Yes, we are well aware of that entanglement signaling is not possible in orthodox quantum theory. Indeed, the recent exchange between me, Nick Herbert, Ruth Kastner and Paul Zielinski on entangled coherent states seems to extend the validity of Stapp's proof provided that the non-orthogonal terms in the partial trace cannot be controlled from the traced over part of the entangled system.

However, Antony Valentini has suggested a model extending quantum theory that does have entanglement signals, so has Stapp and so have I all independently. Josephson has suggested that it is ubiquitous in living matter. Daryl Bem's data on top of Libet's, Radin's, Bierman's et-al is evidence for Josephson's conjecture. So is the SRI remote viewing.

Whether clairvoyance or precognition even if one could distinguish them, both require entanglement signals if Dean Radin's book "Entangled Minds" is to make sense. Indeed our ordinary consciousness requires it in my opinion.

On the other hand Elitzur points out a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics - a serious issue.

I do not understand "nonclassical cooperation" seems a fudge, but as I said I don't get it.

From: John Dick <john.dick@springwalker.com>
To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

Sent: Sun, July 10, 2011 3:50:35 AM
Subject: Re: Daryl Bem's Study: Retrocausality or Clairvoyance

Hello Jack,

The "Bell experiments without inequalities" of which Elitzur is a master and which
have been presented as classically unbeatable games in a nice review paper at
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407221 do not enable signaling.  What I point out is
that a viewer with a classical perspective (the perspective that we bring to our
everyday lives), when viewing one such game would probably guess that the quantum
players did have signalling, even though they don't.

A physicist would correct the viewer, and might explain that even though signalling
isn't allowed between players with a spacelike separation, cooperation is allowed,
at least in these special cases.  I believe that "non-classical cooperation" between
the players is an accurate description of an allowed quantum solution to the "magic
square" game.  It is not out of the question that this might somehow apply to PSI
phenomena.

I know that I'm in the tiger's maw here, but I'm really trying to flesh out the case
that the universe (orthodox quantum theory) allows non-classical happenings in our
everyday world even without including or adding a retrocausal element.

Regards,
John

At 11:09 AM 7/9/2011, you wrote:
> Thanks John
>
> I need to think about your thoughtful remarks. However, implicit in your message
> seems to be signal nonlocality which violates consensus notions of orthodox
> quantum theory. For example, see the papers of Antony Valentini as well as Henry
> Stapp's recent ones and my Journal of Cosmology paper Vol 14, April 2011 online.
>
> I presume you mean signals across spacelike separations? However, those can be
> explained by retrocausality. Also Elitzur claims that faster-than-light signals
> violate the second law of thermodynamics.
>

No way to make the equivalent of the encoding Heisenberg microscope in the situation studied by Sanders.

Basically (z1a'|z3a') is a fixed parameter made by the Kerr cell equally affecting both a' and b' outputs as a local common past cause.

No way to change it locally at a'.

If so, that generalizes Stapp's theorem even to the case of entangled coherent Glauber states without needing to assume that the inner products must small.

However, in that case it's hard to see how John Cramer's device would work - though his argument is intuitively plausible.

Avshalom Elitzur says entanglement signals when ftl violate Second Law of Thermodynamics. Of course some of the people at USD AAAS in a parallel session claimed that.

OK, Nick's conjecture would generalize Stapp's theorem.

Nick posits that there is no way to control (a'z3|z1a') locally at a'. It is determined inside the nonlinear interferometer which would be a common cause for both outputs a' & b'. That is, there is no way to construct an effective encoding equivalent of the Heisenberg microscope in Kaiser's Fig. 9.1.

Could be Nick is right.


On Jul 9, 2011, at 5:53 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Let x be the position of a photon detector at a place where the two components of the b' beam overlap. The nonlocally controllable fringe pattern is simply

(x|Tra'{rhoa'b'}|x)

this is proportional to the count rate for a photon detector placed in the b' output path without any local oscillator or beam splitter. It depends upon

(a'z3|z1a')

that should be a controllable variable at a' - we may need the local oscillator there?

Nick could quote Avshalom Elitzur who thinks that entanglement signals would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Subject: Re: Where's Sarfatti's EGO Machine?

