Text Size

Stardrive

For discussion
"The researchers conducted a mirror experiment to show that by changing the position of the mirror in a vacuum, virtual particles can be transformed into real photons that can be experimentally observed. In a vacuum, there is energy and noise, the existence of which follows the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130226092128.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I use the inverse argument to the above in my argument that the dark energy accelerating the universe is cosmic redshifted advanced Wheeler-Feynman real photon thermal Hawking-Unruh radiation back from our future cosmic event horizon (Lp thick) of energy density hc/Lp^4 that appears as virtual photons with ~ 10^-122 smaller energy density hc/Lp^2A in our detectors from Type 1a supernovae. A = area-entropy of our future light cone's intersection with our observer-dependent de Sitter future horizon (also applies to Type 1a supernovae in the past light cones of our telescopes).


&

On CCC-predicted concentric low-variance circles in the CMB sky
V. G. Gurzadyan1 and R. Penrose2
1 Alikhanian National Laboratory and Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia
2 Mathematical Institute, 24-29 St Giles, Oxford OX1 3LB, U.K
Received: date / Revised version: date
Abstract. A new analysis of the CMB, using WMAP data, supports earlier indications of non-Gaussian features of concentric circles of low temperature variance. Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) predicts such features from supermassive black-hole encounters in an aeon preceding our Big Bang. The significance of individual low-variance circles in the true data has been disputed; yet a recent independent analysis has confirmed CCC’s expectation that CMB circles have a non-Gaussian temperature distribution. Here we
examine concentric sets of low-variance circular rings in the WMAP data, finding a highly non-isotropic distribution. A new “sky-twist” procedure, directly analysing WMAP data, without appeal to simulations, shows that the prevalence of these concentric sets depends on the rings being circular, rather than even slightly elliptical, numbers dropping off dramatically with increasing ellipticity. This is consistent with CCC’s expectations; so also is the crucial fact that whereas some of the rings’ radii are found to reach around
15◦, none exceed 20◦. The non-isotropic distribution of the concentric sets may be linked to previously known anomalous and non-Gaussian CMB features.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130226092128.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

MIT DARK MATTER DISCOVERY? http://t.co/0Cuupxo5pr via @regvulture If real WIMPs exist, then I am wrong that Dark Matter is a virtual fermion-antifermion pair effect inside the quantum vacuum. They generate attractive gravity. Virtual bosons generate repulsive anti-gravity. That this is so comes from the equivalence principle of Einstein and the spin-statistics connection of quantum field theory.
MIT boffin teases space-station probe's DARK MATTER DISCOVERY • The Register
theregister.co.uk
MIT scientist and Nobel Laureate in Physics Samuel Ting told reporters at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that the first results from the costly Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) are ready.

COMMENTS

Comment on “Trouble with the Lorentz Law of Force: Incompatibility with Special Relativity and Momentum Conservation”
Daniel A. T. Vanzella
Published 20 February 2013 (2 pages)
089401

Comment on “Trouble with the Lorentz Law of Force: Incompatibility with Special Relativity and Momentum Conservation”
Stephen M. Barnett
Published 20 February 2013 (1 page)
089402

Comment on “Trouble with the Lorentz Law of Force: Incompatibility with Special Relativity and Momentum Conservation”
Pablo L. Saldanha
Published 20 February 2013 (2 pages)
089403

Comment on “Trouble with the Lorentz Law of Force: Incompatibility with Special Relativity and Momentum Conservation”
Mohammad Khorrami
Published 20 February 2013 (1 page)
089404

Mansuripur Replies:
Masud Mansuripur
Published 20 February 2013 (1 page)
089405
 Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 080503 (2013) [5 pages]

Entanglement and Particle Identity: A Unifying Approach

Abstract
References
No Citing Articles
Download: PDF (111 kB) Export: BibTeX or EndNote (RIS)

A. P. Balachandran1,2,*, T. R. Govindarajan1,3,†, Amilcar R. de Queiroz4,‡, and A. F. Reyes-Lega5,§ 1Institute of Mathematical Sciences, CIT Campus, Taramani, Chennai 600113, India
2Physics Department, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1130, USA
3Chennai Mathematical Institute, H1, SIPCOT IT Park, Kelambakkam, Siruseri 603103, India
4Instituto de Fisica, Universidade de Brasilia, Caixa Postal 04455, 70919-970 Brasilia, Distrito Federal, Brazil
5Departamento de Física, Universidad de los Andes, Apartado Aéreo 4976 Bogotá, Distrito Capital, Colombia

Received 22 June 2012; revised 8 November 2012; published 22 February 2013

It has been known for some years that entanglement entropy obtained from partial trace does not provide the correct entanglement measure when applied to systems of identical particles. Several criteria have been proposed that have the drawback of being different according to whether one is dealing with fermions, bosons, or distinguishable particles. In this Letter, we give a precise and mathematically natural answer to this problem. Our approach is based on the use of the more general idea of the restriction of states to subalgebras. It leads to a novel approach to entanglement, which is suitable to be used in general quantum systems and especially in systems of identical particles. This settles some recent controversy regarding entanglement for identical particles. The prospects for applications of our criteria are wide ranging, from spin chains in condensed matter to entropy of black holes.

© 2013 American Physical Society

URL:
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.080503
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.080503
PACS:
03.67.Mn, 02.30.Tb, 03.65.Ud, 89.70.Cf
*bal@phy.syr.edu

†trg@imsc.res.in

‡amilcarq@unb.br

§anreyes@uniandes.edu.co

 Systems of identical particles.—In the case of identical
particles, the Hilbert space of the system is no longer of the
tensor product form. Therefore, the treatment of subsystems
using partial trace becomes problematic. In contrast,
in our approach, all that is needed to describe a subsystem
is the specification of a subalgebra that corresponds to the
subsystem. Then, the restriction of the original state to the
subalgebra provides a physically motivated generalization
of the concept of partial trace, the latter not being sensible
anymore. Applying the GNS construction to the restricted
state, we can study the entropy emerging from the restriction
and use it as a generalized measure of entanglement.

