You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog Blog (Full Text Display)

Jun
30

Tagged in:

Let n1 = n2 = n equal intensity at both the transmitter A and receiver B slits.

The overlap nonlocal modulation control parameter from the over-complete Glauber laser states is

(A1|A2) ~ exp{ - n[(1 - e^i(@1 - @2)]} + exp{ - n[(1 - e^-i(@1 - @2)]}

& = @1 - @2

(A1|A2) ~ exp{ - n[(1 - cos& - isin&)} + exp{ - n[(1 - cos& + isin&)}

~ e^-n(1 - cos&){e^insin& + e-insin&}

(A1|A2) ~ 2cos(nsin&)e^-n(1 - cos&)

Obviously, we need to exploit the periodicity in (A1|A2) and the exponential works against us except when cos & ~ +1 where the exponential periodically peaks at 1. That is the relative phase & at each of the screens must be an integer multiple of 2pi i.e. constructive interference peaks.

Note that when & = 0, (A1|A2) ~ 2, which is a fortunate result independent of n when we switch off the transmitter Heisenberg microscope.

For the fringe spacings see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

See also the pdf uploaded today June 30, 2011 to physics section of the library below.

Jun
30

Tagged in:

typo correction missing i in the exponential

On Jun 29, 2011, at 8:50 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Therefore, the complex number control parameter at A

(A1|A2) ~ exp{ - (1/2)[(n1) + (n2) - 2(n1n2)^1/2e^i(@1 - @2)]} =/= 0

Therefore, the fringe visibility at the receiver B screen at points x' can be computed from the local cross terms

(A1|A2)(B1|x')(x'|B2) + cc

Let n1 = n2 = n equal intensity at the transmitter A slits.

(A1|A2) ~ exp{ - n[(1 - e^i(@1 - @2)]} + exp{ - n[(1 - e^-i(@1 - @2)]}

& = @1 - @2

(A1|A2) ~ exp{ - n[(1 - cos& - isin&)} + exp{ - n[(1 - cos& + isin&)}

~ e^-n(1 - cos&){e^insin& + e-insin&}

~ e^-n(1 - cos&)2cos(nsin&)

as n increases we want & approaching zero to prevent the receiver interference terms from getting too small.

~ 2e^-n&^2/2cos(n&)

Jun
30

Tagged in:

On Jun 29, 2011, at 8:28 PM, nick herbert wrote:

Why are you bringing up "Glauber states", Jack?

Just to muddy the waters?

Of course, making imperfect non-strong measurements muddies the waters.

A Glauber state possesses an indefinite photon number.

All entangled states that we know of are Fock states

with a definite photon number.

Really Nick? I think I read there are now entangled laser beams.

In any case, that there may be entangled laser beams does not violate quantum theory as far as I know.

If that could be done, it seems to show a flaw in Stapp's proof and in all the no-cloning no entanglement signaling proofs.

That is, all those proofs at the basis of the black hole information dispute, quantum cryptography etc would be thrown in doubt.

How does this entangled macro-quantum coherent state violate orthodox quantum theory?

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

where

z = sqrt(n)e^i@

So, Nick you agree that orthonormality of the states that are traced over is needed for no-signalling?

Hey Nick what about this?

Laser beams are entangled in space - physicsworld.com

physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35171 - Cached

Jul 29, 2008 – Breakthrough could allow optical measurements to beat the 'diffraction limit'

?

[PDF] Femtosecond laser–pumped source of entangled photons for quantum ...

www.ece.rochester.edu/source/Roman.../Pan_SPIE_Prague_07.pdf

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

by D Pan - Related articles

We present an experimental setup for generation of entangled-photon pairs via spontaneous parametric down-conversion, based on the femtosecond-pulsed laser. ...

Entangled entanglement in Raman lasers | Eur. Phys. J. D

epjd.edpsciences.org/articles/epjd/abs/2011/05/d09661/d09661.html

Feb 4, 2011 – European Physical Journal D, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics, EPJ D.

