following conjecture for the post-quantum equation connecting Sutherlands action-reaction to
the external pump power flux flowing through the beables.

?
j ( weak )

u ( particle )
Tweak = Fext
0( weak )

Where

(1.10)

T is Sutherlands stress energy tensor for the advanced and retarded pilot waves and F (ext ) is
weak

the external pumping power per unit area through the open non-equilibrium beable system at x. Obviously,
the back-reaction of beable on the pilot waves vanishes when the external pump power is switched off and
de Broglies guidance constraint is automatically restored, i.e. the beable particle world lines coincide with

the pilot wave stream lines in the orthodox quantum limit of Sutherlands equations and the beables are in
thermodynamic equilibrium. They do not coincide when the external pump is switched on. The beables are
unhidden variables in the post-quantum regime of Frohlich coherent pumped open dissipative structures far
off the classical thermodynamic branch.
This new external pump equation entails violation of local conservation of the Born probability current
density corresponding to the non-unitary time evolution because the effective Hamiltonian is no longer
Hermitian in these open dissipative structures pumped far off what Prigogine called the thermodynamic
branch. Indeed, this corresponds exactly to Valentinis sub-quantum non-equilibrium with entanglement
signal nonlocality. I make two corrections to Valentinis ideas. First, the word sub-quantum is
misleading and should be deleted altogether. This word comes from Vigiers supplement to Bohms pilot
wave theory. However, when the beables are properly defined as the classical parts of the Sutherland
Lagrangian, it is obvious that the thermodynamics is that of ordinary classical statistical mechanics prior to
the influence of Bohms quantum potential of active information. Just as Einstein threw out the
mechanical ether, we can throw out Valentinis unobservable sub-quantum level as excess baggage. We
have no need of that hypothesis. Secondly, we should throw away the word nonlocal as first shown by
Costa de Beauregard in the 1950s and more recently by Huw Price, Ken Wharton and Rod Sutherland, we
have no need for spacelike faster-than-light nonlocal influences that violate the spirit if not the letter of
Einsteins classical theories of relativity. We get the same end result that the observed orthodox quantum
correlations that violate Bells locality inequality, are independent of when the future strong measurements
are made invoking locally real retrocausal future partial causes of how the entangled particles are created in
the past. In fact, what John Bell really proved is that the statistical predictions of orthodox quantum theory,
in the absence of post-quantum action-reaction, is inconsistent with the assumption that what happens in
actuality depends only on past partial causes.
I now show the non-conservation of local Born probability pilot wave current densities in the presence of
post-quantum action reaction explicitly using my new equation above.

' '
j ( weak ) = 0( weak )u ( particle ) 0( weak )Fext
g ' g ' Tweak

(1.11)

Sutherlands weak measurement stress-energy tensor for the overlapping advanced destiny and retarded
history pilot waves is a 4x4 matrix. Its inverse matrix is now on the RHS. I have included the metric tensor
of Einsteins general relativity in case we want to use a properly accelerating/rotating Local Non-InertialFrame (LNIF) with a non-vanishing Levi-Civita connection. Therefore, in taking the 4-divergence I will
use Einsteins covariant derivatives rather than the usual partial derivatives in all relevant factors of these
equations. Obviously the 4-divergence of the localized classical particle beable 4-velocity is zero.
However, we cannot assume that

D 0weak = 0 . Therefore, when Fext

0

' '
D j ( weak ) = D 0( weak )u ( particle ) 0( weak )Fext
g ' g ' Tweak

(1.12)

Frohlich coherence means that there is Penrose-Onsager Off-Diagonal-Long-Range-Order (aka ODLRO) in

the reduced quantum pilot wave density matrices. Assuming here, for simplicity, that the beables have
integer spins in 3D + 1 space-time, the spin-statistics connection ensures boson statistics. In this case,
Frohlich coherence corresponds to the following equation for the first reduced density matrix.