                      Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 080501 (2013) [4 pages]

Fundamental Bound on the Reliability of Quantum Information Transmission

Abstract
References
No Citing Articles
Supplemental Material
Download: PDF (111 kB) Export: BibTeX or EndNote (RIS)

Naresh Sharma* and Naqueeb Ahmad Warsi† Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Mumbai 400005, India

Received 17 August 2012; published 20 February 2013

Information theory tells us that if the rate of sending information across a noisy channel were above the capacity of that channel, then the transmission would necessarily be unreliable. For classical information sent over classical or quantum channels, one could, under certain conditions, make a stronger statement that the reliability of the transmission shall decay exponentially to zero with the number of channel uses, and the proof of this statement typically relies on a certain fundamental bound on the reliability of the transmission. Such a statement or the bound has never been given for sending quantum information. We give this bound and then use it to give the first example where the reliability of sending quantum information at rates above the capacity decays exponentially to zero. We also show that our framework can be used for proving generalized bounds on the reliability.

© 2013 American Physical Society

URL:
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.080501
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.080501
PACS:
03.67.Hk
*nsharma@tifr.res.in

†naqueeb@tifr.res.in

On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:39 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

O Brave New World ;-)
We argue that generic nonrelativistic quantum field theories with a holographic description are dual to Hořava gravity. We construct explicit examples of this duality embedded in string theory by starting with relativistic dual pairs and taking a nonrelativistic scaling limit.

<HologramPhysRevLett.110.081601.pdf>


Feb 18

testing ignore

Posted by: lensman |
Tagged in: Untagged 

 2-19-13

BBC News - Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to release first results http://t.co/9BrasObB
'Space LHC' to release first results
bbc.in
The scientist leading the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, one of the most expensive experiments ever put into space, says the project is ready to come forward with its first results.
Jack Sarfatti "The scientist leading one of the most expensive experiments ever put into space says the project is ready to come forward with its first results.

Nobel Laureate Sam Ting said the scholarly paper to be published in a few weeks would concern dark matter.

This is the unseen material whose gravity holds galaxies together.

Researchers do not know what form this mysterious cosmic component takes, but one theory points to it being some very weakly interacting massive particle (or Wimp for short).

Although telescopes cannot detect the Wimp, there are high hopes that AMS can confirm its existence and describe some of its properties from indirect measures."

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21495800

If my idea is correct, there will be no evidence for real dark matter particles whizzing through space from this device.

Dark matter is a virtual particle effect inside the quantum vacuum. It is the phase where the density of virtual fermion-antifermion pairs outweighs the density of virtual bosons. Dark energy is the opposite.

w = -1 for both in 3D + 1.

The physics is elementary

quantum statistics (permutation symmetry) in 3D

equivalence principle

local Lorentz invariance
www.bbc.co.uk
The scientist leading the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, one of the most expensive...See More
Apple's Killer App for Iphone? Photographing & videoing the future? P.K. Dick rises from his grave. ;-)
Like · · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti Begin forwarded message:

    From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
    Subject: [ExoticPhysics] Spacelike (FTL) Entanglement Signals with Trapped Ions? "magic wand" Apple's killer app. ; -)
    Date: February 11, 2013 8:22:02 PM PST
    To: Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
    Reply-To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>

    Indeed, unless I am mistaken, this ultimately solid state system can be packaged into an Apple I phone to take photographs of the future seen in the past.

    "6.5. Quantum Teleportation Mechanical States
    Analogous to continuous-variable teleportation of optical states [220], one can teleport the quantum state of one mechanical oscillator to the other, if two entangled squeezed
    beams are used to drive them, each of their positions are measured | and with results fed back to the other one (as shown in Fig. 18).

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1302.1924.pdf

    Imagine we can do Fig 18 with phonons rather than photons in some long crystal rod.

    Each mechanical oscillator A & B is a trapped ion with internal qubits 1,0 eigenvalues at the two ends of the crystal rod ("magick wand" ;-))

    The coherent phonon Glauber states are z & z' for the center of mass motions of the ions.

    The initial state is

    |A,B>i =(1/2)^1/2[|1>A|z>A + |0>A|z'>A + |1>B|z>B + |0>B|z'>B]

    after the entanglement swapping via teleportation of the Glauber coherent phonon states the prepared final state is

    |A,B>f = (1/2)^1/2[|1>A|z>B + |0>A|z'>B + |1>B|z>A + |0>B|z'>A]

    Use the Born rule in density matrix trace formalism to get e.g.

    P(1)A = (1/2)(1 + | B<z|z'>B |^2)

    This violates the parameter independence no-signal arguments of orthodox quantum theory because the Glauber coherent states are macroscopically distinguishable and non-orthogonal.

    The Born probability rule breaks down in Antony Valentini's sense for Glauber states when they are entangled with other states.

    P(1)A + P(0)A = 1 + | B<z|z'>B |^2

    Not only can A & B be spacelike separated, but we can operate the "magick wand" in Wheeler delayed choice mode in which a tiny video camera is at B which transmits images and audio from A's future back to A in the past.

    Indeed, this solid state system can be packaged into an Apple I phone to take photographs of the future.

    No doubt those ET's in their magnificent flying disks have such crystals?

    _______________________________________________
    ExoticPhysics mailing list
    ExoticPhysics@mail.softcafe.net
    http://mail.softcafe.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exoticphysics
    xxx.lanl.gov


On Feb 10, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Alexander Poltorak <apoltorak@generalpatent.com> wrote:

Paul,
 
I am not denying that there is a tensor part in a LC connection – I use it in my papers – the only thing I am saying is, to extract it, you need the second connection.

Right, no problem there mathematically. Physically it means adding new tensor fields like torsion & non-metricity.
 