Demonstrating various quantum effects with two entangled laser beams

arxiv.org › quant-ph - Cached

by B Hage - 2011 - Related articles

Mar 22, 2011 – Abstract: We report on the preparation of entangled two mode squeezed states of yet unseen quality. Based on a measurement of the covariance ...

Quantum-beat lasers as bright sources of entangled sub-Poissonian ...

link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.78.045801

by X Hu - 2008 - Cited by 14 - Related articles

Oct 8, 2008 – We show that a quantum-beat system with incoherent pump or coherent driving produces an entangled sub-shot-noise laser that operates well ...

LEDs may put lasers out of quantum computing business

arstechnica.com/.../leds-may-put-lasers-out-of-quantum-computing-... - Cached

Jun 10, 2010 – To generate entangled pairs of photons, researchers often use a process called parametric down-conversion. A laser sends its light at a ...

Quantum Entangled Power Distribution

lofi.forum.physorg.com › Physics › Physics General - Cached

4 posts - 2 authors - Last post: Jul 18, 2007

... of almost unlimited power when blended with quantum entangled power ... quantumentangling to power source that powers the lasers with ...

LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES: LED source emits entangled photon pairs ...

www.optoiq.com/index/display/.../laser...9/.../light-emitting-diodes.html

Sep 1, 2010 – This is the first demonstration of a solid-state, electrically driven device consisting of a quantum dot embedded in a semiconductor LED ...

Demonstrating hybrid quantum effects with two entangled laser beams

www.opticsinfobase.org › Conference Papers › EQEC › 2011 › EA

by B Hage - 2011

May 22, 2011 – Optics InfoBase is the Optical Society's online library for flagship journals, partnered and copublished journals, and recent proceedings ...

Spooky Atomic Clocks - NASA Science

science.nasa.gov › ... › Science@NASA Headline News › 2004 - Cached

Apr 6, 2011 – In this laser experiment entangled photons are teleported from one place to another. NASA uses atomic clocks for spacecraft navigation. ...

Jun
30

Tagged in:

A hidden flaw in Henry Stapp's no EPR signal proof and all other proofs? Is the no cloning an arbitrary quantum theorem wrong? See the pdf just uploaded in Library Resources under Physics. Think for yourself if you can do elementary algebra and have taken courses in advanced physics in a good college or university.

Jun
29

Tagged in:

On Jun 29, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

*Jack: I remember discussing this with John Cramer a few years ago. I found a reference (by Shih et al as I recall) saying that you cannot get an interference pattern without coincidence of the two photons -- this what Cramer refers to not seeing in the Dopfer thesis. Without coincidence you just get noise. I think this is the reason it might be impossible to get signalling. If one is able to improve the resolution of the down-conversion process so that you can see the interference pattern independently, then my understanding is that you lose the EPR correlation. Apologies if someone has already mentioned this and I missed it.*

Ruth

Yes, that is the standard argument I am very familiar with. However, now Cramer recently claims he can get the interference pattern without the coincidence circuit because of advances in EPR sources. According to a document that Russell Targ sent me, Cramer now claims that, with the proper source of EPR pairs switching off the coincidence circuit is only a 15% reduction in receiver fringe visibility if the Heisenberg microscope is switched off at the transmitter. This clearly violates Stapp's et-al's general proof to the contrary within OQT.

I claim I have carried out Stapp's linear unitary partial trace of the EPR pair reduced density matrix proof in this particular situation in David Kaiser's Fig 9.1 of The Hippies Who Saved Physics:

And that the implicit assumption in his general partial trace of the EPR pair density matrix proof in the situation of Fig 9.1 is my

(A1|A2) = 0

i.e. orthogonality of the slit states on the transmitter side. So that is the issue here.

(There is a glitch in the Joomla program that screws up the equations. I am trying to fix it.)

Where is the precise error in my algebraic analysis of Kaiser's Fig 9.1 above?

________________________________________

From: Jack Sarfatti [sarfatti@pacbell.net]

Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:11 PM

To: art wagner

Subject: Re: Quantum Mechanics 1: The No-FTL signalling theorem

The paper looks good. However my algebra is very simple. The issue is whether it contains an obvious contradiction with OQT? Even a smart undergrad physics major should be able to point out the error if indeed there is one.