( ) () ( )
Lim ! ( x ,x ') 0

( )

1 x ,x ' = * x x ' + ! 1 x ,x '

xx '

(1.13)

Where now

()

x is P.W. Andersons more is different emergent Higgs-Goldstone type of order

parameter associated with spontaneous symmetry breaking of the ground state of a complex interacting
many-beable system giving a subspace of degenerate ground states. For example, the ferromagnetic
magnetization below the Curie point can point in any direction in space. At least in the orthodox quantum
limit of Sutherlands post-quantum equations,

()

x is generally a squeezed Glauber coherent state

obeying the Born probability rule. In the usual second quantization formalism of quantum field theory we
have for a single boson quasi-particle of the complex interacting many-beable pumped open dissipative
system

()

x = xe

( za z*a)e 12(w*aawa a ) 0

(1.14)

This equation needs to be reformulated in the Bohm pilot wave/beable interpretation. It will also be
distorted in the larger post-quantum theory with Sutherlands new action-reaction contribution to the weak
advanced destiny-retarded history Lagrangian. The Bohm quantum potential in this situation would have a
dominant term computed from the above local order parameter

()

x .

4. P VERSUS NP PROBLEM AND ROGER PENROSES OBJECTION TO THE STRONG AI

CONJECTURE IN THE LIGHT OF POST-QUANTUM LOCALLY REAL RETROCAUSAL
ENTANGLEMENT SIGNALING
The P versus NP problem is a major unsolved problem in computer science. Informally speaking, it asks
whether every problem whose solution can be quickly verified by a computer can also be quickly solved by
a computer.
It was essentially first mentioned in a 1956 letter written by Kurt Gdel to John von Neumann. Gdel asked
whether a certain NP-complete problem could be solved in quadratic or linear time.[2] The precise statement
of the P versus NP problem was introduced in 1971 by Stephen Cook in his seminal paper "The complexity
of theorem proving procedures"[3] and is considered by many to be the most important open problem in the
field.[4] It is one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems selected by the Clay Mathematics Institute to
carry a US$1,000,000 prize for the first correct solution.xiv
I just finished reading Penrose's 'The Emperor's New Mind' which is an attack on the Strong AI stance
that is popular in many philosophy circles (not to mention computer science departments) In a nutshell
he criticizes the Strong AI approach because it asserts that intelligence/consciousness can come about (emerge)
by a sufficient amount of (complex enough collection of) algorithms. His beef with that is that there are many things
that we do that are intrinsically non-algorithmic. So since we can prove mathematical theorems, which are
non-algorithmic (and non-computable), then there must be something missing from the approach that
our consciousness and intelligence can come about by things that are only computable and algorithmic
at the core. This is just a glance at what he explains in the 600 pages, just gives the flavour of the argument.xv
First, we must be clear what we mean by algorithm:
In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is a self-contained step-by-step set of operations to be performed.
Algorithms perform calculation, data processing, and/or automated reasoning tasks An algorithm is
an effective method that can be expressed within a finite amount of space and time[1] and in a well-defined
formal language[2] for calculating a function.[3] Starting from an initial state and initial input (perhaps empty),[4]
the instructions describe a computation that, when executed, proceeds through a finite[5] number of well-defined
successive states, eventually producing "output"[6] and terminating at a final ending state.