Your previous assertion that there is a unique decomposition of LC into tensor and non-tensor part is incorrect.  Every time you  subtract another connection (affine or LC) from your first LC connection, you  get a tensor of affine deformation.  Since you can define infinite number of various connections on the manifold, there is infinite number of ways to decompose you LC into a tensor and non-tensor, as the affine deformation tensor will be different depending on the second connection.
 
However, what I think you are trying to say, is that there is one way to extract a tensor out of LC connection, which contains all information about the geometry but is a true tensor.  If this is what you are saying, that is certainly correct.  There is very simple way to do it – just subtract from your first LC connection another affine connection with zero curvature and torsion.  What you will get is a tensor of affine deformation that contains all information about the geometry defined by your original LC connection.  Essentially, what you are doing through this procedure, you are stripping the information about the coordinate system from your LC connection and leaving only information about the geometry imbedded in the tensor of affine deformation (which is also the tensor of nonmetricity for the affine connection with respect to the metric associated with your LC connection).  This gives you a unique tensor part of the LC connection that you are seeking.  But why reinvent the wheel and call it a “tensor of metricity” when everyone in the world calls tensor of nonmetricity or tensor of affine deformation?  You will only confuse people by inventing new terminology for well-known objects.  So far, it’s all pretty obvious.

OK, but then the question is what is the explicit structure, the formula for, this allegedly unique affine connection A with zero curvature and zero torsion? Also, "curvature" and torsion with respect to itself A? Or with respect to the original LC connection? It seems it must be the latter. The simplest connection with zero curvature and zero torsion relative to the LC connection is A = 0. But that is obviously not a good choice. Also connections describe frames of reference as well as parallel transport in the appropriate fiber space of the physically relevant fiber bundle.
 
I think where we run into a philosophical argument, is where you propose to discard the second connection.  I understand that mathematically speaking, you can do it.  But what is the physical meaning of this?  What is the meaning of your flat connection that you need to subtract from the LC connection to extract the tensor of affine deformation?  You can take two approaches: first, a-la Rosen, you can say that without gravitational field the spacetime ought to be flat and gravity curves it – hence we start with the flat connection (or Rosen’s flat metric  -- either way, it’s bimetrism, because LC connection always has its proper metric associated with it) and then introduce the second LC connection (and the second metric) describing the geometry change by the presence of gravitational field – the difference between the two will be your affine deformation tensor that describes the strength of gravitational field.  Or  you can follow my approach, where I propose that the first affine connection describes the choice of the frame of reference (in an IFR the connection has no curvature or torsion, but in a NIFR, the connection has curvature and, possibly, torsion).  But this is a question of interpretation.  The result will be the same – the use of the tensor of affine deformation or tensor of nonmetricity (if there is at least one metric) as the strength of the gravitational field, as I’ve done in my papers. ... But I don’t see what you are adding to what I have described more than 30 years ago.

OK, but here there is a conceptual philosophical problem. Frames of reference are only descriptions of frame-invariant geometric objects. Curvature and torsion are frame-invariant geometric objects. So this appears to be a contradiction since in your idea of "frame" geometric objects are no longer frame invariant. In terms of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, what is real are the objects what is frame dependent are the projected shadows from the objects. The shadows are the subjective frame-dependent representations of the real objects.
 
Best regards,
Alex
 
From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:04 AM
To: Alexander Poltorak
Cc: JACK SARFATTI; d14947 Gladstone; Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr.; james Woodward; Gerry Pelligrini; Saul-Paul Sirag
Subject: Re: KISS OFF! ;-)
 
Alex,

Thanks for your response. Comments below.

On 2/9/2013 8:43 PM, Alexander Poltorak wrote:
Paul: see my comments below:
 
From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 3:01 PM
To: Alexander Poltorak
Cc: JACK SARFATTI; d14947 Gladstone; Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr.; james Woodward; Gerry Pelligrini; Saul-Paul Sirag
Subject: Re: KISS OFF! ;-)
 
Alex,

I'm sorry but I have to say that what you wrote below is simply erroneous.

If I understand your position correctly, you are saying that it is only possible to extract a non-zero tensor from the LC connection as the
non-metricity of a second "Affine" connection, and that since no such connection is available in orthodox GR (which I think everyone
agrees with), the LC connection *has no tensor part in that theory*. In other words, the second Affine connection being unavailable, the LC connection is "irreducibly non-tensorial" in that context.
 
[AP] That is correct, that’s my assertion.

But this is clearly false, since all that is required here is that it be shown that there is a quantity contained in the LC connection whose components A^u_vw transform according to tensor rules.
 
[AP] Be my guest, try to prove it. I don’t think you will succeed.

OK then suppose we have the second connection, and use it your way to identify a class of (1, 2) tensors Acontained in the LC connection. How can removing the second connection from the formalism change the coordinate transformation properties of the quantity A^u_vw once it is identified? How can that be possible?

It's one thing to say that it is not "explicitly" present, as you did, but it's quite another to say that it's not present at all.

My position here is that once it is identified (or "extracted" in your terminology) and its transformation properties are established, the removal of the second
connection that is used to identify it only prevents us from calling it the "non-metricity" of the missing connection. It doesn't prevent us from classifying it as
a tensor.

Or is it your position that this quantity goes to zero when the second connection is removed from the theory?


Once this is established, there is no need for a second connection since then the existence of such a quantity depends only on this independent condition being satisfied. So you can use a second connection as a "construction for the sake of proof" in order to isolate the tensor part of the LC connection, and then discard it once the existence of the tensor quantity is established.
 
[AP] Yes, if you can show that there is a quantity contained in the LC connection whose components A^u_vw transform according to tensor rules, the second connection would not be required. However, you have not shown it and, I am afraid, you will not be able to show it.

Then what is your -Q^u_vw? This is the negative of the non-metricity of the second "Affine" connection, right? You seem to be saying that the components -Q^u_vw no longer transform according to the (1, 2) tensor rules when the second connection is excluded from the theory. Or else that they all go to zero.

How exactly does that work, in your view?


