We revisit the introduction of the Superluminal Lorentz transformations which carry from “bradyonic” inertial frames to “tachyonic” inertial frames, i.e., which transform time-like objects into space-like objects, andvice versa. It has long been known that special relativity can be extended to Superluminal observers only by increasing the number of dimensions of the space-time or—which is in a sense equivalent—by releasing the reality condition (i.e., introducing also imaginary quantities). In the past we always adopted the latter procedure. Here we show the (...) connection between that procedure and the former one. In other words, in order to clarify the physical meaning of the imaginary units entering the classical theory of tachyons, we have temporarily to call into play anauxiliary six-dimensional space-time M(3, 3); however, we are eventually able to go back to the four-dimensional Minkowski space-time. We revisit the introduction of the Superluminal Lorentz transformations also under another aspect. In fact, the generalized Lorentz transformations had been previously written down in a form suited only for the simple case of collinear boosts (e.g., they formed a group just for collinear boosts). We express now the Superluminal Lorentz transformations in a more general form, so that they constitute a group together with the ordinary—orthochronousand antichronous—Lorentz transformations, and reduce to the previous form in the case of collinear boosts. Our approach introduces either real or imaginary quantities, with exclusion of (generic) complex quantities. In the present context, a procedure—in two steps—for interpreting the imaginary quantities is put forth and discussed. In the case of a chain of generalized Lorentz transformations, such a procedure (when necessary) is to be applied only at the end of the chain. Finally, we justify why we call “transformations” also the Superluminal ones. (shrink)

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. (shrink)