Text Size

Stardrive

Jack Sarfatti
about a minute ago via Twitter
If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
— Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
Gifford Lectures (1927), The Nature of the Physical World (1928), 74
http://t.co/2VR1fByb allows delayed choice & faster-than-light entanglement signals (A.Valentini ) but violates2nd Law Thermodynamics
[1206.5485] Open timelike curves violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
lnkd.in/Gd5gT5
Open timelike curves violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
J.LPienaarC.R. Myers, T.C. Ralph
(Submitted on 24 Jun 2012)
Toy models for quantum evolution in the presence of closed timelike curves (CTCs) have gained attention in the recent literature due to the strange effects they predict. The circuits that give rise to these effects appear quite abstract and contrived, as they require non-trivial interactions between the future and past which lead to infinitely recursive equations. We consider the special case in which there is no interaction inside the CTC, referred to as an open timelike curve (OTC), for which the only local effect is to increase the time elapsed by a clock carried by the system. Remarkably, circuits with access to OTCs are shown to violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, allowing perfect state discrimination and perfect cloning of coherent states. The model is extended to wave-packets and smoothly recovers standard quantum mechanics in an appropriate physical limit. The analogy with general relativistic time-dilation suggests that OTCs provide a novel alternative to existing proposals for the behaviour of quantum systems under gravity.
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).
Comments:    10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh(Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
Subjects:

http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2012/05/its-wrong-but-it-feels-so-right.html

A violation of the uncertainty principle implies a violation of the second law of
thermodynamics
Esther Hänggi∗ and Stephanie Wehner†
Centre for Quantum Technologies, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 2, 117543 Singapore
(Dated: June 1, 2012)
Uncertainty relations state that there exist certain incompatible measurements, to which the
outcomes cannot be simultaneously predicted. While the exact incompatibility of quantum measurements
dictated by such uncertainty relations can be inferred from the mathematical formalism
of quantum theory, the question remains whether there is any more fundamental reason for the
uncertainty relations to have this exact form. What, if any, would be the operational consequences
if we were able to go beyond any of these uncertainty relations? We give a strong argument that
justifies uncertainty relations in quantum theory by showing that violating them implies that it is
also possible to violate the second law of thermodynamics. More precisely, we show that violating
the uncertainty relations in quantum mechanics leads to a thermodynamic cycle with positive net
work gain, which is very unlikely to exist in nature.

On Jun 25, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Gary S Bekkum wrote:

Jack, in one of your answers you wrote:

"Based on my personal contact in about 1953 and what happened after I think it’s more likely than not that they are really here and have been for thousands of years interfering in our history."

So I'm adding a follow-up question:

Tell us more about your 1953 experience and why it launched you on a mission to reach for the stars.

Everything you need to know on that is in my book Destiny Matrix and in Star Gate Conspiracy by Picknett & Prince - I don’t have time to regurgitate it again. In fact it’s not that important and gives my numerous enemies ammunition to attack me as a crank. Suffice it to say that I had what Jacques Vallee calls “high strangeness” contact as a child in 1953 that correctly foretold very improbable event of great cultural impact that would begin to occur in 1973 and which in fact happened and which has been partially chronicled in MIT physics professor David Kaiser’s book “How the Hippies Saved Physics” that has been reviewed in all the leading media: Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Scientific American, Nature, American Scientist, Times Literary Supplement and more.

In terms of your title note the first four animations of me Stealing Warp Drive from the Gods here

http://web.mac.com/nquebedeau/Norman_Quebedeau/Animation.html



Here's how the interview is shaping up thus far (please do not distribute until the final version, thank you!)

Stealing Warp Drive From the Gods: The Men Who Would Build ‘Prometheus’

Controversial physicist Jack Sarfatti would like to steal quantum metric engineering from the cosmic gods and build a starship. Sarfatti answers our questions about how he intends to “make STAR TREK real” and send the human race “where no man has gone before.”

note my corrections IN GREEN FONT


STARpod US: How do we get to the stars?