 
Here is a simple illustration of the fallacy of this proposition.  If you chose normal (aka Riemannian) coordinates in the vicinity of point p, Christoffel Symbols of your LC connection vanish in the vicinity of p, which could not happen if LC connection contained a tensor component.
Ah OK I see.

But in my theory of the LC connection, the Riemann coordinates make a non-tensor contribution to the LC connection that cancels the tensor geometric contribution, i.e., the matrix representations of the coordinate and geometric contributions to the LC connection sum in the Riemann CS to give a *zero matrix*.

According to my understanding the coordinate contributions to the LC connection depend only on the non-linear character of the diffeomorphic transformations on the coordinate space R^4, and do not at all depend on the intrinsic geometry of the object manifold.
So this is a fundamental difference in our respective understandings of the nature of the LC connection and its relationship to the coordinates and the coordinate space R^n.

From my perspective your argument is circular, since according to my understanding you still get a vanishing LC connection around any given point p in a Riemann CS
even with a non-zero tensor geometric part.


Here is even simpler proof: take a flat Minkowski space.  In curvilinear coordinates, Christoffel symbols will be non-zero, but in Minkowski coordinates they all vanish globally.  How would that be possible if there was a tensor component there?

Easy. The tensor geometric part of the LC connection is zero everywhere on a Minkowski manifold.

Which means that on a flat manifold in R^n-curvilinear coordinates you have a non-zero pure affine connection except for a *zero* geometric contribution (i.e., a zero tensor).
Referring to the theory of parallel transport, this is because on a flat manifold the inner product defined by the Minkowski metric
is invariant under transport of vectors along the manifold, and thus there is nothing to correct for in the partial derivatives of tensors,
except for curved-coordinate artifacts. So all that applies in this case, and all that is present, is the coordinate part of the LC connection, which enables the LC covariant derivative to correct the coordinate artifacts. The zero geometric part does nothing.

In other words, in the *unique* decomposition

Γ^u_vw = G^u_vw + X^u_vw

on a globally flat Minkowski manifold, all G^u_vw = 0, some X^u_vw =/= 0.
 
This makes perfect sense to me, since here we are interested in the covariant first order *geometric* variation of the inner product under infinitesimal displacement of vectors/tensors along the manifold, which clearly vanishes for a Minkowski manifold.



Also it is not true that defining a second connection is the *only* way to extract such a tensor, since for example as I've mentioned you can take the difference between two LC connections (compatible with different metrics) to get a similar results, and then discard the second metric as a "construction for the sake of proof" afterwards.
 
[AP] I don’t understand your argument here.  By introducing the second LC connection associated with another metric you have introduced the second connection, haven’t you?  Of course, the difference between two LC connection will always be a tensor.
Yes exactly.


The difference between any two Affine connections is always a tensor, called tensor of affine deformation.
Correct.


But you need the second connection, metric (i.e., LC) or not (i.e. Affine)!

Yes but because the geometric contribution G^u_vw to the LC connection is zero for the flat manifold, it does nothing,
and we can simply remove it from the definition of the resulting tensor quantity without disturbing anything. Then we have a
standalone tensor G^u_vw that only refers by definition to *one* metric. That's the trick.

That's what I meant by "kicking down the ladder behind you". It's just a mathematical construction for the sake of proof.

It's very important to understand that the resulting tensor is a standalone quantity whose transformation properties are not
affected in the slightest by removal of the zero flat space contribution.
I can show that the resulting tensor is the negative of the non-metricity of what I'm calling the "pure affine connection",
which has no geometric part and is thus irreducibly tensorial.
So all roads lead to Rome.



Thus the correct statement here would be that while the tensor that is exposed by the application of the covariant derivative associated with your second "Affine" connection is not the *non-metricity* tensor of the Affine connection if the second Affine connection is not defined, it is still a *tensor* quantity transforming according to tensor rules that is mathematically present in the LC connection, regardless.
 
[AP] You lost me here again. A tensor obtained by replacing partial derivatives of the metric tensor in Christoffel symbols by covariant derivatives with respect to another connection is by definition the tensor of nonmetricity for that second connection.

Yes exactly. But if the second connection is removed from the theory, there can be no "non-metricity" tensor of *that* connection in the theory.
So in that case you can no longer *call* the tensor quantity extracted by that method a "non-metricity" tensor. But it still has the same tensor transformation properties, and is therefore still a tensor, and is still present in the LC connection, regardless.

That is shown clearly by the Levi-Civita dual metric construction, which exposes the same family of tensors without reference to a second connection; and according to the argument above, when you take one of the metrics to be flat, you can also remove all reference to the flat metric once you have identified a *unique* 3rd rank geometric tensor inside the LC connection, without disturbing the value or the transformation properties of the resulting quantity.


  You can do the same thing in your model where you have two metrics.  When you construct to LC connections based on each respective metric and then take a covariant derivative of the first metric with respect to LC connection associated with the second metric, you will get the tensor of nonmetricity of that second connection with respect to the first metric.  Or vice versa.  In this scenario, albeit you start with two metrics, you still have two connections.

Yes but see above. The kicking-down-the-ladder trick of removing the always-zero geometric part of the flat LC connection from the *definition* of the
resulting tensor yields a standalone quantity whose definition refers only to a *single* metric. Because removing a quantity that is *always zero* from
the definition numerically leaves the same tensor in place.



So we are talking about two things here: (1) the method used to isolate the tensor part of the LC connection; and (2) the tensor
properties of the quantity so isolated. [AP]  This is a tautology. Once you isolated “the tensor part of the LC connection” in (1), obvious, “the tensor properties of the quantity so isolated,” which is a tensor by your own definition, are guaranteed. Only (1) depends on the existence of a second connection in your theory, while (2) stands quite independently of (1) in your theory since it depends only on the transformation properties of the components A^u_vw under coordinate transformations, which are not at all dependent on the existence of the second connection.

So I stand by what I said: your argument in favor of what you understood to be Jack's position on this question is not logically consistent
with your position on the extraction of a non-zero tensor from the LC connection using your second Affine connection.


[AP] I respectfully disagree.

