Subject: The theorem of Conway and Kochen does indeed affect the relativistic GRW models

Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:38:10 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Angelo Bassi <>
CC: GianCarlo Ghirardi <>,
Detlef Dürr <>,
Rafael Sorkin <>,
Simon Kochen <>,
John Conway <>,
Steve Adler <>

Dear Angelo,

It seems to me that you have underestimated the Conway-Kochen Theorem. The way I see it, the best way to understand it is to take part in the quiz at

Just a hint: "everything which might possibly determine an event" [Ref. 1] is not necessarily 'information'. It may look like 'information', but it could be a different entity: just cast your vote in the quiz at the link above, and I believe you'll find it out for yourself.

I also invite all your colleagues to take part in the quiz. Since we don't like the "collapse", the ultimate and indispensable proof that we can eliminate it is to find a classical limit from STR. I've offered three options to vote, but if you can think of a fourth one, I'll be delighted to learn about it.

Please be assured that, once you put your cards on the table, I will elaborate on the issue in the subject line.

More at

Best regards to GianCarlo.

[Ref. 1] Angelo Bassi and GianCarlo Ghirardi, The Conway-Kochen argument and relativistic GRW models, quant-ph/0610209 v1.

"assume the standard formalism of special relativity"

"Information cannot travel at a speed greater than the speed of light.

"In the last axiom, we used the term "information" in an intuitive sense, without specifying what it means; though we do not like to resort to such a vague term in setting the axioms of any logical reasoning, we use it simply to adhere to the original formulation of [1].
"... information -- apart from its ambiguous meaning -- includes everything which might possibly determine an event (in our case, the outcome of a certain experimental procedure).
"... relativistic extensions of the GRW model which reproduce quantum mechanical correlations must be non-local in one way or another, ..."



Subject: Re: The Free Will Theorem, quant-ph/0604079 v1
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 16:38:36 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: John Conway <>,
Simon Kochen <>
Cc: Steve Adler <>

Dear colleagues,

In connection with my email from Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:22:12 +0300, I offered my comments and interpretation of FWT at

I believe Feynman would have understood QM, if only he had the chance to follow the first link.

Have a nice summer.

Dimi Chakalov


Subject: The Free Will Theorem, quant-ph/0604079 v1
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:22:12 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Simon Kochen <>

Dear Professor Kochen,

RE: "The Free Will Theorem tells us something very important, namely that although a “rough” texture forces *some* decision to be made, it does not actually choose *which* decision that is."

Thank God it does not! More at

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


Subject: Re: The Free Will Theorem, quant-ph/0604079 v1

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 01:36:13 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Simon Kochen <>

P.S. Let me please add some comments on your wonderful paper.

You and Prof. Conway wrote (p. 2): "It also makes it clear that this failure to predict is a merit rather than a defect, since these results involve free decisions that the universe has not yet made."

Hence the "fate" (if any) of the universe is *undecidable*, as stressed by Paul Frampton and Tomo Takahashi,

You also wrote (p. 26): "No theory can predict exactly what these particles will do in the future for the very good reason that they may not yet have decided what this will be!"

Hence 'fate' does not exist: "The stage is still being built while the show goes on." (p. 27)

Sounds like a strongly non-linear GR "talk" between the stage and the show, with a genuinely undecidable outcome, doesn't it?

Final quote (p. 27): "The mere existence of free will already has consequences for the philosophy of general relativity. That theory has been thought by some to show that “the flow of time” is an illusion. We quote only one of many distinguished authors to that effect: “The objective world simply is, it does not happen” (Hermann Weyl).

"It is remarkable that this common opinion, often referred to as the “block universe” view, has come about merely as a consequence of the usual way of modeling the mathematics of general relativity as a theory about the curvature of an eternally existing arena of space-time. In the light of the Free Will theorem this view is mistaken, since the future of the universe is not determined. (...) The stage is still being built while the show goes on."

As John Wheeler used to say, "time is Nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once".

This 'all' should include 'the unknown unknown', in which case we should seek some genuine non-unitary temporal evolution of the universe, to accommodate 'the unknown unknown'. That's the "window" left for the Free Will.

A typical example of (still) undecided future of your country and the
rest of the world can be read at

Just some night thoughts.