Nick Herbert's refutation below is specious, he needs to address himself specifically to  mathematical model

|z)'s are Glauber states

Sanders's state at the outputs of the Kerr-Mach-Zehnder interferometer has the general form (I have changed notation conventions slightly)

|a',b') = |z1a')|z2b') + |z3a')|z4b')

The projection operator is

rhoa'b' = |a',b')(b',a'| = |z1a')|z2b')(b'2z|(a'1z| + |z3a')|z4b')(b'4z|(a'3z| + |z1a')|z2b')(b'4z|(a'3z| + |z3a')|z4b')(b'2z|(a'1z|

The partial trace over a' consists of 8 terms of which there are only 2 in the orthodox quantum orthogonal base case. The 6 anomalous terms are the entanglement signal evading Stapp's proof.

Tra'{rhoa'b'} = (a'1z|rhoa'b'|z1a') + (a'3z|rhoa'b'|z3a')

= |z2b')(b'2z| + + |z4b')(b'4z| + (a'3z|z1a')|z2b')(b'2z|(a'1z|z3a')  +  (a'1z|z3a')|z4b')(b'4z|(a'3z|z1a')

+  |z2b')(b'4z|(a'3z| z1a') + (a'z3|z1a')|z2b')(b'4z| + (a'1z|z3a')|z4b')(b'2z| + |z4b')(b'2z|(a'1z|z3a')

the first two terms are what you get in Stapp's proof, i.e. no local fringes for momentum correlations and no controllable polarizations for spin experiments like Aspect's.

Let x be the position of a photon detector at a place where the two components of the b' beam overlap. The nonlocally controllable fringe pattern is simply

(x|Tra'{rhoa'b'}|x)

That is, Nick needs to show

1) mathematical errors

2) errors in my physical interpretation of the meanings of the symbols - especially the last line

local fringe pattern for the superposed b' alternatives = (x|Tra'{rhoa'b'}|x)

any good experimentalist in quantum optics can design a suitable system to test this - that's not my job here.

Clauser could easily do it, or Aspect for example. Note also


Nonlocal Effects of Partial Measurements and Quantum Erasure
Avshalom C. Elitzur, Shahar Dolev
(Submitted on 18 Dec 2000)

Partial measurement turns the initial superposition not into a definite outcome but into a greater probability for it. The probability can approach 100%, yet the measurement can undergo complete quantum erasure. In the EPR setting, we prove that i) every partial measurement nonlocally creates the same partial change in the distant particle; and ii) every erasure inflicts the same erasure on the distant particle's state. This enables an EPR experiment where the nonlocal effect does not vanish after a single measurement but keeps "traveling" back and forth between particles. We study an experiment in which two distant particles are subjected to interferometry with a partial "which path" measurement. Such a measurement causes a variable amount of correlation between the particles. A new inequality is formulated for same-angle polarizations, extending Bell's inequality for different angles. The resulting nonlocality proof is highly visualizable, as it rests entirely on the interference effect. Partial measurement also gives rise to a new form of entanglement, where the particles manifest correlations of multiple polarization directions. Another novelty in that the measurement to be erased is fully observable, in contrast to prevailing erasure techniques where it can never be observed. Some profound conceptual implications of our experiment are briefly pointed out.


On Jul 9, 2011, at 10:31 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

OK here is an attempt by Nick.

It's wrong in my opinion. Nick is taking an all or nothing approach.
It's plausible that there is plenty of room to have partially distinguishable Glauber states with a detectable entanglement signal.
The point is no one seems to have noticed this obvious formal loop hole in the class of "Stapp proofs".
Nick's attitude is let's not even investigate this possibility.


On Jul 9, 2011, at 2:09 AM, Nick Herbert wrote:

Plan for a refutation of an ill-formed FTL scheme:

1. Note that the putative FTL effect works
only because of the non=orthogonality of the alpha and beta states.
If the FTL effect exists,
it occurs only where alpha and beta overlap.

2. But if Bob's received signal depends on his ability to distinguish
alpha photons from beta photons, then this ability will disappear
in the region where alpha and beta distributions overlap.

3. Thus the very region where we might expect FTL effects to occur.
happens to coincide with the region in which Bob cannot distinguish a "1" bit from a "0" bit.

When and if Jack comes up with a specific design for his FTL Sarfatti EGO machine,
I humbly suggest this as a fruitful direction for him to look for its possible refutation.

See Violation of Stapp's theorem paper just uploaded to the library in the quantum computing section.

What immortal hand or eye dare break thy fearful symmetry?
See the paper on entangled Schrodinger Tigers I just uploaded to the Library Quantum Computing Section.

From: Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu>
To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>; Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com>

Sent: Thu, July 7, 2011 9:24:38 AM
Subject: RE: Ruth's point


JS: "... In the case of the ordinary EPR-spin experiment, there is no ordinary strong measurement that corresponds to the non-orthogonal basis you used."