Are you now willing to acknowledge the error? [AP] I’d be glad to acknowledge, if I knew were the error was.

See above.

There is clearly a fundamental difference in our respective understandings of the LC connection. I am saying that Riemann coordinates
are R^n-curvilinear (in the coordinate space R^n) and therefore make a non-zero contribution to the LC connection, and that this cancels
the geometric part around any point in such a CS. In other words, the respective matrix representations of the two linearly independent
contributions mutual cancel in such a CS.

This is a basic point that I think will have to be resolved before we can go any further with this.

Regards,
Paul




Regards,
Paul

On 2/7/2013 1:34 PM, Alexander Poltorak wrote:
There is no logical contradiction. To get a tensor, you must introduce the second connection. It is not present in the standard formulation of GR – hence Jack correctly states that LC connection is irreducibly nontensorial.  We can get to a tensor, but for that we need the second connection (not the second metric, as you suggest, but the Affine connection), which does not exist explicitly in Einstein’s GR.
  —Alex




From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:59 PM
To: Alexander Poltorak
Cc: JACK SARFATTI; d14947 Gladstone; Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr.; james Woodward; Gerry Pelligrini; Saul-Paul Sirag
Subject: Re: KISS OFF! ;-)
 
Alex,

How can you say that the LC connection decomposes into a tensor and a non-tensor, and at the same time argue that Jack is
right when he says that the LC connection has no tensor part? This seems like a logical contradiction to me.

Of course the LC connection as a whole is a non-tensor, and of course the non-metricity Q^u_vw of the metric compatible LC connection is zero *by definition*. However, it doesn't follow that there is no tensor part in the "LC connection of GR". The LC connection of GR is the LC connection of Riemannian geometry, and the LC connection of Riemannian geometry contains an infinite class of (generally) non-zero tensors, as you yourself have argued.

It seems to me that the correct statement here is that the LC connection of GR does contain this tensor part, but this quantity
has not previously been physically interpreted in *orthodox* GR.

On 2/7/2013 12:38 PM, Alexander Poltorak wrote:
What Jack is talking about by saying there is no tensor component in 1916 GR's LC connection is as follows: a general Affine connection, as is well known, is a sum of a metric connection (aka LC connection), which is a non-tensorial quantity, nonmetriciy and torsion, which are both tensors. The only thing Jack is saying is that in standard 1916 GR, both nonmetriciy and torsion are zero and, therefore the Affine connection is equal to a LC connection, which is non-tensor -- hence, Jack says, there is no tensorial part in GR's connection and he is right of course.
 
 

Feb 07
  • ack Sarfatti Jack Sarfatti On Feb 6, 2013, at 3:49 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

    Again a very persuasive argument.

    You are correct that the |0>|1> term is small.

    But it is multiplied by a different |0>|1> term (to form the product state |0>|1>|0>|1>.
    The coefficients of this different |0>|1> term are surprisingly large.

    JS: Ah so, Holmes.

    NH: As to your ability to make alphaxr as large as you please. Do you think you can do this
    and 1) preserve normalization of the input coherent state? 2) preserve the truncation condition?

    JS: This issue of the normalization of the input coherent state is non-trivial. In the literature the authors on entangled coherent Glauber state put in what looks like an observer-dependent normalization forcing the Born probability rule to be obeyed. This can always be done ad_hoc, but it is not part of the rules of orthodox quantum theory where unitary time evolution guarantees invariance of the initial normalization choice that should not depend on what future choice is made by the measuring apparatus (for strong Von-Neumann projections).

    For example, for a trapped ion internal qubit +,- entangled with its coherent phonon center of mass motion z. z'+ instead of the unitary invariant choice

    | > = (1/2)^1/2[|z>|+> + |z'>|->]

    The Born rule trace over the non-orthogonal Glauber states gives the seemingly inconsistent result

    P(+) = P(-) = (1/2)[1 + |<z|z'>|^2]

    P(+) + P(-) > 1

    which I say is a breakdown of the Born probability rule in the sense of Antony Valentini's papers.

    The dynamics of Glauber state ground state Higgs-Goldstone-Anderson condensates with ODLRO (Penrose-Onsager) is inherently nonlinear and non-unitary governed by Landau-Ginzburg c-number equations coupled to q-number random noise. The bare part of the noise dynamics sans coupling to the condensate is of course orthodox quantum mechanical.

    Now what the published paper's authors do is to use an ad-hoc

    | > ' = | > = (1/2[1 + |<z|z'>|^2])^1/2[|z>|+> + |z'>|->]

    giving the usual no-signaling

    P(+) = P(-) = 1/2

    NH: And by the way, just what is the wavefunction for the input coherent state before the beam splitter?
    You are never specific about what has to go into the beamsplitter to achieve the performance you describe.
  • Jack Sarfatti On Feb 6, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:

    Hi to all,

    Concerning my scheme, as it appears in the paper, lets do a certain type of logical analysis of the purported result:

    Let's say that the source S has produced 1000 pairs of entangled photons in some unit time interval. This means that we have 1000 left-going photons (in either a1 or b1) AND 1000 right-going photons (in either a2 or b2).

    Let's say we have chosen 'r' to be so small that only 1 out of every 1000 right-going photons is actually reflected into modes a3' and b3'. So, 999 right-going photons have been transmitted into modes a2' and b2'.

    In my eq.6, we observe that the 'quantum erasure' part is proportional to 'ra'. Let's say we choose 'ra' such that '|ra|squared', which gives the probability of this outcome, is 10 percent.

    This means that roughly 100 right-going photons have caused 'quantum erasure', for their 100 left-going partners, by mixing with the coherent states in a2' and b2'.

    Thus, "fringes" on the left will be formed that show a variation of up to 100 photons, as phase 'phi' is varied, between the two outputs of beam splitter BS0.

    Now, for this total batch of 1000 right-going photons, ONLY ONE PHOTON, roughly, has made it into a3' or b3' and mixed with the coherent states over there.