On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:22:12 +0300, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
> Dear Professor Kochen,
> RE: "The Free Will Theorem tells us something very important,
> namely that although a “rough” texture forces *some* decision to
> be made, it does not actually choose *which* decision that is."

Note: It is hardly surprising that the efforts to count the number of vacua turned out to be in the range of googles: see A.N. Schellekens here and L. Susskind here. The "number" of such vacua should be undecidable, hence it cannot be a number per se. The Landscape is a dynamic entity open to 'the unknown unknown'. It's a whole new ball game.

D. Chakalov
April 20, 2006


Subject: Re: Loading the dice against free will
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:21:47 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Bryan Appleyard <>

Dear Mr. Appleyard,

Thank you for your reply.

In your latest article "Loading the dice against free will" (The Sunday
Times, May 14, 2006 ),,1-525-2179197-525,00.html

you mentioned Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem, which I think is of paramount importance,

I hesitate to comment on the way you've presented Gerard 't Hooft's "hidden variable" speculations and uncountable "dancing angels". Instead, I will offer you my understanding of CK Theorem.

There is a remnant from the elusive master/cosmological time arrow, which is being displayed as a fundamental INdecisiveness in the physical world.
Mathematically, the physical world is time-symmetric [Ref. 1], hence this
remnant shows up as a genuine lack of *total* predictability (please see the link above). Thus, there is indeed a "window" for Free Will, as demonstrated by CK Theorem.

I've tried to elaborate on this remnant from the master/cosmological time
arrow, in the context of singularity theorems and  the 'finite infinity'
proposal of George Ellis, at

It all boils down to the nature of the phenomenon that carries physical
interactions from one "point" to the nearest "point" with a speed that
cannot exceed the speed of light in vacuum,

We cannot pinpoint this phenomenon in a time-symmetric physical world, but instead of speculating about some "hidden variables" a la Gerard 't Hooft (or uncountable blond sexy dancing angels, which is basically the same), I believe we should try to understand the implications from Kochen-Specker and Conway-Kochen Theorems.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
[Ref. 1] George F. R. Ellis, Physics and the real world, Foundations of
Physics, April 2006, pp. 1-36.

Idem, Physics in the Real Universe: Time and Spacetime, gr-qc/0605049 v2.

"All past and future times are equally present, and there is nothing special about the present ('now'). There are Newtonian, Special Relativity, and General Relativity versions of this view (see Figures 1-4), the latter being most realistic as it is both relativistic and includes gravity (footnote 3).

(Footnote 3: We do not consider here the possible variants when quantum gravity is taken into account.)


> On 15/5/06 23:34, "Dimi Chakalov" <> wrote:
>> "But I will respond when inspired to do so -- by, for example, valid
>> counter-arguments, acute observations and corrections of errors."
>> Dear Mr. Appleyard,
>> RE your latest article (Times - News Review, p. 7): it seems to me that
>> you've misinterpreted the Free Will Theorem. According to the CK
>> Theorem, the world is not "finally and absolutely indeterminate", as you
>> stated in your note. There is no need of any uncountable dancing
>> angels either.
>> I'll be happy to elaborate.
>> Regards,
>> Dimi Chakalov



Subject: The primordial dark energy flow
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:50:21 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Antonio Lopez Maroto <>
CC: Jarmo Mäkelä <>,
 Yanbei Chen <>,
 Jean-Philippe Uzan <>,
 Michael Maziashvili <>,
 Shin'ichi Nojiri <>,
 Miguel Sanchez <>,
 Marcelo S Berman <>,
 Mário Everaldo de Souza <>,
 Charles Hellaby <>,
 George F R Ellis <>
BCC: [snip]

Dear Dr. Maroto,

I found your "Dark energy in motion", astro-ph/0605381 [Ref. 1] truly
fascinating. Please see my efforts to collect evidence for a "remnant"
from the master/cosmological time arrow at

I wonder if you can apply your ideas to elucidate the so-called cosmic
equator [Ref. 2],

Perhaps it is possible to build a quasi steady state model of the universe [Ref. 3], with some important (and certainly not original) modifications: the idea of 'cosmic equator' refers to a numerically finite but physically unattainable "maximum value of the world radius", as suggested by Einstein,

Its numerical value increases along the cosmological time arrow, as driven by the so-called dark energy of [X],

but this last and unique Steady-State of The Whole Universe cannot be actually reached by the material (not the "dark") stuff in the universe, and can serve only as some horizon-like, physically unattainable, and sliding cut-off. It doesn't matter if this sliding is currently in some accelerated stage, since the "last" cosmic equator will be always "one step ahead" from the material (not the "dark") stuff that is chasing it.

