On the zigzagging causality EPR model: Answer to Vigier and coworkers and to Sutherland

Abstract

The concept of “propagation in time” of Vigier and co-workers (V et al.) implies the idea of a supertime; it is thus alien to most Minkowskian pictures and certainly to mine. From this stems much of Vet al.'s misunderstandings of my position. In steady motion of a classical fluid nobody thinks that “momentum conservation is violated,” or that “momentum is shot upstream without cause” because of the suction from the sinks! Similarly with momentum-energy in space-time and the acceptance of an advanced causality. As for the CT invariance of the Feynman propagator, the causality asymmetry it entails is factlike, not lawlike. The geometrical counterpart of the symmetry between prediction and retrodiction and between retarded and advanced waves, as expressed in the alternative expressions 〈B|UA〉=〈BU|A〉=〈B|U|A〉 for a transition amplitude between a preparation |A〉 and a measurement |B〉, is CPT-invariant, not PT-invariant. These three expressions respectively illustrate the collapse, the retrocollapse, and the symmetric collapse-and-retrocollapse concepts. As for Sutherland's argument, what it “falsifies” is not my retrocausation concept but the hidden-variables assumption he has unwittingly made.