RK: But the strong measurement made in your proposed experiment doesn't correspond to the Glauber state basis; it corresponds to the which-slit basis.

JS: I do not understand what "which state basis" means in the formalism.  |A1'> and |A2'> are simply markers for two classes of paths for photons in over-complete non-orthogonal Glauber states. The process from emission to arrival on the screen is an indivisible whole.

When I write for the entangled laser beams z(B) & z'(A)


|A,B)> = |z1'(A)>|z2(B)> +| z2'(A)>|z1(B)>

this is a property of the laser beams not of the material of the slits.

<z1'(A)|z2(A)> =/= 0

therefore, Stapp's proof fails if such a state can be made in the lab.

RK: The total experimental arrangement here of detectors and setting is just the 'which slit' observable.

Here I think is the crucial point: for each local slit arrangment, you start with a single Glauber 'eigenstate' heading toward the slits.
At no time was another (non-orthogonal) Glauber eigenstate introduced into the experiment. I don't see us getting a different Glauber eigenstate just by sending a particular Glauber state through some slits. So something is probably wrong with the assumption that z1 and z2 are different Glauber states.

Ruth

JS: I think you are questioning whether

|A,B)> = |z1'(A)>|z2(B)> +| z2'(A)>|z1(B)>

is correct. What math description would you use?

In any case, it's interesting that one can easily construct an entangled state that seems to evade Stapp's proof.

________________________________________
From: Jack Sarfatti [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:49 AM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner; Paul Zielinski

Subject: Ruth's point

"It should be kept in mind that one could use a non-orthogonal basis to compute a partial trace and get apparent FTL signalling for an ordinary EPR-spin experiment."

That simply shows that it's not good enough to make a formal transformation in doing physics. In the case of the ordinary EPR-spin experiment, there is no ordinary strong measurement that corresponds to the non-orthogonal basis you used.

As Bohr said - the choice of basis is not arbitrary like in pure mathematics, but must describe a possible "total experimental arrangement" of detectors and their settings.

Again I have explicitly constructed an entangled state,

|z1)|z'2') + |z2)|z'1')

|z) = Glauber state

that if it can be made in fact would give an entanglement signal.

Jack Sarfatti
The Holographic Universe: Is Our 3D World Just an Illusion? http://bit.ly/nmug5X
4 hours ago via AutoTweet Connector · Like ·
Rational Minded, Steve Schultz, Wilson Cunha Godinho and 2 others like this.

Kathy Sadler Mead Ew, love this theory....I have the Holographic Universe and its a great book for the imagination.
4 hours ago · Like ·  1 person

Leonardo Varesi Great theory! AdS/CFT correspondence and Maldacena conjecture
4 hours ago · Like

Leonardo Varesi I love it too.
4 hours ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti http://stardrive.org/ has been saying this forever on the front page. The new idea from me is that the hologram projector (event horizon) is in our future not in our past. This is the Destiny Matrix.
3 hours ago · Like ·  2 people