I claim (A1|A2) = 0

Is necessary to get no signal in that instance for Kaiser's Fig 9.1. So far neither Henry nor any other quantum mechanic has actually addressed the relevant point.

On Jun 29, 2011, at 12:58 PM, art wagner > wrote:

*Could the viewpoint espoused by this paper on the nature of the wavefunction be of any use here? [I do realize you're using bra-ket forms] *- http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1001/1001.5085.pdf

________________________________

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:44:58 -0700

From: sarfatti@pacbell.net

Subject: Re: Quantum Mechanics 1: The No-FTL signalling theorem

Henry

I certainly agree that changing the statistical rules of OQT will allow signal nonlocality as in Antony Valentini's papers that are clearly sufficient, but is it necessary? John Cramer has recently suggest it is not necessary.

At this point I am playing Devil's Advocate. I expect my algebra has an error, but I have not been able to get you to really address that particular alleged counter example to your general proof. My model is essentially similar to John Cramer's variation on the Dopfur experiment.

I wrote several lines of algebra. Which ones do you disagree with as a description of Kaiser's Fig 9.1.

:-)

________________________________

From: Henry P. Stapp >;

To: JACK SARFATTI >;

Subject: Quantum Mechanics 1: The No-FTL signalling theorem

Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2011 5:18:04 PM

*Since you seem to be contemplating producing faster-than-light signalling by merely choosing unusual experiments conditions, but not changing the basic statistical rules of orthodox QM, and seem to have doubts the correctness of the No-FTL-Signalling Theorem, it might be instructive to look again at the usual derivation. The basic interpretive rule of OQM is that the probability that a measurement associated with a projection operator P will give the positive outcome "Yes" is *

*The basic interpretive rule of OQM is that the probability that a measurement associated with a projection operator P will give thepositive outcome "Yes" is(P)= Trace P rho/Trace rhoand that this "Yes" response to the probing action will reduce theprior state rho to (P rho P)/trace P rho P.The probability of the negative response "No" is(P') = Trace P' rho/ Trace rho, with P'= (I-P).Thus the probability of "Yes" plus the probability of "No" is(Trace P rho/Trace rho)+ (Trace (I-P) rho/Trace rho)=Trace (P + I - P)/Trace rho= 1.If Q is a projection operator whose support is spacelikeseparated from the support of P, so that QP=PQ,then the probability of "Yes" for Q and "Yes" for P is(QP) = Trace QP rho/Trace rhoand the probability for "Yes" for Q and "No" for P is(QP') = Trace Q(I-P) rho/ Trace rho.Hence the probability of Yes for Q if the outcome of the mearurementof P is unknown is(QP) + (QP')which is just(Q):This does not depend upon which measurement P was performed in thefaraway region: different choices of P produce no effect on theprobability of the outcome of the measurement in the regionassociated with Q.I do not see how this result can be rationally challenged,given the standard rules of OQT.Given any finite set of kets {|A1), |A2), ... , |AN)}orthogonal or not, any non zero ket|X) = c1|A1) + c2|A2) + ... CN|AN),with complex coefficients Ci,gives a projection operatorP= |X)(X|/(X|X)(PP= P)*

I do not see how anyone can rationally challenge these conclusions, given the rules of OQT. They imply that, given the rules of OQT, the probabilities of outcomes on either side of Sarfatti's (or anyone's) experiment cannot depend on which experiment is performed in the faraway other region: a sender cannot, by his free choosings of which measurement P to perform in L, send a message to a colleague that is observing the outcome of a measurement of Q in a region R that is spacelike separated from L: no matter what Q is measured in L, the outcome

predicted by OQT will be independent of which P the "sender" chooses.

Thus sending a FTL signal requires no mere clever choices of complex

measurements P and Q: it requires also a violation of the laws of OQT.

I have no doubt that this very simple, but extremely important, fact was known to the founders of quantum theory.

Jun
28

Tagged in:

odd glitch fixed

Jun
28

Tagged in:

I am playing Devil's Advocate here just in case John Cramer's variation on the Dopfur experiment is correct and Henry's et-al's general no-signal proofs in OQT have a hidden flaw in them like John von Neumann's wrong proof against hidden variables.