The transition from one state to the next is not necessarily deterministic; some algorithms, known as randomized algorithms,
incorporate random input.[7] The concept of algorithm has existed for centuries; however, a partial formalization of what
would become the modern algorithm began with attempts to solve the Entscheidungsproblem (the "decision problem")
posed by David Hilbert in 1928. Subsequent formalizations were framed as attempts to define "effective calculability"[8]
or "effective method";[9] those formalizations included the GdelHerbrandKleene recursive functions of
1930, 1934 and 1935, Alonzo Church's lambda calculus of 1936, Emil Post's "Formulation 1" of 1936,
and Alan Turing's Turing machines of 19367 and 1939. Giving a formal definition of algorithms, corresponding
to the intuitive notion, remains a challenging problem.[10]xvi
The key phrase above is: Starting from an initial state and initial input (perhaps empty),[4] the instructions
describe a computation that, when executed, proceeds through a finite[5] number of well-defined successive
states, eventually producing "output"[6] and terminating at a final ending state.
Obviously then, the essential premise here is retarded causality from past to present excluding locally real
retrocausal influences from future to present as we find in Yakir Aharonovs incomplete two-state theory
without Bells beables and as we find in Rod Sutherlands complete Bohm pilot wave Lagrangian with
Bells beables. However, here we must distinguish between orthodox quantum computers and the new
post-quantum computers that are even more powerful corresponding to computation around effective
CTCs. Here there is no actual movement of mass backwards in time through geometrodynamic traversable
wormholes. Rather, these are action-reaction post-quantum circuit tensor network locally decodable
information flows in the Hilbert space fiber bundle whose base space is Einsteins classical four
dimensional spacetime continuum. The paper Retrocausal explanation of the quantum computational
speedup Giuseppe Castagnoli was presented at this workshop. He wrote:
We discuss the present explanation of the speedup at the light of the criticism typically moved to the use
of retrocausality in physics. As Bell was well aware, the dilemma [of non locality] can be avoided if the
properties of quantum systems are allowed to depend on what happens to them in the future, as well as in
the past. Like most researchers interested in these issues, however, Bell felt that the cure would be worse
than the disease he thought that this kind of retrocausality would conflict with free will, and with
assumptions fundamental to the practice of science. (He said that when he tried to think about
retrocausality, he lapsed into fatalism). We compare the present explanation of the speedup with
Bells observations. Deutsch commented his discovery of the first quantum speedup with the statement
that computation is physical [2]. It is a statement as simple as deep. The interaction between computing as
an idea, say belonging to the Platonic world of ideas, and some outside physical process, like counting on
the fingers, must be as ancient as the idea itself. However, until the physical process has remained classical,
its character has not enriched the very idea of computation. The turning point comes with quantum
computing. This time physical computation is richer than our former idea of computation, as a matter of
fact in ways that have yet to be well understood. We have compared the present explanation of the
speedup with the objections typically moved to the use of retrocausality in physics, seeing no conflict to
use Bells words with free will or assumptions fundamental to the practice of science. Further studying
the subject conjecture seems to be a promising direction of research in both quantum computation and the
foundations of quantum mechanics.xvii
Castagnolis paper tacitly assumes orthodox quantum theory in Yakir Aharonovs retrocausal two-state
vector formulation in which there is still no post-quantum locally decodable keyless retrocausal signaling
from a future strong measurement to an earlier weak measurement. Huw Price and Ken Wharton also gave
presentations with a similar view that is also compatible with John Cramers transactional interpretation.
Only Antony Valentinis paper is explicit on the still more powerful operation of a post-quantum nonalgorithmic nano-machine intelligence. Again repeating Valentinis abstract
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentiallyfast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a
property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that

'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early
universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter
could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish nonorthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to
outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).xviii
Rod Sutherlands Lagrangian is essentially post-quantum because of the action-reaction term between
quantum information pilot wave and its many-beable system. This post-quantum action-reaction when not
zero violates de Broglies guidance equation. Consequently, it violates the Born statistical rule and permits
locally decodable realistic entanglement signaling as if there was a CTC traversable wormhole held open
and stabilized by amplified anti-gravitating dark energy with a particle passing through it from future to
past. Recall the duality between EPR quantum informational entanglement on a black hole or cosmological
2D + 1 hologram screen horizon and ER wormholes in the interior 3D + 1 bulk. The former can simulate
the latter.

The new post-quantum action-reaction term that is missing in orthodox quantum particle theory and also
missing in orthodox quantum field theory biases the Born rule in Henry Stapps sense as he presented at
this same workshop.
The pilot-wave continuity equation now has a new source term. Therefore, the Born probability current
density flow is no longer conserved. The time evolution is non-unitary as in pumped open dissipative
structures.
The theory is also non-linear because of the adaptive self-organizing two-way relation between pilot
wave and its beables.
As Elitzur and Valentini independently have said this demands entanglement signaling.
The action-reaction unhides the beables. Their paths no longer coincide with the pilot wave stream lines.
3. CONCLUSION
Post-quantum theory is to quantum theory as general relativity is to special relativity.
Both larger theories are direct consequences of Einstein action-reaction organizing principle.
Special relativity ignores the direct reaction of matter on geometry.
Quantum theory ignores the direct reaction of matter and geometry on their pilot waves.