It's a bit like the old metaphor about the Dragon chasing its tail, but since you'd prefer math, perhaps you may wish to explore George Ellis' 'finite infinity' proposal,

Perhaps you can find more blueprints from the primordial dark energy flow in [Refs. 4-6].

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


[Ref. 1] Antonio Lopez Maroto, Dark energy in motion, astro-ph/0605381 v1.

"... even an observer at rest with respect to the CMB could observe a
non-vanishing dipole, provided dark energy is moving with respect to

[Ref. 2] Map reveals strange cosmos, by David Whitehouse, BBC News
Online, Monday, 3 March, 2003, 13:23 GMT,

Max Tegmark: "The octopole and quadrupole components are arranged in a
straight line across the sky, along a kind of cosmic equator. That's weird."

[Ref. 3] G. Burbidge, Quasi-Steady State Cosmology, astro-ph/0108051 v1.

[Ref. 4] Jarmo Mäkelä, Area and Entropy: A New Perspective,
gr-qc/0605098 v1.

"Eq. (17) therefore provides a new perspective for the relationship
between area and entropy. It may even suggest an existence of some new, still undiscovered principle of thermodynamics which would set, in
certain conditions, an ultimate upper bound for the amount of entropy
carried by radiation when it interacts with spacetime. It is possible
that if such principle existed, then the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy law,
among other things, might be just one of the consequences of that

[Ref. 5] Yanbei Chen and Linqing Wen, Probing Spacetime Foam with
Photons, gr-qc/0605093 v2.

"More specifically, when a photon travels through a space-time region, it does not follow only one particular ray, whose length is subject tothe fundamental "fuzziness" prescribed by Eq. (2), but instead, it would simultaneously sample an ensemble of many different neighboring rays, each of whom having a potentially different realization of thefundamental length fluctuation; the actual pathlength fluctuation must then be given by an averaging among these different length fluctuations.

"Moreover, it is conceivable that the size of the sampling region ofeach photon must be much bigger than l_P, which is presumably also the correlation length of fundamental quantum fluctuations. As aconsequence, the averaging must dramatically suppress the actual[delta][psi] from the value given in Eq. (1), which assumes no averaging.
p. 3, Eq. 24: "This unfortunately leaves us with no hope of detecting this random-walk model with any conceivable astronomical observations."

[Ref. 6] Jean-Philippe Uzan, The acceleration of the universe and the
physics behind it, astro-ph/0605313 v1.

"The extra degrees of freedom, often referred to as *dark energy* and needed to explain the data, can be introduced as a new kind of matter oras a new property of gravity."


Subject: The car behind undenumerable doors
Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:43 PM
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Doron Cohen <>
Cc: Eitan Bachmat <>,
 Moshe Carmeli <>,
 Mohammad Mehrafarin <>,
 Nikolai Chuprikov <>

Dear Professor Cohen,

I glanced at your Lecture Notes in Quantum Mechanics [Ref. 1], and noticed a peculiar statement (Sec. 46.5, Quantum measurements, Schroedinger's cat):

"We call such type of unitary evolution "ideal measurement". If the system 
is in a definite a state, then it is not affected by the detector. Rather, 
we gain information on the state of the system. One can think of q as 
representing a memory device in which the information is stored. This memory device can be of course the brain of a human observer."

Let's see how things work from the perspective of the human brain. I'll 
provide four "doors" [Ref. 1] of 'the quantum state' by means of four 

1. All are not hunters that blow the horn.
2. La robe ne fait pas le médecin.
3. Es ist nicht jeder ein Koch, der ein lang Messer trägt.
4. Non sunt omnes venatores, qui cornu canunt.