My starting equation is

<x,x'|A,B> = <x|A1><x'|B2'> + e^i@(y)<x|A2><x'|B1'> (3)

the first term on the RHS is the sum of all Feynman histories where particle A of the entangled pair passes through slit 1 and lands on a point x on the screen AND particle B passes through slit 2' on the other side landing on the other screen at x'. The particles are emitted back to back. The random phase factor includes scatterers in the Heisenberg microscope and possible environmental decoherence. I suppress the unitary time translation operators or the Feynman propagators depending on which formalism one would use in detail. x includes the time of arrival. This is an important detail.

when the multiple integral with respect to y and x of

<A2|x,y><y,x|A1> = 0 (2)

this assumes that the integrals are taken at fixed times - that is a problem here because the alternative paths for a given single particle in an entangled pair will have different arrival times at the screen if they start with the same speed. Of course there will be an uncertainty in initial speeds as well. So the integrals for orthogonality only select the alternative histories for the same transit time from source to different points on the screen.

Of course in a real experiment one pair at a time, waiting for a build up of a pattern, this condition of same transit time is violated. So this is a conceptual problem. There is a similar problem for intense beams. And, of course, laser beam eigenstates are over-complete Glauber states and not mutually orthogonal for different Feynman histories.

I think you get effective nonunitarity if you integrate over the screen for different arrival times from the emission source!

In any case it seems obvious to me that the fringe pattern on the receiver side depends on the density matrix partial trace over the transmitter screen that is terms like

<A2|A1><B1'|x'><x'|B2'> (7)

Therefore, the key factor needed for no-signaling is the effective orthogonality condition

<A2|A1> = 0

Jun
28

Tagged in:

This is what Henry Stapp and I are currently arguing about.

So far Henry is invoking general ideas without specifically looking at my modeling of this device.

I could be wrong of course and probably am.

Jun
28

Tagged in:

Subject: Re: Henry (Stapp) where is the error in my "proof" about entanglement signaling?

On Jun 27, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Henry P. Stapp wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Jun 27, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Henry P. Stapp wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Jun 25, 2011, HENRY STAPP wrote:*To accommodate the Bem results, or otherwise allow for violations of theno-FTL-signally theorem one must violate the basic rules of contemporary quantum mechanics, not merely set up clever experiments.*

I agree with Henry on this. Indeed my Journal of Cosmology paper (April 2011 Vol 14 - Penrose-Hameroff ed) agrees with this. So if Henry wants to say that

<A1|A2> =/= 0 violates OQT so be it.

However, it appears that we can do that in the lab with modern techniques.

HPS:

Just the opposite!

Well in that case what do you disagree with in my description of the double two slit experiment?

HPS:

But that is not the gedankenexperiment. The one I am modeling with the algebra is David Kaiser's Fig 9.1 So, the issue is what specific algebra in my model do you think is in error?

I think I have followed your general proof in this particular instance. However, in order to get no FTL signal I need <A1|A2> = 0 in the case that the Heisenberg microscope is switched off on the transmitter side. In OCT this condition is satisfied I think. However, with new techniques of weak and partial measurements and perhaps with entangled laser beams this may not be so. We also have John Cramer's variation on the Dopfur experiment which is functionally equivalent to mine. Now both Cramer and I may be in error here of course. The issue is where is the error in my algebra?

HPS

For reasons given, that is not the case.

JS: I suspect I am in error, but I can't find it in my algebra for Fig 9.1. For same reason I suspect that Cramer's experiment will not work, though he makes a plausible argument.

Do you disagree with my statement that terms like

<A2|A1><B1'|x'><x'|B2'> (7)

suffice for a local interference pattern on the receiver side provided that

<A2|A1> =/= 0 ?