Jack Sarfatti: There is no room for any of the alternative theories of gravity I have seen so far in practical warp drive/wormhole physics for real star ships. This is my opinion. It’s obvious to me -- starting with our ISSO[the International Space Sciences Organization, which was active from 1999-2000 and was funded by formerUSWeb CEO Joe Firmage as part of a 12 million dollar new physics development effort]. The people offering alternative theories of gravity have not really understood Einstein’s General Relativity. Star Gate Wormholes are the only way and that is how the Little Green Men in their fabulous flying saucers get here -- if they are real and not mass delusion.

[Editor's note: According to Joe Firmage's website, from 1998 to 2001, the International Space Sciences Organization, focused on experimental studies at the leading edge of classical and quantum electrodynamics, new interpretations or revisions of Einstein's General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, extracting energy from or the manipulation of the quantum vacuum of spacetime  to produce net thrust, conducted several dozen experiments to evaluate submissions of third party-developed energy and propulsion devices, and produced "several significant peer-reviewed papers published by the teams, conferences and discussion groups spanning the United States and Europe."]

STARpod US: If we go to the stars, what do you think we will find?

Jack Sarfatti: Obviously, if flying saucers are real -- alien star gate warp technology -- we will find many new life forms.

STARpod US: Do you believe the aliens are already here, or have visited us in the past?

Jack Sarfatti: They have, it seems, already found us. The evidence for a large number of exo-planets is growing. Therefore, any attempt to reach the stars with conventional technology is doomed to failure and is not worth funding in my opinion. Based on my personal contact in about 1953 and what happened after I think it’s more likely than not that they are really here and have been for thousands of years interfering in our history.

STARpod US: Stephen Hawking warned us not to talk to the aliens. Is it too late?

Jack Sarfatti: It’s been too late for a long time possibly millions of years. Hawking has always been ambiguous about saucers. Probably he knows something about them from MoD [Britain's Ministry ofDefence] files -- like Martin Rees -- his boss -- should.

STARpod US: In the movie 'Prometheus' human beings are traveling to other star systems by the end of the21st century. Do you believe this is possible?

Jack Sarfatti: Obviously yes since it seems that the saucers are already are doing it -- most likely.

STARpod US: In the movie, the 'Prometheus' starship is a privately funded project of a rich eccentric who is seeking immortal physical life. We hear rumors that your work is also of interest to the very rich.

Jack Sarfatti: Correct.

STARpod US: Based upon your personal experience, how does the real-life drama of the search for interstellar travel compare to Hollywood's vision?

Jack Sarfatti: I haven’t seen Prometheus.

A side note: what role, if any, do you see for the government (NASA, DARPA) in the search for interstellar travel?

Jack Sarfatti: Not much beyond the $500K they gave to Mae Jemison’s group.

STARpod US: Do you think our planet, or even our entire universe, is product of random evolution in a sea of all possible worlds, or was our world an act of creation by cosmic engineers?

Jack SarfattiBemRadinBiermanTarg and others all have scientific evidence for future-to-past nonlocal entanglement signal communication. In my opinion it is a fact. The only issue is the theory and I think I have the essentials for that. Targ has data vetted by CIA desperately trying to prove him and Puthoff wrong. In fact they could not. In addition we all have non-scientific folkloric evidence for the reality of back-from-the-future mental phenomena. Furthermore, dark energy obeys the Planck blackbody T^4 formula for advancedWheeler-Feynman Hawking black body radiation from our future event horizon. This horizon is a vast cosmic hologram computer according to my synthesis of Bekenstein's, Hawking’s, Susskind’sAharonov's and Seth Lloyd’s ideas. It corresponds to Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega Point, to I.J. Good’s GOD(D), to Fred Hoyle’sBlack Cloud, to P.K. Dick’s VALIS, to Olaf Stapledon’s and John Lilly's Star Maker and finally to Hawking’s Mind of God. Yes, the Cosmic Engineer is alive and well on our future dark energy cosmological event horizon and his or her or ITs IQ is 10^123 BITS in accord with John Archibald Wheeler’s IT FROM BIT.