Bohm, D. (1952). "A suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of Hidden Variables, I".

Physical Review 85 (2): 166179. Bibcode:1952PhRv...85..166B. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166.

Bohm, D. (1952). "A suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of Hidden Variables, II".
Physical Review 85 (2): 180193. Bibcode:1952PhRv...85..180B. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.180.
ii From Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (1949), publ. Cambridge University Press, 1949. Niels
Bohr's report of conversations with Einstein and Einstein's reply.
Shilpp, P.A., (1958) Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Northwestern University and Southern Illinois
University, Open Court, 1951.
iii de Broglie, L. (1927). "La mcanique ondulatoire et la structure atomique de la matire et du
rayonnement". Journal de Physique et le Radium 8 (5): 225241. Bibcode:1927JPhRa...8..225D.
doi:10.1051/jphysrad:0192700805022500.
Jeffrey Bub, Von Neumann's 'No Hidden Variables' Proof: A Re-Appraisal (Submitted on 2 Jun 2010)
Since the analysis by John Bell in 1965, the consensus in the literature is that von Neumann's 'no hidden
variables' proof fails to exclude any significant class of hidden variables. Bell raised the question whether it
could be shown that any hidden variable theory would have to be nonlocal, and in this sense 'like Bohm's
theory.' His seminal result provides a positive answer to the question. I argue that Bell's analysis
misconstrues von Neumann's argument. What von Neumann proved was the impossibility of recovering the
quantum probabilities from a hidden variable theory of dispersion free (deterministic) states in which the
quantum observables are represented as the 'beables' of the theory, to use Bell's term. That is, the quantum
probabilities could not reflect the distribution of pre-measurement values of beables, but would have to be
derived in some other way, e.g., as in Bohm's theory, where the probabilities are an artifact of a dynamical
process that is not in fact a measurement of any beable of the system.
iv
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0499
v 1. arXiv:1509.07380 [pdf]
Interpretation of the Klein-Gordon Probability Density
Roderick Sutherland
(Submitted on 23 Sep 2015 (v1), last revised 7 Oct 2015 (this version, v2))
An explanation is presented for how the expression for "probability density" provided by the Klein-Gordon
equation can be understood within a particle interpretation of quantum mechanics. The fact that this
expression is not positive definite is seen to be no impediment once a careful distinction is drawn between
the outcomes of measurements and the positions of particles between measurements. The analysis
indicates, however, that retrocausal influences must be involved.
2. arXiv:1509.02442 [pdf]
Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics -- Entangled Many-Particle
Case
Roderick Sutherland
Comments: 34 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
3. arXiv:1509.00001 [pdf]
Energy-momentum tensor for a field and particle in interaction
Roderick Sutherland
Comments: 9 pages
Subjects: Classical Physics (physics.class-ph)
4. arXiv:1502.02058 [pdf]
Naive Quantum Gravity
Roderick I. Sutherland
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
5. arXiv:1411.3762 [pdf]
Lagrangian Formulation for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: Single-Particle Case
Roderick I. Sutherland
Comments: 12 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
6. arXiv:quant-ph/0601095 [pdf]

Causally Symmetric Bohm Model

Rod Sutherland
Comments: 35 pages, 5 figures, new sections 12 and 13 added
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
vi

Antony Valentini Subquantum Information and Computation

It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentiallyfast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a
property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that
'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early
universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter
could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish nonorthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to
outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049