In case the readers do not have easy access to the original argument I repeat it here

On Jun 25, 2011, at 10:02 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Let y be the support of the test particles that scatter the electron in the Heisenberg microscope on the transmitter side. Do not confuse y with x the position of the massive electron part of an entangled pair of electrons. Orthogonality of the transmitter slit states

<A2|A1> = 0 (1)

is only true for a reliable strong measurement of which way the transmitter electron A goes OR if no strong which-way measurement is even attempted. That is when the multiple integral with respect to y and x of

<A2|x,y><y,x|A1> = 0 (2)

This is not the case in an unreliable partial and/or weak which-way measurement where the effective measurement operator is not Hermitian.

e.g. in some weak measurements the effective measurement operator has an imaginary part.

The EPR pair interferometers have the entangled state for slits (1,2) & (1',2') at positions on screens x & x' for photons A & B in the same individual pair

<x,x'|A,B> = <x|A1><x'|B2'> + e^i@(y)<x|A2><x'|B1'> (3)

where @(y) is a stochastic phase whose degree of randomness is controlled by tuning the efficiency of the slit detector on the transmitter side.

Now the no-signal theorem in this case is trivial as shown by Henry Stapp.

Form the Born probability. Ignore @ for now. It's not important for this part of the argument.

P(x,x') ~ |<x,x'|A,B> |^2 (4)

What is important are the cross terms, e.g.

<A2|x><x|A1><B1'|x'><x'|B2'> (5)

Integrate over the transmitter positions x and also the scatterers y if the Heisenberg microscope is switched on at the transmitter and assume completeness of the eigenstates for the transmitter electron of the entangled pair |x>

i.e. integral of the projection operator

|x><x| = 1 (6)

Therefore the net result of this partial trace is

<A2|A1><B1'|x'><x'|B2'> (7)

The usual assumption is that the A slit bras and kets are orthogonal i.e.

<A2|A1> = 0 (8)

In that case there is never a LOCAL interference pattern on EITHER side under any conditions.

I am pointing out that neither the condition <A1|A2>=0,

nor any analog of such a condition, enters into my

general proof of the No-FTL signalling theorem.

OK, but what is wrong with my above model of the above experiment in David Kaiser's Fig 9.1?

It seems to me that in that particular model you must demand

<A2|A1> = 0

The proof that I gave earlier of the No-FTL-signalling theorem does not bring in any condition <A1|A2> = 0,

and it applies perfectly well, without comment, to the

case at hand where <A1|A2>=/= 0.

It applies perfectly well to the case where the projection

operator representing the answer "yes" to the experimenter's

probing question is P = |X><X|/<X|X> with

|X> = a|A1> + b|A2>, with a and b any complex numbers not

both zero.

I do not know where the condidtion <A1|A2> =0 that

Sarfatti mentions came from. It certainly does not

enter into my general argument, and emphatically not in

the case that Sarfatti is considering, in which

<A1|A2> =/= 0. The given proof of the theorem

goes through, provided only that the statistical

rules of OQT are maintained.

The theorem states that if the statistical rules

of OQT are valid, then the probabilities of the various

possible outcomes of an experiment performed in a spacetime

region R cannot depend upon which experiment is randomly chosen

and performed in a spacetime region L if R lies outside the

forward lightcone of region L, even though the OUTCOMES of

the experiments in the two regions may be intricately correlated,

due to interactions that occurred in the past.

On Jun 27, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Henry P. Stapp wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

See Fig 9.1 in David Kaiser's book How the Hippies Saved Physics to follow the equations below.

On Jun 25, 2011, HENRY STAPP wrote:

no-FTL-signally theorem one must violate the basic rules of contemporary quantum mechanics,

not merely set up clever experiments.

I agree with Henry on this. Indeed my Journal of Cosmology paper (April 2011 Vol 14 - Penrose-Hameroff ed)

agrees with this. So if Henry wants to say that

=/= 0 violates OQT so be it.

However, it appears that we can do that in the lab with modern techniques.

HPS:

Just the opposite!

Well in that case what do you disagree with in my description of the double two slit experiment?

Do you disagree with my statement that terms like

(7)

suffice for a local interference pattern on the receiver side provided that

=/= 0 ?