--
Gary S. Bekkum
STARstream Research
STARpod.org
STARpod.us
P.O. Box 1144
Maple Grove, MN 55311-6144
Mobile VM (763) 439-0719

garybekkum@yahoo.com
garysbekkum@gmail.com



__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
RECENT ACTIVITY:
Visit Your Group
These are the logs of the starship NCC-1701-280Z.  Its five-year mission to seek out new minds, new quantum realms.  To boldly explore physics where no physicist  has gone before (in physical, virtual, or quantum worlds)!

Starmind(tm) -- Your daily journal to the industry's brightest stars.  You get infinite knowledge only withStarmind:

All hits.  All Physics. All the time.  And now in parallel and diverging universes.  (Thus proving they don't exist as separate entities --But have we gotten to them yet or not?)

** Patronize any Yahoo! Group Sponsor at your own risk.

- - - - - - Message From Starfleet  - - - (Read below) - - - - - - - - - - -
To change any characteristic of your online membership access, visit via web:
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/SarfattiScienceSeminars

Join in our ongoing discussions and theoretical science writings:
http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/SarfattiScienceSeminars

Dr. Sarfatti may be reached at his e-mail or using Internet site:
http://stardrive.org
http://www.1st-books.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To respond or comment directly to the group's archive, reply via e-mail:

SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups.com
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.

Zeilinger et-al wrote: "In the entanglement swapping1-3 procedure, two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to Victor. The two other photons from each pair are sent to Alice and Bob, respectively. If Victor projects his two photons onto an entangled state, Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled although they have never interacted or shared any common past. What might be considered as even more puzzling is Peres’ idea of “delayed-choice for entanglement swapping”4. In thisgedanken experiment, Victor is free to choose either to project his two photons onto an entangled state and thus project Alice’s and Bob’s photons onto an entangled state, or to measure them individually and then project Alice’s and Bob’s photons onto a separable state. If Alice and Bob measure their photons’ polarization states before Victor makes his choice and projects his two photons either onto an entangled state or onto a separable state, it implies that whether their two photons are entangled (showing quantum correlations) or separable (showing classical correlations) can be defined after they have been measured.”

The issue of Antony Valentini’s “signal nonlocality” is whether Alice and Bob can do correlation measurements on ensembles of their photons to tell if they are entangled or not BEFORE Victor makes his choice. If the answer is YES then this is real precognition in a Block Universe. The consensus is that the answer is NO however, that has to be proven both theoretically and experimentally. Indeed, experiment with minds suggests NO as factual. This is still controversial because precognition is considered irrational in mainstream physics.
· · Share

Weak measurement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_measurement
modified slightly by me in italic font


Weak measurements are a type of quantum measurement, where the measured system is very weakly coupled to the measuring device. After the measurement the measuring device pointer is shifted by what is called the "weak value", so that a pointer initially pointing at zero before the measurement would point at the weak value after the measurement. The system is not disturbed by the measurement. Although this may seem to contradict some basic aspects of quantum theory, the formalism lies within the boundaries of the theory and does not contradict any fundamental concept, in particular not Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.


The idea of weak measurements and weak values, first developed by Yakir Aharonov, David Albert and LevVaidman, published in 1988, [1] is especially useful for gaining information about pre- and post-selected systems described by the two-state vector formalism.[2] This was the original reason that Aharonov et al developed weak measurement. Since a "strong" perturbative measurement can both upset the outcome of the post-selection and tamper with all subsequent measurement, weak nonperturbative measurements may be used to learn about such systems during their evolution.