vii

How Does Retrocausality Help? Rod Sutherland

The aim of this talk is to look at the various advantages gained by incorporating retrocausality into the
formalism of quantum mechanics. For example, in seeking to describe an underlying reality existing
between measurements, the inclusion of retrocausality makes it straightforward to achieve both Lorentz
invariance and locality, as well as permitting the proposed picture of reality to reside in 4D spacetime
rather than configuration space. Another consequence is that it becomes possible to give a more
comprehensive and richer mathematical description. In particular, a Lagrangian formulation can be
achieved, thereby encapsulating all equations of motion and conservation laws in a single expression. Also,
the usual restriction to a statistical description in the quantum realm can be usefully avoided when
formulating the energy-momentum tensor for quantum gravity.
Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics Entangled Many-Particle
Case
Roderick I. Sutherland
Centre for Time, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
A Lagrangian formulation is constructed for particle interpretations of quantum mechanics, a well-known
example of such an interpretation being the Bohm model. The advantages of such a description are that the
equations for particle motion, field evolution and conservation laws can all be deduced from a single
Lagrangian density expression. The formalism presented is Lorentz invariant. This paper follows on from a
previous one, which was limited to the single-particle case. The present paper treats the more general case
of many particles in an entangled state. It is found that describing more than one particle while maintaining
a relativistic description requires the introduction of final boundary conditions as well as initial, thereby
entailing retrocausality.
1. Introduction
This paper focuses on interpretations of QM in which the underlying reality is taken to consist of particles
have definite trajectories at all times1. It then enriches the associated formalism of such interpretations by
providing a Lagrangian description of the unfolding events. The convenience and utility of a Lagrangian
formulation is well known from classical mechanics. The particle equation of motion, the field equation,
the conserved current, action-reaction, the energy-momentum tensor, etc., are all easily derivable in a selfconsistent way from a single expression. These advantages continue in the present context. Since a
Lagrangian description is available in all other areas of physics and continues to be useful in modern
domains such as quantum field theory and the standard model, it is appropriate to expect such a description
to be relevant and applicable here as well2.

In addition to the advantages already listed, the Lagrangian approach pursued here to describe particle
trajectories also entails the natural introduction of an accompanying field to influence the particles motion
away from classical mechanics and reproduce the correct quantum predictions. In so doing, it is in fact
providing a physical explanation for why quantum phenomena exist at all the particle is seen to be the
source of a field which alters the particles trajectory via self-interaction.
viii

Hawking may be on the wrong side of history. Recent experiments offer tentative support for time
travel's feasibilityat least from a mathematical perspective. The study cuts to the core of our
understanding of the universe, and the resolution of the possibility of time travel, far from being a topic
worthy only of science fiction, would have profound implications for fundamental physics as well as for
practical applications such as quantum cryptography and computing. Hawking and many other
physicists find CTCs abhorrent, because any macroscopic object traveling through one would inevitably
create paradoxes where cause and effect break down. In a model proposed by the theorist David Deutsch in
1991, however, the paradoxes created by CTCs could be avoided at the quantum scale because of the
behavior of fundamental particles, which follow only the fuzzy rules of probability rather than strict
determinism. "It's intriguing that you've got general relativity predicting these paradoxes, but then you
consider them in quantum mechanical terms and the paradoxes go away," says University of Queensland
physicist Tim Ralph. "It makes you wonder whether this is important in terms of formulating a theory that
unifies general relativity with quantum mechanics. Recently Ralph and his PhD student Martin
Ringbauer led a team that experimentally simulated Deutsch's model of CTCs for the very first time, testing
and confirming many aspects of the two-decades-old theory. In the presence of CTCs, quantum
mechanics allows one to perform very powerful information-processing tasks, much more than we believe
classical or even normal quantum computers could do, says Todd Brun, a physicist at the University of
Southern California Deutsch's model isnt the only one around, however. In 2009 Seth Lloyd, a theorist
at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, proposed an alternative, less radical model of CTCs that resolves
the grandfather paradox using quantum teleportation and a technique called post-selection, rather than
Deutsch's quantum self-consistency. With Canadian collaborators, Lloyd went on to perform successful
laboratory simulations of his model in 2011. "Deutsch's theory has a weird effect of destroying
correlations," Lloyd says. "That is, a time traveler who emerges from a Deutschian CTC enters a universe
that has nothing to do with the one she exited in the future. By contrast, post-selected CTCs preserve
correlations, so that the time traveler returns to the same universe that she remembers in the past. This
property of Lloyd's model would make CTCs much less powerful for information processing, although still
far superior to what computers could achieve in typical regions of spacetime. "The classes of problems our
CTCs could help solve are roughly equivalent to finding needles in haystacks," Lloyd says. "But a
computer in a Deutschian CTC could solve why haystacks exist in the first place."
Time Travel Simulation Resolves Grandfather Paradox
What would happen to you if you went back in time and killed your grandfather? A model using photons
reveals that quantum mechanics can solve the quandaryand even foil quantum cryptography
By Lee Billings on September 2, 2014 Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-travel-simulation-resolves-grandfather-paradox/

ix

Steven Weinberg, Physical Review Letters 62, 485 (1989);