    So, even if that ONE PHOTON contributes to "anti-fringes" on the left, it could only produce a variation of, roughly, up to 1 photon, as 'phi is varied, between the two outputs of BS0....and that is nowhere near canceling the "fringe" effect, but can, at most, cause a minute reduction in the "fringe" visibility.

    JS: This seems to be a plausible rational intuitively understandable informal argument. Very nice. However, words alone without the math can be deceiving.

    DK: Please note that we can choose 'r' to be as small as we desire, i.e. we can arrange so that one out of every billion right-going photons can be reflected into a3' and b3' WHILE STILL MAINTAINING the '|ra|squared'=10percent value (by just cranking up the initial coherent state amplitude accordingly).

    I wrote this logical interpretation of my proposal in order to show that Nick's analysis goes wrong somewhere in predicting equal amplitudes for the "fringe" and "anti-fringe" terms.
    Demetrios

    JS: I do hope Demetrios will prove correct of course. Even Nick Herbert desires that. Is young Demetrios the new Arthur? Has he pulled the Sword from The Stone?
On Feb 6, 2013, at 10:49 AM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Using my number uncertain state |U> = x|0> + y|1> instead of your truncated coherent state,
I calculate that these two outcomes have exactly the SAME AMPLITUDE.

This fact is the essence of the refutation..

agreed that is the question.

On Feb 6, 2013, at 10:41 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

>>>>In other words, even though the |0>|1>|0>|1> outcome may produce "anti-fringes", it has nowhere near the amplitude to cancel the "fringes" caused by the |1>|0>|1>|0> outcome....since the former outcome describes a right-going photon being reflected (extremely rare due to vanishing 'r') while the latter outcome describes a right-going photon being transmitted (very likely due to 't' approximately equal to 1).<<<<

A very plausible argument
But restore the missing term, Demetrios,
Do the calculation.
Then see if you still believe
that the |1>|0>|1>|)> term and the |0>|1>|0>|1>
have different amplitudes.

Using my number uncertain state |U> = x|0> + y|1> instead of your truncated coherent state,
I calculate that these two outcomes have exactly the SAME AMPLITUDE.

This fact is the essence of the refutation..


Nick--

I was up all night calculating these terms
and I am pretty sure your scheme is refuted.

Using the Feynman rule the probabilities for these two distinguishable processes are indeed equal
and do not cancel but one process is linked to fringes in Alice's detectors
and the other process is linked to anti-fringes in Alice's detector.

An incoherent equally-weighted sum of fringes and anti-fringes = no interference.

Your error consists of dropping a term that seems to be harmlessly small.
When you restore this term, the scheme becomes an ordinary coincidence-triggered distance interference device.

Since you are more familiar with these sorts of calculations than I am,
I urge you to restore the missing term and recalculate.
I would be surprised if you do not agree
that KISS is refuted.

However your measurement scheme -- ambiguating the Fock states by mixing with states of uncertain photon number --
is very clever and may find some use in less-preposterous applications.

I really have enjoyed interacting with your and your KISS scheme.

Nick

On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:

Hi Nick,
 It is both a pleasure and an honor that you have analyzed my scheme to this extent and, thankfully, so far your hard analysis has not disproved it....and may have even generalized and strengthened the argument.
 If my idea is described in a mathematically valid way then, as you seem to point out, the experimental proposal is also a powerful test of the strength of "The Feynman Dictum", which, so far, has never failed.
Thanks Nick
Demetrios

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 04:32:09 -0800
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Demetrios--
I have been calculating my own version of your KISS proposal
using the state |U> = x|0> + y|1> instead of a coherent state with  alpha amplitude
as input to the beam splitter which you use. Using this state allows  me to avoid
approximations. But yours is a robust proposal and should be immune  to approximations.
Indeed I get the same result as you, making the approximation rx --->  0 to eliminate a small |0>|1> term
as do you. I calculate the amplitude of the quantum erasure term |1>| 0>|1>|0> to be -trxy.
Hence my result for the probability of the FTL effect is 1/2 |etrxy|^2
which is comparable to your 1/2|etralpha|^2.
So far so good. The KISS and KISS(U) calculations give compatible  results. FTL signaling seems secure.
------------
Next I decided to include the small term we both threw away. This  means calculating the amplitude for
the detector response |0>|1>|0>|1>.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that this (also a quantum  erasure term by the way) amplitude is also trxy
with a plus sign!!!!!!!!!!!!
One might think that this term will exactly cancel your former  quantum erasure term and refute your KISS proposal.
But I do not think that's the way it works. According to the Feynman  rules you add amplitudes for indistinguishable paths,
and add probabilities for distinguishable paths. Since the |1>|0>|1>| 0> result is distinguishable from the |0>|1>|0>|1> result,
it seems that the proper thing to do here is add probabilities rather  than amplitudes. So not only do these two processes
not cancel but THEY DOUBLE THE SIZE OF YOUR FTL EFFECT.
At least that's the way I see it right now.
Seems like my attempt to refute your proposal is traveling in the  opposite direction.
Thanks for the fun.
Nick
Part 2
The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that this  calculation refutes KISS.
The amplitude for |1>|0>|1>|0> is "-trxy"and for |0>|1>|0>|1> is  "+trxy".
If you coincidence-trigger on the detector result |1>|0>|1>|0> you  get fringes.
If you coincidence-trigger on the detector result |0>|1>|0>|1> you  get anti-fringes.
If you do not coincidence-trigger you get an equal mixture of fringe  and anti-fringe.
QED: No FTL signaling.



I thought Nick said the two amplitudes were equal and opposite. If Demetrios is correct below I will be happy to retract my Eulogy for the demise of nonlocal entanglement signaling within ORTHODOX quantum theory as opposed to post-quantum extensions.