If  (history| and |destiny)  are the pre- and post-selected quantum mechanical (retarded past to present) history and (advanced back from the future) destiny states, the weak value of the observable Â is defined as


Aw = (history|A|destiny)/(history|destiny)


The weak value of the observable becomes large when the post-selected state approaches being orthogonal to the pre-selected state, . In this way, by properly choosing the two states, the weak value of the operator can be made arbitrarily large, and otherwise small effects can be amplified.[3]


Note that the theory of weak measurement allows Hardy's paradox to be explained. In Hardy's paradox a positron and an electron go down both arms of each of their interferometers. If they meet in the overlapping arms, they should annihilate each other. But, strangely, they are still registered as arriving at the detectors.[4]


Related to this, the research group of Aephraim Steinberg at the University of Toronto confirmed Hardy's paradox experimentally using joint weak measurement’ of the locations of entangled pairs of photons.[4][5] Independently, a team of physicists from Japan reported in December, 2008, and published in March, 2009, that they were able to use joint weak measurement to observe a photonic version of Hardy's paradox. In this version, two photons were used instead of a positron and an electron and relied not upon non-annihilation but on polarization degrees of freedom values measured.[6]


Building on weak measurements, Howard M. Wiseman proposed a weak value measurement of the velocity of a quantum particle at a precise position, which he termed its "naïvely observable velocity". In 2010, a first experimental observation of trajectories of a photon in a double-slit interferometer was reported, which displayed the qualitative features predicted in 2001 by Partha Ghose[7]for photons in the de Broglie-Bohminterpretation.[8][9]


In 2011, weak measurements of many photons prepared in the same pure state, followed by strong measurements of a complementary variable, were used to reconstruct the state in which the photons were prepared.[10]


[edit]Further reading
Discover Magazine article: "Back From the Future" A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future
Stephen Parrott questions the meaning and usefulness of weak measurements, as described above.[6]
Quantum physics first: Researchers observe single photons in two-slit interferometer experiment:http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-quantum-physics-photons-two-slit-interferometer.html
Adrian Cho: Furtive Approach Rolls Back the Limits of Quantum Uncertainty, Science, 5 August 2011, vol. 333, no. 6043, pp. 690-693, doi:10.1126/science.333.6043.690
[edit]References
^ Y. AharonovD.Z. Albert, L. Vaidman, "How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100," Physical Review Letters, 1988. [1]
^ Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman in Time in Quantum Mechanics, J.GMuga et al. eds., (Springer) 369-412 (2002) quant-ph/0105101
^ O. Hosten and P. Kwiat Observation of the spin Hall effect of light via weak measurements Science 319 787 (2008) [2]
^ a b J. S. Lundeen, A. M. Steinberg, "Experimental Joint Weak Measurement on a Photon Pair as a Probe of Hardy’s Paradox", Physical Review Letters 102, 020404 (2009) [3]
^ Hardy's paradox confirmed experimentally, Perimeter Institute, downloaded 20. November 2011
^ K. Yokota, T. Yamamoto, M. Koashi, N. Imoto, "Direct observation of Hardy's paradox by joint weak measurement with an entangled photon pair", New J. Phys. 11, 033011 (2009) [4]
Partha GhoseA.SMajumdar, S. Guhab, J. SauBohmian trajectories for photons, Physics Letters A 290 (2001), pp. 205–213, 10 November 2001
Sacha KocsisSylvain Ravets, Boris BravermanKrister ShalmAephraim M. Steinberg: Observing the trajectories of a single photon using weak measurement, 19th Australian Institute of Physics (AIP) Congress, 2010 [5]
Sacha Kocsis, Boris BravermanSylvain Ravets, Martin J. Stevens, Richard P. Mirin, L. Krister Shalm,Aephraim M. Steinberg:Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer, Science, vol. 332 no. 6034 pp.&nbsp:1170-1173, 3 June 2011, doi:10.1126/science.1202218 (abstract)
^ Jeff S. Lundeen, Brandon Sutherland, Aabid Patel, Corey Stewart, Charles Bamber: Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction, Nature vol. 474, pp. 188–191, 9. June 2011, doi:10.1038/nature10120
View page ratings

