You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog Nick Herbert & The Greek Bearing Gifts Back From The Future V2

On Feb 1, 2013, at 8:10 PM, nick herbert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

Demetrios--

I'm already assembling a thought experiment in my head.

The nicest thing about thought experiments is that

all the sources and detectors are ideal

and work perfectly every time.

If we can't find a flaw using thought experiments

then physicists in every optics lab on Earth

will stampede

to be the first to observe

the Kalamidas Effect.

And reap the rewards.

Nick

On Feb 1, 2013, at 7:30 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:

Nick, you state:

"Although all of the parts of this experiment are

possible the whole experiment itself would be quite difficult."

It would indeed be a technically challenging experiment, on the order of complexity of Zeilinger's recent Canary Islands teleportation stuff, IF the required distance to achieve the superluminality condition is sought for....

HOWEVER, if this bizarre effect is observed in just a table-top version, on the order of one meter, it will be extremely strong evidence that the same effect will be seen even if we stretch out the left and right wings to 10s or 100s of miles....there is no change in the nature of the set-up by doing this.

The superluminality condition in my set-up is achieved when the distance is large enough for an observer, on the left, to statistically distinguish a "1" from a "0" before a classical and luminal signal gets there (and that is just a function of the efficiency of my scheme and technology).

Demetrios

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 19:02:04 -0800

nick herbert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

Well it isn't going to work.

But we may learn something

by seeing where it fails.

Although all of the parts of this experiment are possible

the whole experiment itself would be quite difficult.

Thought experiments are easier and cheaper

and don't need any hardware

except the human mind

and some paper and pencils.

So real experiment is premature.

On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:55 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Nose to the grindstone Nick!

I await your penetrating analysis.

If this worked it would be a Brave New World. ;-)

I have been preoccupied with Jim Woodward's Star Ship book and have only been giving this partial attention.

On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:44 PM, nick herbert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

Demetrios--

Clever. And of course--if it works -- there exist an optimum product alpha x r that maximizes the Kalamidas Effect.

I can't offhand refute it but now that I understand what you're doing

I will certainly try.

Thanks, Jack, for sending me this clever FTL scheme.

Nick

On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:00 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:

Hi Nick,

Yes....you got the main point of what I'm trying to do.

In Mandel's experiment, the "two halves" in which an idler photon can exist are collapsed into a single path such that the origin of the idler is "in principle" impossible to determine....we don't even need any detectors in that idler path to destructively register a photon.

I am doing an analogous action by "blurring" each of the two halves (modes a2 and b2),in which a right-going photon can exist, with an indefinite photon number so that again, albeit in a less efficient and more noisy way, we cannot SOMETIMES tell, even in principle, if that right-going photon existed in mode a2 or in mode b2.

The "sometimes" part is, namely, the outcome |1>a2'|1>b2' since it could be that: the photon in a2' came from the entangled pair while the photon in b2' came from a weak coherent state !OR! the photon in a2' came from a weak coherent state while the photon in b2' came from the entangled pair.

We DO NOT NEED ANY DETECTORS on the right wing of the experiment, as in Mandel's set-up. In my scenario, the possible outcomes in modes a2' and b2' (in terms of photon number) are: 01,10,11,02,20,12,21 which are all "in principle" distinguishable, with the only caveat being that the outcome "11" has the special effect of erasing the path information of a left- going photon (which in turn leads to a small amount of interference on the left).

Demetrios

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:56:00 -0800

nick herbert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

Demetrios--

I am trying to understand your device.

You seem to be trying to erase the "which path" info

without combining the two possible paths.

How are you doing this?

For clarity I assume your detectors are perfect

and measure the Number of Photons in

each two-photon entangled event.

In any ordinary experiment that number (or either side a or b) must be One.

And where that One Photon ends up can indicate

Which Path or Which Interference Pattern depending on design.

Both of these designs involve coincidence detection.

If I understand your proposal

you attempt to erase the which-path info

by adding (via a biased beam splitter)

a coherent state to each possibility channel.

Since coherent states possess an indefinite photon number

the number of photons that appear at the detectors is also indefinite

and the observer cannot decide

which path the photon took

no matter what the reading of the detectors.

Is this how your device works?

Nick

On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:51 PM, nick herbert wrote:

Each single photon of the pair is produced in a SUPERPOSITION

of a and b directions. Observation of "which path" can collapse the

superposition into either a or b but (in conventional experiments)

these collapses (in the absence of coincidence signals) appear

to occur at random.

Destroying the path information by conventional means

(say, combining a and b in a beam splitter) does not

produce interference by itself but can do so if coincidence

signals are introduced.

DAK claims that by adding coherent states to the separated

halves of the superposition, that he can destroy "which path"

information in a manner that produces "weak interference"

without resorting to coincidence signals.