Kathy Sadler Mead sounds interesting.
3 hours ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti under statement
2 hours ago · Like ·  1 person
Jack Sarfatti I mean it's the wackiest nuttiest most incredibly stupendous amazing idea in the whole history of human thought! It might even be true.
3 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti The world's religions are based on less when it comes to their pictures of the universe.
2 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti We are coming to an understanding in terms of science and technology not only of how our own consciousness really works but also the Mind of God on the future boundary of spacetime. This is what Hawking talked about at the end of his Brief History of Time.
30 seconds ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti
Debate with Zielinski on the physics of over-complete non-orthogonal eigenfunctions http://bit.ly/q3YVeX
23 hours ago via AutoTweet Connector · Like ·
Zohar Ko PZ is obviously right.
Jack Sarfatti How much did Zielinski pay you to say that? ;-) Polemics are inappropriate here. Before I delete your remark, defend it so I can see if you know what you are talking about or merely trying to pi$$ me off.
Jack Sarfatti There is nothing "obvious" about Z's generally dark remarks.
Jack Sarfatti If you think Z is correct then you do not understand quantum measurement theory of Bohr to von Neumann. A switch in the base eigenfunctions is not a passive formal affair, but is a real change in Bohr's "total experimental arrangement" e.g. changing relative orientations of Stern-Gerlach magnets, introducing quarter-wave plates etc.
Zohar Ko It's the first axiom of QM that everybody learns in school: physics is independent of the basis, orthogonal or not.
Jack Sarfatti You are a good example of the saying a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Jack Sarfatti The invariance of the trace of the density matrix with operators is only for unitary transformations that preserve inner products with similarity transformations on the operators.
Jack Sarfatti In particular, unitary transformations on an orthogonal basis will give a new orthogonal basis. However, unitary transformations on a non-orthogonal basis will give a new nonorthogonality basis - actually they are in same unitarily equivalence class.
Jack Sarfatti However, a non-unitary transformation is needed to connect an orthogonal basis with a non-orthogonal basis. Therefore, the traces of density matrices with operators in a non-orthogonal basis are different from those with those operators in an orthogonal basis. We have two different non-overlapping unitarily equivalent equivalence classes. In particular there is entanglement signaling in entangled systems with a physically demanded non-orthogonal basis, and none in those with physically demanded orthogonal basis.
Jack Sarfatti Let U be a unitary transformation. Let N be a non-unitary transformation.
UU* = U*U = 1
NN* =/= 1
Let {|Oi)} = orthogonal basis
(Oi|Oj) = 0 , i =/= j
Let {|Zi)} be a non-orthogonal basis
|Z) = N|O)
For any operator A
A' = UAU^-1
For the appropriate density matrix R
(A) = Tr{RA}
R = sum over eigenvalues P(oj)|Oj)(Oj|
P(oj) = probability to find oj in a statistical mixture
R' = URU^-1
(A') = Tr{R'A'} = Tr{RA} = (A)
i.e. invariance under unitary transformations of all physical expectation values.
On the other hand
S = NRN^-1 is a completely new physical object that is not unitarily equivalent to R - it means the emergence of qualitatively new physics.
In particular for the same operator A
Tr{SA} =/= Tr{RA}
However, under a unitary U
S' = USU^-1 = UNRN^-1U^-1
TrS'A' = TrSA
In particular if A describes a nonlocal signal
Tr{RA} = 0
Tr{SA} =/= 0

Probably best to start with the globally rigid conformal de Sitter group i.e. 16 parameters including / =/= 0. There is no gravity, i.e. no dynamical curvature until you localize at least its T4 subgroup. The 4 tetrads e^I and the 6 spin-connections w^I,^J formally live on a non-dynamical Minkowski space-time (at least when / = 0).

Geometrodynamic field (e^I, w^I^J) is on equal ontological par with U1xSU2 & SU3 forces.

From: Paul Zielinski To: Jack Sarfatti
Sent: Wed, July 6, 2011 2:45:56 PM
Subject: Re: de Broglie waves as the generator of spacetime

Regarding (5), if you start with Minkowski spacetime as an axiom, then how can you end up with emergent curved spacetime geometry and no background?

Don't you mean that you start with de Sitter space in the complete absence of gravitating matter?

Or are you taking about SR kinematics?

I don't understand either version.

Look I think you are confused over the difference between mathematics and theoretical physics.

In pure math you can do anything you like.

Quantum theory (OQT) used pure math with additional constraints linking symbols to operational procedures.

In particular OQT assumes only Hermitian operators with real eigenvalues and orthogonal eigenfunctions. These eigenfunctions correspond to Bohr's "total experimental arrangement" of detectors at the classical level.

A unitary change of basis is an actual change in the configuration and settings of the detectors. It leaves inner products invariant and it requires similarity transformations of the operators.

A non-orthogonal set of eigenfunctions will correspond to some new physical conditions e.g. laser beams, phase transitions with new order parameters etc.

Henry Stapp may want to say this is new physics beyond OQT?

The observables need not be Hermitian, if the Hamiltonian is not Hermitian then it generates a non-unitary time evolution with imaginary energy part i.e., dissipation & pumping - open not closed systems. decaying states, and growing states & dissipative meta-stable structures - far from thermal equilibrium etc.

We have seen in the density matrix formalism for an entangled system the use of a non-orthogonal basis allows entanglement signaling - there must be a physical reason why the non-orthogonal basis MUST be used. It's not an abstract formal whim the way Zielinski believes.



From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com>
To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

Sent: Wed, July 6, 2011 3:22:55 PM
Subject: Re: OK I think I see where Zielinski makes his false premise on physical meaning of base eigenvectors in quantum theory

Change to:

"My point is that the physical motivation for the choice of non-orthogonal state vectors to represent the physical states of a QM system does not legitimize the use of non-orthogonal bases for the direct computation of observable quantities from the associated Hilbert space operators."

On 7/6/2011 3:19 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
My point is that the motivation for the choice of state vector to represent the physical state of a QM system does not legitimize the use of a non-orthogonal basis for the direct computation of observable quantities from the associated Hilbert space operators.