Higgs Discovery on the Brink, but is it THE Higgs?
by Philip Gibbs
By now you should know that physicists working on the CMS and ATLAS experiments on the Large HadronCollider are about to announce important new results in the search for the Higgs boson. The announcement will be made on the morning of the 4th July at CERN in advance of the ICHEP conference in Melbourne where more details may emerge. The expectation is that this update will actually be a discovery announcement for the Higgs Boson. This is based on vague rumours, plus the fact that CERN PR are not saying that it is not a discovery, plus the fact that it would make no sense to have such an update at CERN before a big conference unless it were a discovery, plus the fact that they would not have been so sure so soon that there was something big to say unless the signal had come through very clear and strong. The details will have to wait for the day and of course I will be here to add my independent analysis and unofficial Higgs combinations as the story unfolds. Others will be live blogging including Tommaso Dorigo of CMS who says he will be in the auditorium. I hope he has a seat reserved for him so that he does not have to camp outside the door overnight to get in. I will be watching the live webcast from home instead.
How do they know it is the Higgs Boson?
This is now the most frequently asked question, how do they know it is the Higgs boson and not some other particle they are seeing? In the scientific papers we can expect that the physicists of the collaboration will be careful about how they word the discovery. They will say something like: "We have found a new resonance (i.e. particle) in the search for the Higgs boson which is consistent (or maybe not) with the standard model Higgs Boson. Further measurements will be needed to confirm that its properties are as predicted." And of course they will quantify what they mean by this with a slew of numbers and plots. In the press you will simply hear that they have discovered the Higgs boson. Dont by upset by this, you can't expect a report in the New York times to read like a paper in Physical Review D, but it is fair to ask to what extent its known properties so far indicate that it really is the Higgs boson.
What is the Spin?
The most distinctive characteristic of the Higgs Boson is that it is a scalar, i.e. it has no spin. Other elementary particles in the standard model are either fermions with spin one half or gauge bosons with spin one. Particles with spin that is any multiple of one half are possible and it is a quantity that needs to be checked experimentally. The channel where they are seeing the signal for the Higgs boson most strongly is through its decay into two high energy photons. The photons have spin one but spin is conserved because the two photons take away spin in opposite directions that cancel. It is not possible for fermions that have a odd-integer spin to decay without producing at leat one new fermion so we know already that the particle observed is a boson. By a theoretical result known as the Landau-Yang theorem it is not possible for a spin one particle to decay into two photons either, but it is possible for a spin-two particle to decay into two photons with spins in the same direction.
So we know already that the new particle has spin zero or spin two and we could tell which one if we could detect the polarisations of the photons produced. Unfortunately this is difficult and neither ATLAS nor CMS are able to measure polarisations. The only direct and sure way to confirm that the particle is indeed a scalar is to plot the angular distribution of the photons in the rest frame of the centre of mass. A spin zero particle like the Higgs carries no directional information away from the original collision so the distribution will be even in all directions. This test will be possible when a much larger number of events have been observed. In the mean time we can settle for less certain indirect indicators.
In March the Tevatron presented their final observations in their search for the Higgs boson. Their detectors are more sensitive to the decay of the Higgs to two bottom quarks. A weakly significant signal was seen at the same mass of 125 GeV where the LHC is seeing its resonance. This too will be confirmed with more certainty by the LHC later.  This shows (or will show) that the particle can decay into two spin half fermions. This is certainly possible for a spin zero particle and also for a spin one particle but is it possible for a spin two particle? If not we would know that the spin must be zero by a simple process of elimination. In fact it is possible for a spin-two particle to decay into two spin halfs provided the extra spin one is carried away either as orbital angular momentum (p-wave) or as a soft photon that is not seen, but neither of these possibilities is very likely. We can therefore be reasonably sure already that the observed particle is indeed spin zero, but for absolute certainty we will have to wait for more detailed studies.