In case the readers do not have easy access to the original argument I repeat it here

On Jun 25, 2011, at 10:02 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Let y be the support of the test particles that scatter the electron in the Heisenberg microscope on the transmitter side. Do not confuse y with x the position of the massive electron part of an entangled pair of electrons. Orthogonality of the transmitter slit states

= 0 (1)

is only true for a reliable strong measurement of which way the transmitter electron A goes OR if no strong which-way measurement is even attempted. That is when the multiple integral with respect to y and x of

= 0 (2)

This is not the case in an unreliable partial and/or weak which-way measurement where the effective measurement operator is not Hermitian.

e.g. in some weak measurements the effective measurement operator has an imaginary part.

The EPR pair interferometers have the entangled state for slits (1,2) & (1',2') at positions on screens x & x' for electrons A & B in the same individual pair

= + e^i@(y) (3)

where @(y) is a stochastic phase whose degree of randomness is controlled by tuning the efficiency of the slit detector on the transmitter side.

Now the no-signal theorem in this case is trivial as shown by Henry Stapp.

Form the Born probability. Ignore @ for now. It's not important for this part of the argument.

P(x,x') ~ | |^2 (4)

What is important are the cross terms, e.g.

(5)

Integrate over the transmitter positions x and also the scatterers y if the Heisenberg microscope is switched on at the transmitter and assume completeness of the eigenstates for the transmitter electron of the entangled pair |x>

i.e. integral of the projection operator

|x> Therefore the net result of this partial trace is

(7)

The usual assumption is that the A slit bras and kets are orthogonal i.e.

= 0 (8)

In that case there is never a LOCAL interference pattern on EITHER side under any conditions.

HPS:

nor any analog of such a condition, enters into my

general proof of the No-FTL signalling theorem.

OK, but what is wrong with my above model of the above experiment in David Kaiser's Fig 9.1?

It seems to me that in that particular model you must demand

= 0

HPS:

and it applies perfectly well, without comment, to the

case at hand where =/= 0.

It applies perfectly well to the case where the projection

operator representing the answer "yes" to the experimenter's

probing question is P = |X> with

|X> = a|A1> + b|A2>, with a and b any complex numbers not

both zero.

I do not know where the condition =0 that

Sarfatti mentions came from. It certainly does not

enter into my general argument, and emphatically not in

the case that Sarfatti is considering, in which

=/= 0. The given proof of the theorem

goes through, provided only that the statistical

rules of OQT are maintained.

The theorem states that if the statistical rules

of OQT are valid, then the probabilities of the various

possible outcomes of an experiment performed in a spacetime

region R cannot depend upon which experiment is randomly chosen

and performed in a spacetime region L if R lies outside the

forward lightcone of region L, even though the OUTCOMES of

the experiments in the two regions may be intricately correlated,

due to interactions that occurred in the past.

Jun
22

Tagged in:

On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

Just a note to say that I agree with much of what Prof. Stapp says here regarding the need to question a 'block world'-type view, and note that my 'possibilist' development of Cramer's Transactional Interpretation ("PTI") makes use of a sub-empirical domain that seems to me very similar to his 'process time'. My book for CUP on PTI is underway and will present these ideas in detail. Due to time constraints I did not quite get to this in my AAAS talk.

best

Ruth

________________________________________

From: Henry P. Stapp [hpstapp@lbl.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:18 PM

To: JACK SARFATTI

Subject: Re: Retrodiction yes, retrocausation no

From Henry Stapp:

Because my comments at the recent AAAS meeting were mentioned, I would

like to give a fuller account of what I said, or at least tried to

say, and my opinion on the significance of the Bem results---

assumed for present purposes to be veridical and reproducible.

In the first place, the Aharonov papers do not change standard

(orthodox) QM by "one iota", in the sense that the predictions of

results of observations on the post-selected subsets are precisely

the predictions obtained by application of the standard rules. That

is why there is no doubt or question about what the predictions are.

And there should be no surprise that the predictions are confirmed by

the observations: that matching is merely confirmation of the standard

rules of QM, applied to the specified empirical conditions.

Jack: Exactly, the practical advantage is psychological leading to weak and partial measurement methods good for extracting weak signals in strong noise. Techniques that might have been discovered by orthodox thinkers. but allegedly were not.