On Feb 6, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Demetrios Kalamidas <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:

Hi to all,
I stated that in my previous message that "....thankfully, so far your hard analysis has not disproved it" but forgot to include the text of why I believe this:

The only way for "fringes" on the left wing of the experiment (caused by the |1>|0>|1>|0> term on the right) to be canceled by "anti-fringes" (caused by the |0>|1>|0>|1> term on the right) is if BOTH the |1>|0>|1>|0> term and the |0>|1>|0>|1> term had the SAME AMPLITUDE, and therefore the same probability of happening.

HOWEVER, in my scheme, the |1>|0>|1>|0> outcome is HEAVILY FAVORED when compared to the |0>|1>|0>|1> outcome because of the high asymmetry of the two beam splitters on the right.

In other words, even though the |0>|1>|0>|1> outcome may produce "anti-fringes", it has nowhere near the amplitude to cancel the "fringes" caused by the |1>|0>|1>|0> outcome....since the former outcome describes a right-going photon being reflected (extremely rare due to vanishing 'r') while the latter outcome describes a right-going photon being transmitted (very likely due to 't' approximately equal to 1).

Demetrios
Jack Sarfatti
KISS-OFF! ;-)
  • Jack Sarfatti Yes, Nick most likely the two terms cancel as you say at the end. The problem with all the attempts to derive entanglement signal nonlocality within orthodox quantum theory, is the neglect of relevant terms, which in the end as you show, cancel the result. I wrote at the beginning of this that such may happen here.

    Note, that this does not affect attempts as entanglement signal nonlocality using a more general nonlinear post-quantum theory as in Steven Weinberg's, Henry Stapp's and Antony Valentini's models.

    On Feb 6, 2013, at 4:32 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

    Demetrios--

    I have been calculating my own version of your KISS proposal
    using the state |U> = x|0> + y|1> instead of a coherent state with alpha amplitude
    as input to the beam splitter which you use. Using this state allows me to avoid
    approximations. But yours is a robust proposal and should be immune to approximations.

    Indeed I get the same result as you, making the approximation rx ---> 0 to eliminate a small |0>|1> term
    as do you. I calculate the amplitude of the quantum erasure term |1>|0>|1>|0> to be -trxy.

    Hence my result for the probability of the FTL effect is 1/2 |etrxy|^2
    which is comparable to your 1/2|etralpha|^2.

    So far so good. The KISS and KISS(U) calculations give compatible results. FTL signaling seems secure.

    ------------

    Next I decided to include the small term we both threw away. This means calculating the amplitude for
    the detector response |0>|1>|0>|1>.

    Imagine my surprise when I discovered that this (also a quantum erasure term by the way) amplitude is also trxy
    with a plus sign!!!!!!!!!!!!

    One might think that this term will exactly cancel your former quantum erasure term and refute your KISS proposal.

    But I do not think that's the way it works. According to the Feynman rules you add amplitudes for indistinguishable paths,
    and add probabilities for distinguishable paths. Since the |1>|0>|1>|0> result is distinguishable from the |0>|1>|0>|1> result,
    it seems that the proper thing to do here is add probabilities rather than amplitudes. So not only do these two processes
    not cancel but THEY DOUBLE THE SIZE OF YOUR FTL EFFECT.

    At least that's the way I see it right now.

    Seems like my attempt to refute your proposal is traveling in the opposite direction.

    Thanks for the fun.

    Nick

    Part 2
    The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that this calculation refutes KISS.

    The amplitude for |1>|0>|1>|0> is "-trxy"and for |0>|1>|0>|1> is "+trxy".

    If you coincidence-trigger on the detector result |1>|0>|1>|0> you get fringes.

    If you coincidence-trigger on the detector result |0>|1>|0>|1> you get anti-fringes.

    If you do not coincidence-trigger you get an equal mixture of fringe and anti-fringe.

    QED: No FTL signaling.


Jack Sarfatti This is hot. If the effect works it's the basis for a new Intel, Microsoft & Apple combined for those smart venture capitalists, physicists & engineers who get into it. This is as close as we have ever come since I started the ball rolling at Brandeis in 1960-61 & then in mid-70's see MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser's "How the Hippies Save Physics". I first saw this as a dim possibility in 1960 at Brandeis grad school and got into an intellectual fight about it with Sylvan Schweber and Stanley Deser. Then the flawed thought experiment published in the early editions of Gary Zukav's Dancing Wu Li Masters in 1979 - pictured in Hippies book tried to do what DK may now have actually done. That is, control the fringe visibility at one end of an entangled system from the other end without the need of a coincidence counter correlator after the fact. Of course, like Nick Herbert's FLASH at the same time late 70's, it was too naive to work and the nonlinear optics technology was not yet developed enough. We were far ahead of the curve as to the conceptual possibility of nonlocal retrocausal entanglement signaling starting 53 years ago at Brandeis when I was a National Defense Fellow Title IV graduate student.

Jack Sarfatti

about an hour ago near San Francisco
On Feb 5, 2013, at 12:28 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Thanks Nick. Keep up the good work. I hope to catch up with you on this soon. This may be a historic event of the first magnitude if the Fat Lady really sings this time and shatters the crystal goblet. On the Dark Side this may open Pandora's Box into a P.K. Dick Robert Anton Wilson reality with controllable delayed choice precognition technology. ;-)

On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:38 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Demetrios--

Looking over your wonderful paper I have detected one
inconsistency but it is not fatal to your argument.

On page 3 you drop two r terms because "alpha", the complex
amplitude of the coherent state can be arbitrarily large in
magnitude.

But on page 4 you reduce the magnitude of "alpha" so that
at most one photon is reflected. So now alpha cannot be
arbitrarily large in magnitude.

But this is just minor quibble in an otherwise superb argument.

This move does not affect your conclusion--which seems
to directly follow from application of the Feynman Rule: For distinguishable
outcomes, add probabilities; for indistinguishable outcomes, add amplitudes.

To help my own understanding of how your scheme works,
I have simplified your KISS proposal by replacing your coherent states with
the much simpler state |U> = x|0> + y|1>. I call this variation of your proposal KISS(U)

When this state |U> is mixed with the entangled states at the beamsplitters,
the same conclusion ensues: there are two |1>|1> results on Bob's side of the source
that cannot be distinguished -- and hence must be amplitude added.