You can keep 'the quantum state' in your brain, and it will never 
"collapse". Moreover, the doors can be *undenumerable*, which is the case of 'the preparation space' [Ref. 2].

Only you can never catch 'the quantum state', since it lives "outside" the 
Hilbert space. More at

Since you're teaching QM and speculate about some "quantum computing", would you tell these kids the whole truth about QM?

Also, you stated that "on a universal scale the evolution is in fact unitary" [Ref. 1]. If it were a *fact*, you'd be teaching quantum gravity. Am I wrong?

Sincerely yours,

Dimi Chakalov

[Ref. 1] Doron Cohen, Lecture Notes in Quantum Mechanics, quant-ph/0605180 v1.

"If the reader is not familiar with this well knows "paradox", the following 
may help to understand why we have this collapse (I thanks my colleague 
Eitan Bachmat for providing this explanation). Imagine that there are 
billion doors. You peak door #1. The organizer opens all the other doors 
except door #234123. So now you know that the car is either behind door #1 or behind door #234123. You want the car. What are you going to do? It is quite obvious that the car is almost definitely behind door #234123. It is also clear the that the collapse of the car into site #234123 does not imply any physical change in the position of the car."
p. 231: "Thus the measurement process has eliminated the off-diagonal terms in [p] and hence turned a pure state into a mixture. It is important to remember that this non-unitary non-coherent evolution arise because we look only on the state of the system. On a universal scale the evolution is in fact unitary."

[Ref. 2] Mohammad Mehrafarin, A geometric approach to the canonical 
reformulation of quantum mechanics, quant-ph/0409086 v2.

Note: To understand the potential reality "behind" the four sayings above, see the John's jacket story and the proposal for 'potential point'. I'm only trying to supply QM and GR with what they do not have: reality.

When I encountered the weirdness of QM in 1972, I was told that one can "solve" the main puzzle of QM simply by adopting the Marxist-Leninist philosophy and the "statistical interpretation" [Ref. 1]. Now we have a sophisticated Marxist-Leninist off-spring called 'quantum computing', and our students are still left in the dark. Students are kids, and kids have the right to know everything.

To begin with, how do you explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum realm? The so-called decoherence doesn't work. The reader is welcomed to verify my statement (certainly not original) by elaborating on the case here.

D. Chakalov
May 27, 2006


Subject: quant-ph/9905077 and Penrose's puzzle
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:27:09 +0300
From: "Dimiter G. Chakalov" <>

Dear Professors Kochen and Ax:

I'm trying to find an iterated conditional spectral state (Eq. 7-4 from your "Extension of Quantum Mechanics to Individual Systems", quant-ph/9905077) applicable to the famous puzzle due to Penrose,

The way I see it, the problem boils down to the determination of the past of a system [Ref. 1].

Can you help, please?

Also, may I ask you for clarification of your statement made in "Time Travel":

"Actually, from the point of view of the individual theory of QM, talking of "things" already implies an unwarranted separation of states of the universe."

Would you agree that a Kantian 'Ding an sich' can not be excluded on purely logical grounds? It seems to me that Prof. Chris Isham (cf. footnote 10 in [Ref. 2]) is not alien to this possibility.

My efforts to understand QM are summarized atäxjö


Dimiter G. Chakalov
(last update 6 May 2002)


[Ref. 1] A. Peres. Reply to the comment of Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman on "Time asymmetry in quantum mechanics: a retrodiction paradox".

"A formal statement of the above property is that an optimal determination of the past of a system can be achieved by an informationally complete set of physical quantities. Such a set is always strongly noncommutative."

[Ref. 2] J. Butterfield and C.J. Isham. Spacetime and the Philosophical Challenge of Quantum Gravity.



Subject: Quantum Mechanics 101
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:50:00 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <>

Dear colleagues,

Regarding the quote from Feynman in your latest arXiv:0807.3286v1
: I believe I understand QM,

If you believe can prove me wrong, please don't hesitate to write me back.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

Note: The quote from Richard Feynman, which prompted my email above, was this (J. Conway and S. Kochen didn't provide a reference):

“If someone tells you they understand quantum mechanics, then all you’ve learned is that you’ve met a liar.”

I never heard from John Conway and Simon Kochen, and probably never will.

D. Chakalov
July 25, 2008