The second key point is that the results reported by Bem are

inconsistent with the standard rules of orthodox QM. That is because

the Bem results essentially allow the transmission of a "signal"

(a message created by the sender) backwards in time.

Yes, this is signal nonlocality! This is what we were looking for as described in David Kaiser's book How The Hippies Saved Physics. The New York Times Book Review (June 19, 2011) is hostile to the book and grossly inaccurate about the physics. Peter Woit's review in American Scientist is much more balanced and accurate. - Jack

The idea of making changes that act "backward in time" needs to be

clarified, since it is, in a sense, incompatible within the ordinary

common sense idea of time. Yet the empirical results arising

from the Wheeler delayed choice experiments seem, in some sense, to

be saying that choices made now are affecting what happened in the past.

This backward-in-time aspect of QM is compactly captured by the

assertion made in the recent book "The Grand Design" by Hawking and

Mlodinow "We create history by our observations, history does not

create us". (p.140)

How can one make rationally coherent good sense out of this

peculiar feature of QM?

The way I do this is to introduce the concept of "process time",

which is a "time" that is different from the "Einstein time" that

is joined to physically described space to give Einstein space-time.

(See my chapter in "Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time" SUNY,

1986, Ed. David Ray Griffiths. Three physicists, D. Bohm, I. Prigogine and

I presented our ideas about time.)

Jack: Since entropy is technically imaginary action, e.g,. Hawking's rotation to imaginary time relates quantum field theory to statistical mechanics with a change of space dimension. So would a complex time do what Henry wants? Of course the signature changes. No light cones in imaginary time, so no causal constraints either?

In relativistic quantum field theory (Tomonaga/Schwinger) the quantum

state collapses not on an advancing sequence of constant time surfaces

t(i):t(i+1)>t(i); but rather on an advancing sequence of space-like

surfaces sigma(i): for each i, every point on sigma(i) is spacelike

displaced from every other point on sigma(i), and every point on

sigma(i+1) either coincides with a point on sigma(i), or lies in the open

future lightcone of some points on sigma(i).

At each surface sigma(i) a projection operator P(i), or its complement

P'(i)=(I-P(i)), acts to reduce the quantum state to some part of its

former self.

For each sigma(i) there is a "block universe" defined by extending the

quantum state on sigma(i) both forward and backward in time via the

unitary time evolution operator generated by the Schroedinger equation.

Let the index i that labels the sigma(i) be called "process time".

Then for each instant i of process time, a new history is defined by

the backward-in-time evolution from the newly created state on

sigma(i). All predictions about the future are "as if" the future

state is the smooth continuation from the newly created past.

This newly created past is the "effective past", in the sense that

the future predictions are given by taking this newly created past to be

the past.

In orthodox QM each instant of process time corresponds to an

"observation": the collapse at process time i reduces the former

quantum state to the part of itself compatible with the increased

knowledge generated by the new observation.

The actual physical universe is generated by the always-forward-moving

creative pocess---in the sense that the sequence of surfaces sigma(i)

advances into the future, even though there is an associated set

of revised "histories".

This is all just standard quantum mechanics, elaborated for clarity.

The element of "randomness" enters Copenhagen/vonNeumann QM in the

following way:

Each "observation" must be preceded first by a choice on the part of

the observer of what aspect of nature he or she wants to probe.

The outcome "yes" of the probing action must be a recognizable

empirical experience. The "probability" that nature will return the answer

"yes" is specified by quantum theory. The probability of "No" is the

complement: Prob(Yes)+Prob(No)=1.

It is a fundamental theorem of QM that IF the standard orthodox

statistical rules governing nature's choice of reply are strictly

adhered to, then no "message" (information transfer containing

info controlled by the sender) can be sent faster-than-light

or backward-in-time: I cannot receive "now" information controlled

by the "freely chosen" actions of a sender acting in my future, in any

frame: "messages" can be sent only into the forward light-cone;

"normal statistics entails normal causation!"

Jack: According to this rule, John Cramer's recent modification of the Dopfur experiment throwing out the coincidence circuit must fail.