What about other quantum numbers?
As well as spin, any elementary particle is partially classified by other quantum numbers including electric charge, colour charge, baryon number,  CP, etc. The charges are strictly conserved due to gauge invariance and are zero in the decay products so we know for sure that the particle is neutral. We also know that the baryon number is zero otherwise the particle would provide a mechanism for baryon number violation that would probably destabilise the proton. The quantity CP can be either even or odd but it is hard to know for sure which it is because CP is known to be unconserved at an observable level. Given that the decay modes are predominantly into a particle and its anti-particle or into two particles that are the same, it is unlikely that the CP is odd, but we will have to wait for more carefull tests to be reasonably sure. In any case there are versions of the Higgs boson in theories outside the standard model that have odd CP so this question does not really affect whether or not they are seeing the Higgs.
What about other Higgs properties?
The mass of the Higgs boson is the last parameter of the standard model to be determined. With the imminent discovery we now believe it to be about 125 GeV. With this quantity known every other property of the standard model can in principle be calculated, but it is not always easy due to non-perturbative effects that are difficult to model and uncertainty in other measurements that adds uncertainty to the any calculation. The decay time ( or width ) of the Higgs boson can be calculated but because 125 GeV is less than twice the W or Z masses the boson is relatively stable and the width is a few MeV. This is far too narrow to be measured at the LHC where the mass resolution is in the order of a GeV.
However, the most distinctive characteristic of the Higgs boson is its coupling to massive particles. By the nature of the Higgs mechanism that gives mass to the fundamental particles in the standard model, the coupling is always proportional to the mass. according to the theory the fermions and gauge bosons do not have any mass in the unbroken electroweak phase due to gauge symmetry and chiral symmetry (however the fact that neutrinos have a small mass takes us beyond the standard model)   This affects all the production rates and branching ratios for the decays so if these are measured and found to be in agreement with the standard model we will have a useful test that what we have found really is the Higgs boson. Only by producing the unbroken state can we get a clearer sign that it is the real Higgs mechanism that breaks electro-weak symmetry but that is not accessible to present day technology.
...
Can they say they discovered the Higgs boson then?
Once we have the data from the first 2012 run in our hands in ten days time we will already have enough data to say that the new particle looks like a Higgs boson. We may even be able to make some preliminary statements about any deviations from the standard model. These will improve in time.
There will always be those who say that we dont really know for sure that this is the Higgs boson rather than some other scalar neutral particle that happened to be around, but the fact is that this particle turned up just about where the Higgs boson was most expected and with the right properties. We already know from the discovery of the W and Z bosons and many other tests that the standard model is a good one and it is a model based on electroweak symmetry breaking. Something is required to break that symmetry and now we have found a particle that fits nicely the characteristics of such a particle. Only the most obstinate skeptic would complain if they claim to have discovered the Higgs boson given the evidence we expect to see very soon. If it swims on a pond and quacks like a duck it is not unreasonable to say it is a duck, especially when you were expecting to find a duck. Further observations will just tell us more about what kind of duck it is.
http://blog.vixra.org/2012/06/24/higgs-discovery-on-the-brink-but-is-it-the-higgs/