Joseph Polchinski, Physical Review Letters 66, 397 (1991).
x Long Range Coherence and Energy Storage in Biological Systems H. Frohlich, Long Range Coherence
and Energy Storage in Biological Systems, Int. J. Quantum Chem., v.II, 641-649 (1968) see also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoseEinstein_condensation_(network_theory)

xi

Coherent Excitations in Biological Systems Herbert Frhlich and F. Kremer Coherent Excitations in
Biological Systems (Springer-Verlag, 1983) ISBN 978-3-642-69186-7

xii

Frohlich Condensate: Emergence of Synergetic Dissipative Structures in Information Processing

Biological and Condensed Matter Systems, A urea R. Vasconcellos 1;y, Fabio Stucchi Vannucchi 1;*,
Sergio Mascarenhas 2 and Roberto Luzzi 1;*
xiii "Herbert Frhlich proposed in 1968 that there could exist condensates composed of a collection of
vibrational oscillators that had all of their vibrational energy concentrated in just one collective motion - the
motion of lowest frequency," explained Laura. These Frhlich condensates were postulated to develop a
highly ordered non-equilibrium state that has properties similar to a Bose-Einstein condensate, said Laura.
"All of the energy in this lowest frequency mode was thought to arise from laser-like 'coherent excitation',
creating large-scale dynamic properties in the whole system. So you end up with macroscopic properties in
the systems that are significantly different from ordinary experience. Superconductivity is another example
of this sort of collective property within a system. There's lots of interest in finding applications of
Frhlich condensates in physics, chemistry, biology and medicine. The problem is that there has never been
an unambiguous example of Frhlich condensates identified. The team determined the most likely
experimental signatures of Frhlich condensation. Professor Reimers explained, We investigated the basic
properties of Frhlich condensates and classified them into three types: weak condensates, strong
condensates and coherent condensates. Weak condensates allow for profound effects on chemical and
biochemical kinetics, while strong condensates form when an extremely large amount of energy is
channeled into one vibrational mode, and coherent condensates form when this energy is placed in a single
quantum state, said Professor Reimers. We showed that Frhlich condensates might have significant
features quite distinct from the extraordinary properties normally envisaged. The team considered several
properties of Frhlich condensates, including their robustness to parameter variations, the temperatures at
which they form, the limitations of the basic assumptions, and one specific physical proposal for their
production from a chemical energy source - the Wu-Austin model. We found that coherent condensates
involve extremely large energies, are extremely fragile and are not produced by the Wu-Austin dynamical
Hamiltonian that provides the simplest depiction of Frhlich condensates formed using mechanically
supplied energy, explained Professor Reimers. This means they are unable to form in any biological
environment.xiii
On the other hand, there are objections to the above conclusion and the matter is far from settled. This is an
active field of research. For example,
In this paper we briefly discuss the necessity of using quantum mechanics as a fundamental theory
applicable to some key functional aspects of biological systems. This is especially relevant to three
important parts of a neuron in the human brain, namely the cell membrane, microtubules (MT) and ion
channels. We argue that the recently published papers criticizing the use of quantum theory in these
systems are not convincing. Biological systems operate within the framework of irreversible
thermodynamics and nonlinear kinetic theory of open systems, both of which are based on the principles of
non- equilibrium statistical mechanics. The search for physically-based fundamental models in biology that
can provide a conceptual bridge between the chemical organization of living organisms and the
phenomenal states of life and experience has generated a vigorous and so far inconclusive debate [1,2].
Recently published experimental evidence has provided support for the hypothesis that biological systems
use some type of quantum coherence in their functions. The nearly 100% efficient excitation energy
transfer in photosynthesis is an excellent example [3]. Living systems are composed of molecules and
atoms, and the most advanced physical theory describing interactions between atoms and molecules is
quantum mechanics. For example, making and breaking of chemical bonds, absorbance of frequency
specific radiation (e.g. in photosynthesis and vision), conversion of chemical energy into mechanical
motion (e.g. ATP cleavage) and single electron transfer through biological polymers (e.g. in DNA or
proteins) are all quantum effects. Regarding the efficient functioning of biological systems, the relevant
question to ask is how can a biological system with billions of semi-autonomous components function
effectively and coherently? Why providing a complete explanation remains a major challenge, quantum
coherence is a plausible mechanism responsible for the efficiency and co-ordination exhibited by biological
systems [4]. The hypothesis invoking long-range coherence in biological systems was proposed by H.
Frhlichs [5-7] and followed by detailed investigations by Tuszynski et al. [8-22], Pokorny [23-25],
Mesquita et al. [26-28] and others for over three decades. The possible role played by coherent states