Given the powerful evidence for the validity of the

orthodox rules, not only from the thousands of standard pertinent

experiments performed during the past century, but also for the

strange predictions for post-selection and partial measurements described

at this AAAS conference, it is reasonable to try retain the orthodox

rules, insofar as is possible, and not try to start from scratch, as

was recommended by some speakers.

The simplest way to get the Bem results within the general framework of

orthodox QM is to allow a slight biasing of the orthodox statistical

rules: a biasing of nature's choices that works to enhance the

maintainance of life of biological systems.

We know already from EPR-type phenomena that nature's choices "here" must

have some sort of pertinent access to faraway information: nature's choice

at some moment i in process time may have access to the corresponding

block universe, which represents weighted potentialities for the future,

as they exist at that particular moment i in process time.

Of course, this notion that nature's choices are biased in favor

of biology is absolutely opposed to the concepts of classical physics,

where everything---except the initial state of the universe---is

controlled by purely local mechanical process. This idea that nature

creates the initial state, but thereafter maintains a strictly

hands-off stance, is carried over to QM by the orthodox statistical

rule, which is completely determined by purely physical considerations.

But the Bem experiment, by indicating a possible bio-enhancing bias,

may be an empirical indication that the classical-physics notion of a

hands-off basically passive nature may be incorrect!

Of course, this conclusion tends to move science in a direction

somewhat concordant with some religions, but that fact is not a proper

scientific reason to reject it: the motivation here is strictly

to save the principles of orthodox QM, in the face of data that,

if bona fide, seem to entail a need to revise in some way the

strictly orthodox theory. And the simplest revision is to back

away from the notion that nature, after creating the physical universe,

simply lets it run on automatic. That idea is certainly very agreeable

to mathematical physicists, but is hardly the only way that nature could

behave. We may need to tailor the existing theory to accomodate the data,

not confine the acceptable data to those that fit the existing (subject to

modification) theory!

That, in brief, is the message that I tried to convey at the AAAS meeting!

Jack: Indeed you did and if you look at B.J. Carr's 2008 review paper you will see I have been arguing very much the same position based on the prior reports of Libet, Radin, Bierman, Puthoff & Targ. Now Bem's data seem to put the last nail in the applicability of Orthodox Quantum Mechanics for living matter.

Can Psychical Research Bridge the Gulf Between Matter and Mind? Bernard Carr Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol 59 Part 221 June 2008 describes my ideas on signal nonlocality violating quantum theory in living matter as well as Brian Josephson's.

see also

Subquantum Information and Computation

Antony Valentini

(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))

It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049

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

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Jun 18, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Michael Nauenberg wrote:

I couldn't attend your San Diego meeting, but I had sent a

message to Daniel, summarized below, which I had hoped he would share with you

Michael

Subject: Retrodiction yes, retrocausation no.

Dear Daniel,

I won't be able to attend your meeting, but I had a brief

e-mail exchange with Jeff. The best way to summarize my disagreement with

the article of Aharanov et al. is

that standard quantum mechanics is consistent with

"retrodiction", but not with "retrocausation". For a consistent post-selection of states

in the future, prior statistical predictions of quantum mechanics are properly

given by "conditional" probability relations.

But the Aharanov et al. claim in Physics Today that imposing such future boundary conditions,i.e.

retrocausation, does not change quantum mechanics

by "one iota", is not valid.

I hope these comments are helpful.

Regards, Michael

I do agree that it's retro-causal signal nonlocality that is the real revolution in physics as given by Daryl Bem's paper throwing the last nail in the coffin of signal locality. That means a violation of Orthodox Quantum Theory OQT in living systems. Henry Stapp made this clear in his talk. I have been saying for a long time what Henry now says. On the other hand, both weak measurement and Elitzur's partial measurements lead to useful technology that almost certainly would not have been thought of in the OQT way of thinking.

So if you like

retrodiction = weak retrocausality

the real beef however is

signal nonlocality ---> decodable messages received before they are sent, but only if in fact nothing prevents them from being sent in a globally consistent loop.

"A beautiful theory is murdered by an ugly fact." Richard Feynman

OQT = beautiful theory

Bem's experiments = ugly fact

(also of course Libet, Schmidt, Radin, Bierman ...)