On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:

Hi guys,

....and thanks for the interest in my idea....and SORRY! Fred for not getting back to you, I've been traveling all last week and this week for my job....I'm responding from an MIT computer right now (as I'm working).

Let me try to quickly clarify some points:

The source S produces only SINGLE PAIRS of photons, with a photon pair created in modes a1a2 !OR! b1b2.

In Mandel's experiment, it is the overlap of the two idler modes causes erasure of the 'which-way' info for a signal photon. I wanted to find an 'unfolded' version of this concept so that space-like separation could be achieved.

The method that, I purport, does the job of erasing the 'which- way' info for a left-going photon (that could be in EITHER mode a1 OR in mode b1) is that the corresponding modes, a2 and b2, are 'mixed' with weak coherent states (each having at most one photon) such that, sometimes, we'll get one photon in each of the two output modes, a2' and b2', and this makes it impossible to tell where each of these two photons came from. If the math is valid, this procedure leads to a small amount of 'pure state' on the left wing of the experiment....as opposed to the completely mixed state that would arise if the coherent states were absent and only the two-photon state from S was present.

I'll try to keep up with any further comments, questions, and discussions.

Demetrios

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:03:37 -0800

JACK SARFATTI <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

PS

OK the two coherent state inputs replace Mandel's idler photons. So when you include a3 & b3 with the original pair from S you have 4-photon states in the Hilbert space two of them are Glauber states and the original pair are Fock states.

Begin forwarded message:

On Jan 30, 2013, at 12:56 PM, JACK SARFATTI <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

Wait a second, he has 4 photons s1, i1, s2, i2 - at least in the Mandel experiment

However, you & Fred are right, Kalamidas's picture is confusing it seems to show only two photons, but he cites Mandel, so does he actually have 4 photons - two signal & two idler like Mandel? On Jan 30, 2013, at 12:41 PM, nick herbert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

Fred Wolf is right. Like the original EPR this is a TWO- PARTICLE experiment -- one particle going to the left and one particle going to the right in each elemental emission. If DAK's argument depends on seeing this as a 4- particle experiment, then DAK is certainly WRONG.

Nick Herbert

On Jan 29, 2013, at 10:22 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Thanks Fred.

I hadn't thought to check out his starting point Eq. 1 I only looked at Eq. 6. These experiments are tricky. I have not yet understood the details. Hopefully Nick & others will chime in. Begin forwarded message:

From: "fred alan wolf" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Subject: RE: PPS Demetrios A. Kalamidas's new claim for superluminal entanglement communication looks obvious at second sight

Date: January 28, 2013 11:11:31 PM PST

To: "'JACK SARFATTI'" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Of course it is wrong for some serious and perhaps not so obvious reason. He has confused a four photon state with an entanglement of two entangled (two) particle states. He approached me and I explained why it was wrong. Here is my explanation sent to him to which he has not responded:

“Thanks for the paper. Following Zeilinger’s paper (attached) I am having some trouble understanding your eq. 1. If I understand it correctly you are using a path entanglement scheme similar to the one illustrated in Zeilinger’s attached paper (p S290). Therefore I think you should have a1 entangled with b2 and a2 entangled with b1. We would get e.g., (|a1>|b2>+ |b1>| a2>)/Ö2. Given that |a1> = (|0>+exp(iphi)|1>)/Ö2, and similarly for a2, b1, and b2, I fail to see how you get your eq. 1, which seems to be some kind of mixed four photon state.” Best Wishes,

Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D. aka Dr. Quantum ®

Category: MyBlog

Written by Jack Sarfatti

Published on Friday, 01 February 2013 19:02

't Hooft 100 Year Star Ship Abner Shimony accelerometers action-reaction principle Aephraim Sternberg Alan Turing Albert Einstein Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer American Institute of Physics Andrija Puharich Anthony Valentin Anton Zeilinger Antony Valentini anyon Apple Computer Artificial Intelligence Asher Peres Back From The Future Basil Hiley Bell's theorem Ben Affleck Ben Libet Bernard Carr Bill Clinton black body radiation Black Hole black hole firewall black hole information paradox black holes Bohm brain waves Brian Josephson Broadwell Cambridge University Carnot Heat Engine Central Intelligence Agency CIA Clive Prince closed time like curves coherent quantum state Consciousness conservation laws Cosmic Landscape Cosmological Constant cosmology CTC cyber-bullying Dancing Wu Li Masters Dark Energy Dark Matter DARPA Daryl Bem David Bohm David Deutsch David Gross David Kaiser David Neyland David Tong de Sitter horizon Dean Radin Deepak Chopra delayed choice Demetrios A. Kalamidas Demetrios Kalamidas Dennis Sciama Destiny Matrix Dick Bierman Doppler radars E8 group Einstein's curved spacetime gravity Einstein's happiest thought electromagnetism Eli Cartan EMP Nuclear Attack entanglement signals ER=EPR Eric Davis Ernst Mach ET Eternal Chaotic Inflation evaporating black holes Facebook Faster-Than-Light Signals? fictitious force firewall paradox flying saucers FQXi Frank Tipler Frank Wilczek Fred Alan Wolf Free Will G.'t Hooft Garrett Moddel Gary Zukav gauge theory general relativity Geometrodynamics Gerard 't Hooft Giancarlo Ghirardi God Goldstone theorem gravimagnetism gravity Gravity - the movie gravity gradiometers gravity tetrads Gravity Waves Gregory Corso gyroscopes hacking quantum cryptographs Hagen Kleinert Hal Puthoff Hawking radiation Heisenberg Henry Stapp Herbert Gold Higgs boson Higgs field hologram universe Horizon How the Hippies Saved Physics I.J. Good ICBMs Igor Novikov inertial forces inertial navigation Inquisition Internet Iphone Iran Isaac Newton Israel Jack Sarfatti Jacques Vallee James F. Woodward James Woodward JASON Dept of Defense Jeffrey Bub Jesse Ventura Jim Woodward John Archibald Wheeler John Baez John Cramer John S. Bell Ken Peacock Kip Thorne Kornel Lanczos La Boheme Laputa Large Hadron Collider Lenny Susskind Leonard Susskind Levi-Civita connection LHC CERN libel Louis de Broglie Lubos Motl LUX Lynn Picknett M-Theory Mach's Principle Mae Jemison Making Starships and Star Gates Martin Rees Mathematical Mind MATRIX Matter-AntiMatter Asymmetry Max Tegmark Menas Kafatos Michael Persinger Michael Towler microtubules Milky way MIT MOSSAD multiverse NASA Nick Bostrum Nick Herbert Nobel Prize nonlocality Obama organized-stalking Origin of Inertia P. A. M. Dirac P.K.Dick P.W. Anderson Paranormal parapsychology Paul Werbos Perimeter Institute Petraeus Physical Review Letters Physics Today Post-Quantum Physics pre-Big Bang precognition presponse PSI WARS Psychic Repression qualia Quantum Chromodynamics quantum computers quantum entanglement quantum field theory quantum gravity Quantum Information Theory Quantum Theory RAF Spitfires Ray Chiao Red Chinese Remote Viewing retrocausality Reviews of Modern Physics Richard Feynman Richard P. Feynman Rindler effect Robert Anton Wilson Robert Bigelow Roger Penrose rotating black holes Roy Glauber Rupert Sheldrake Russell Targ Ruth Elinor Kastner S-Matrix Sagnac effect Sam Ting Sanford Underground Research Facility Sarfatti Lectures in Physics Scientific American Second Law of Thermodynamics Seth Lloyd signal nonlocality Skinwalker Ranch social networks space drive space-time crystal SPECTRA - UFO COMPUTER spontaneous broken symmetry SRI Remote Viewing Experiments Stanford Physics Stanford Research Institute Star Gate Star Ship Star Trek Q Stargate Starship Stephen Hawking Steven Weinberg stretched membrane string theory strong force gluons Stuart Hameroff superconducting meta-material supersymmetry symmetries telepathy Templeton The Guardian Thought Police time crystal time travel topological computers Topological Computing torsion UFO Unitarity unitary S-Matrix false? Unruh effect Uri Geller VALIS virtual particle Virtual Reality Warp Drive weak force Wheeler-Feynman WIMP WMAP WMD world crystal lattice wormhole Yakir Aharonov Yuri Milner

- November 2015(1)
- January 2015(1)
- December 2014(1)
- August 2014(2)
- July 2014(2)
- June 2014(2)
- May 2014(1)
- April 2014(6)
- March 2014(6)
- February 2014(1)
- January 2014(3)
- December 2013(5)
- November 2013(8)
- October 2013(13)
- September 2013(8)
- August 2013(12)
- July 2013(3)
- June 2013(32)
- May 2013(3)
- April 2013(6)
- March 2013(6)
- February 2013(15)
- January 2013(5)
- December 2012(15)
- November 2012(15)
- October 2012(18)
- September 2012(12)
- August 2012(15)
- July 2012(30)
- June 2012(13)
- May 2012(18)
- April 2012(12)
- March 2012(28)
- February 2012(15)
- January 2012(25)
- December 2011(29)
- November 2011(30)
- October 2011(39)
- September 2011(22)
- August 2011(41)
- July 2011(42)
- June 2011(24)
- May 2011(13)
- April 2011(13)
- March 2011(15)
- February 2011(17)
- January 2011(31)
- December 2010(19)
- November 2010(22)
- October 2010(31)
- September 2010(41)
- August 2010(30)
- July 2010(27)
- June 2010(12)
- May 2010(20)
- April 2010(19)
- March 2010(27)
- February 2010(34)