manifested outside low temperature physics has attracted considerable interest in both the physics and
biology communities. Despite the potential power of quantum mechanics to explain coherent phenomena,
there are serious challenges involved in applying it in the context of a living system. For instance, in order
to have a very high degree of coherence between bio-molecules, Bose-Einstein condensation may be a
viable mechanism, but we note that the ambient temperature in a living system is likely to be too high for
this phenomenon to occur. Also, the sizes of bio-molecules are very large by physical standards in order to
be regarded as typical quantum systems. Moreover, because of the noisy environment, according to
decoherence theory, quantum states of these mesoscopic bio- molecules would collapse very rapidly.
However, remarkably there is no obvious limitation placed on the Schrodinger equation for its use only in
atomic-scale systems. It is a universal equation and it can even be used for the entire universe (as is the case
with quantum gravity applications). The boundary between quantum theory and classical physics is still
largely unknown. Quantum theory obviously applies on length scales smaller than atomic radii but beyond
that it is not entirely clear where it should be superseded by Newtonian mechanics. Superconductors, lasers,
superfluids, semiconductors etc., are examples of macroscopic-scale physical systems that behave quantum
mechanically, so it is also possible that biological systems operate based on quantum principles at least in
some of their functions. Here we argue that recent criticisms of the use of quantum mechanics in biology
are not very convincing since they ignore the already existing evidence for quantum effects in biological
systems. In this paper we investigate three particular systems of special importance: the cell membrane,
microtubules (MTs), and ion channels, which are some of the most important parts of a neuron in the
human brain. We argue that these subsystems are the best candidates for possible sites of quantum effects.
We have argued above that the objections raised against the feasibility and role of quantum effects in
biological systems are not tenable. It is still an open question as to how a macroscopic object is classical
while its constituent atoms and molecules are quantum mechanical in nature. As atomic-scale quantum
systems compose into large molecules they become classical objects. In biology however, the challenging
question is whether and how the initial quantum properties extend into the functional domain of the
emerging classical systems. In the case of energy transfer in photosynthesis, magnetic compass sensing
with receptor proteins, microtubules and ion conduction in channel proteins, transient quantum coherences
may well play a decisive role to explain the observed functional states of classical molecular systems.
However, it seems that decoherence theory has not solved this problem, and hence we pose an important
question: What is the meaning of classicality when a large or complex system (as a quantum system)
collapses to become a classical entity while the components (atoms or molecules) are still quantum
mechanical?. At least in biological systems, we can expect that the emergence of classicality will involve
some quantum signatures that cannot be ignored in functional explanations. Answers along this way will
most probably play an increasing role for the understanding of organizational complexity and functions in
living systems.xiii

xiv

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem

xv

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/roger-penroses-attack-on-strong-artificialintelligence-7068.html see also

https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~mooney/cs343/slide-handouts/philosophy.4.pdf

xvi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm

xvii

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.02246.pdf

xviii

Pramana - J. Phys. 59
(2002) 269-277
Cite as:

Imperial/TP/1-02/15
arXiv:quant-ph/0203049