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
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>
2-19-13
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.
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