Signal nonlocality is a crazy idea for which there is evidence in the human mind. Does this mean overthrow of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in spite of Eddington’s famous remark?
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).
Comments:    10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh(Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
Subjects:    Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference:    Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
On Jun 22, 2012, at 8:32 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
A violation of the uncertainty principle implies a violation of the second law of thermodynamics
Esther Hänggi, Stephanie Wehner
(Submitted on 31 May 2012)
Uncertainty relations state that there exist certain incompatible measurements, to which the outcomes cannot be simultaneously predicted. While the exact incompatibility of quantum measurements dictated by such uncertainty relations can be inferred from the mathematical formalism of quantum theory, the question remains whether there is any more fundamental reason for the uncertainty relations to have this exact form. What, if any, would be the operational consequences if we were able to go beyond any of these uncertainty relations? We give a strong argument that justifies uncertainty relations in quantum theory by showing that violating them implies that it is also possible to violate the second law of thermodynamics. More precisely, we show that violating the uncertainty relations in quantum mechanics leads to a thermodynamic cycle with positive net work gain, which is very unlikely to exist in nature.

The previous Blog message has been corrected + should have been X, i.e. tensor product in Hilbert qubitspace not addition & new content added V3 is second revision to the original.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdf

 

Imagine preparing two networks A & B of trapped ionsspacelike separated from each other with Glaubercoherent states |z) in their nano-meter COM mechanical phonon oscillations entangled with their internal Jaynes-Cummings qubits |1(0)).  Then do an entanglement swap between the Jaynes-Cummingsinternal bit networks. Sure this will take light cone limited classical time delay to accomplish, but once that is finished then the nonlocal superluminalcommunication can begin to be tested - evenretrocausally.

 

The initial preparation is the Schrodinger Cat entangled state

 

z = (n)^1/2e^i@(coherent)

 

|Az)|A1) + |Az*)|A0)X(|Bz)|B1) + |Bz*)|B0))

 

tensor product of Hilbert spaces

 

after the entanglement swap (inside respective light cones)

 

the new state ready for nonlocal entanglement signaling is

 

|Az)|B1) + |Az*)|B0)X(|Bz)|A1) + |Bz*)|A0))

 

For example, the receiver signal at B to detect aJaynes-Cummings internal bit “1” will be

 

S(B1) ~ (1/2)(1 + |(Az|Az*)|^2)

 

in violation of the Born probability rule because of the “More is different” (P.W. Anderson) phase rigidity of the nano-mechanical oscillator coherent real phonon (center of mass motion) over-complete distinguishable non-orthogonal Glauber states.

 

It is the Born probability rule that needs to be tested in this situation and not simply assumed apriori

 

Zeilinger et-al wrote:
"In the entanglement swapping1-3 procedure, two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to Victor. The two other photons from each pair are sent to Alice and Bob, respectively. If Victor projects his two photons onto an entangled state, Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled although they have never interacted or shared any common past. What might be considered as even more puzzling is Peres’ idea of “delayed-choice for entanglement swapping”4. In this gedanken experiment, Victor is free to choose either to project his two photons onto an entangled state and thus project Alice’s and Bob’s photons onto an entangled state, or to measure them individually and then project Alice’s and Bob’s photons onto a separable state. If Alice and Bob measure their photons’ polarization states before Victor makes his choice and projects his two photons either onto an entangled state or onto a separable state, it implies that whether their two photons are entangled (showing quantum correlations) or separable (showing classical correlations) can be defined after they have been measured. In order to experimentally realize Peres’ gedanken experiment, we place Victor’s choice and measurement in the time-like future of Alice’s and Bob’s measurements, providing a “delayed-choice” configuration in any and all reference frames" - end quote

Unfortunately, for trapped ions the nanomechanical phonon coherent state is physically attached to the internal Jaynes-Cummings bit so we cannot send one to Victor. We would need an additional step, teleporting the Jaynes-Cummings bit to another two level system that could be physically moved to Victor.
It’s not yet clear to me if this could be done keeping the basic initial entanglement pattern using the trapped ions. However, there may be some other more suitable way of implementing the basic idea.