The state |U> would be more difficult to prepare in the lab than a weak coherent state
but anything goes in a thought experiment. The main advantage of using state |U>
instead of coherent states is that the argument is simplified to its essence and needs
no approximations. Also the KISS(U) version shows that your argument is independent
of special properties possessed by coherent states such as overcompleteness and non-
orthogonality. The state |U> is both complete and orthogonal -- and works just as well
to prove your preposterous conclusion. --- that there is at least one way of making photon
measurements that violates the No-Signaling Theorem.

Thanks for injecting some fresh excitement into the FTL signaling conversation.

warm regards
Nick Herbert
Like · · Share
David Fernando López Torres, Keith Kenemer and 2 others like this.
View 1 more comment

Jack Sarfatti On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:

Nope, no refutation I can think of so far....and I've tried hard.
Demetrios
...See More
33 minutes ago · Like

Joe Ganser Jack do you know a lot of people at CUNY? I take ph.d classes there.
26 minutes ago · Like

Joe Ganser I'm interested in who may do these sorts of topics in NYC
25 minutes ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Daniel Greenberger!
9 minutes ago · Like · 1

a few seconds ago · Like

 

On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:

Nope, no refutation I can think of so far....and I've tried hard.
Demetrios

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 13:09:28 -0800
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Thanks, Demetrios. I understand now that alpha can be large
while alpha x r is made small. Also I notice that your FTL signaling scheme seems to work both ways. In your illustration the photons on the left side (Alice) are  combined at a 50/50 beam splitter so they cannot be used for which-way information. However if the 50/50 beamsplitter is removed, which-way info is present and the two versions of |1>|1> on the right-hand side (Bob) are now  distinguishable
and must be added incoherently, which presumably will give a  different answer and observably different behavior by Bob's  right-side detectors. So your scheme seems consistent -- FTL signals can be sent in either  direction.
This is looking pretty scary.
Do you happen to have a refutation up your sleeve
or are you just as baffled by this as the rest of us?
Nick

 

 

Therefore, Nick it is premature for you to claim that the full machinery of the Glauber coherent states, i.e. distinguishable over-complete non-orthogonality is not necessary for KISS to work. Let's not rush to judgement and proceed with caution. This technology, if it were to work is as momentous as the discovery of fire, the wheel, movable type, calculus, the steam engine, electricity, relativity, nuclear fission & fusion, Turing machine & Von Neumann's programmable computer concept, DNA, transistor, internet ...

On Feb 5, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:

Hi Nick,

 And thanks much for your careful examination of my scheme....however, there appears to be a misunderstanding.
 Let me explain:

"On page 3 you drop two r terms because "alpha", the complex amplitude of the coherent state can be arbitrarily large in magnitude."

I drop the two terms in eq.5b because they are proportional to 'r'....and 'r' approaches zero. However, the INITIAL INPUT amplitude, 'alpha', of each coherent state can be as large as we desire in order to get whatever SMALL BUT NONVANISHING AND SIGNIFICANT product 'r*alpha', which is related to the terms I retain.

In other words, for whatever 'r*alpha' we want, lets say 'r*alpha'=0.2, 'r' can be as close to zero as we want since we can always input a coherent state with large enough initial 'alpha' to give us the 0.2 amplitude that we want.

So, terms proportional to 'r' are vanishing, while terms proportional to 'r*alpha' are small but significant and observable.
You state:

"But on page 4 you reduce the magnitude of "alpha" so that at most one photon is reflected. So now alpha cannot be arbitrarily large in magnitude."

The magnitude of 'alpha' is for the INITIAL coherent states coming from a3 and b3, BEFORE they are split at BSa and BSb. It is this 'alpha' that is pre-adjusted, according to how small 'r' is, to give us an appropriately small reflected magnitude, i.e. 'r*alpha'=0.2, so that the "....weak coherent state containing at most one photon...." condition is reasonably valid.

Demetrios


On Feb 5, 2013, at 12:28 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Thanks Nick. Keep up the good work. I hope to catch up with you on this soon. This may be a historic event of the first magnitude if the Fat Lady really sings this time and shatters the crystal goblet. On the Dark Side this may open Pandora's Box into a P.K. Dick Robert Anton Wilson reality with controllable delayed choice precognition technology. ;-)

On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:38 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Demetrios--

Looking over your wonderful paper I have detected one
inconsistency but it is not fatal to your argument.

On page 3 you drop two r terms because "alpha", the complex
amplitude of the coherent state can be arbitrarily large in
magnitude.

But on page 4 you reduce the magnitude of "alpha" so that
at most one photon is reflected. So now alpha cannot be
arbitrarily large in magnitude.

But this is just minor quibble in an otherwise superb argument.

This move does not affect your conclusion--which seems
to directly follow from application of the Feynman Rule: For distinguishable
outcomes, add probabilities; for indistinguishable outcomes, add amplitudes.

To help my own understanding of how your scheme works,
I have simplified your KISS proposal by replacing your coherent states with
the much simpler state |U> = x|0> + y|1>. I call this variation of your proposal KISS(U)

When this state |U> is mixed with the entangled states at the beamsplitters,
the same conclusion ensues: there are two |1>|1> results on Bob's side of the source
that cannot be distinguished -- and hence must be amplitude added.

The state |U> would be more difficult to prepare in the lab than a weak coherent state
but anything goes in a thought experiment. The main advantage of using state |U>
instead of coherent states is that the argument is simplified to its essence and needs
no approximations. Also the KISS(U) version shows that your argument is independent
of special properties possessed by coherent states such as overcompleteness and non-
orthogonality. The state |U> is both complete and orthogonal -- and works just as well
to prove your preposterous conclusion. --- that there is at least one way of making photon
measurements that violates the No-Signaling Theorem.

Thanks for injecting some fresh excitement into the FTL signaling conversation.

warm regards
Nick Herbert