 

reference

Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping
Xiao-song Ma1,2, Stefan Zotter1, Johannes Kofler1,a,
Rupert Ursin1, Thomas Jennewein1,b, ?aslav Brukner1,3, and Anton Zeilinger1,2,3
1 Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
2 Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ), Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
3 Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
a Present Address: Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, Hans-Kopfermann-Str. 1, 85748 Garching/Munich, Germany
b Present Address: Institute for Quantum Computing and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W., Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L3G1
Motivated by the question, which kind of physical interactions and processes are needed for the production of quantum entanglement, Peres has put forward the radical idea of delayed-choice entanglement swapping. There, entanglement can be “produced a posteriori, after the entangled particles have been measured and may no longer exist.” In this work we report the first realization of Peres’ gedanken experiment. Using four photons, we can actively delay the choice of measurement – implemented via a high-speed tunable bipartite state analyzer and a quantum random number generator – on two of the photons into the time-like future of the registration of the other two photons. This effectively projects the two already registered photons onto one definite of two mutually exclusive quantum states in which either the photons are entangled (quantum correlations) or separable (classical correlations). This can also be viewed as “quantum steering into the past”.

It’s a difficult paper to understand fully. However, their main point seems to be that they have an algorithm for computing key properties like superconductivity of non-relativistic v/c << 1 Galilean relativity many-particle systems with spontaneous broken ground state symmetries. Unlike the special relativity case, the number of massless Goldstone bosons need not be equal to the number of broken symmetry Lie algebra generators dim G - dim H when G ---> G/H (coset space of degenerate macro-quantum coherent ground states), H is the residual unbroken symmetry group where G is the initial symmetry group prior to the quantum ground state phase transition.

Also, localizing the global symmetry group is not studied in their paper.

It’s important to realize - and this is my insight not in the paper, that in every case the actual ground states in the coset space is a ROBUST not FRAGILE coherent condensate of VIRTUAL zero frequency Goldstonebosons as distinct from real Goldstone bosons.

Furthermore the condensates are essentially generalized Glauber states for the relevant Lie algebra of the particular many-particle system.

For example, space crystals are Glauber states of zero frequency virtual phonons (1 longitudinal 2 transverse) with finite wave vectors that are the reciprocals of the lattice unit cell base vectors. This is analogous to the electrostatic Coulomb field in the rest frame of a point charge that is a Glauber state of virtual zero frequency photons with a continuum of wave vectors in the Fourier transform of e/r.

On Jun 18, 2012, at 7:34 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/06/08/theorem-unifies-superfluids-and-other-weird-materials/


The new theorem expands on Nambu’s ideas to the more general case, Watanabe said, proving that in weird materials, the number of Nambu-Goldstone bosons is actually less than the number of broken symmetries.

“What Nambu showed was true, but only for specialized cases applicable to particle physics,” he said. “Now we have a general explanation for all of physics; no exceptions.”

this Russian paper Art Wagner found is getting more interesting in terms of exotic jet propulsion, though in a cavity it might be a kind of saucer engine. Too soon to tell - I have not finished the paper but it smells good.

On Jun 18, 2012, at 6:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:


Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI < sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Subject: New Russian Jet Propulsion System?: Local Quasigravity Fields of Strongly Swirling Gaseous Flows
Date: June 18, 2012 4:19:26 PM PDT
To: Exotic Physics < exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
<Screen Shot 2012-06-18 at 6.17.41 PM.png>

Yeah, it looks interesting. Remember the alleged “Bell” machine in Nick Cook’s “Hunt for the Zero Point”.
Die Glocke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Glocke
Die Glocke (German for "The Bell") was a purported top secret Nazi scientific technological device, secret weapon, or Wunderwaffe. First described by Polish ...
Speculation - In popular culture - See also - Notes
Gas Dynamic Theory of Local Quasigravity

Vyacheslav Volov
(Submitted on 11 May 2012)
In the present work there was found a class of noninertial frames of reference, which satisfy Einstein "equivalency" principle more than the known noninertial frames - these are strongly swirling gaseous flows. Field intensity and potential in the mentioned frames of reference are similar to the corresponding values of natural gravity fields, but have the opposite sign. Scalar curvature of this space is negative and proportional to absolute gas temperature. There was obtained a new solution of Einstein equation which refers to type I in Petrov's classification for cylindrical symmetrical swirling ideal gas with variable angular velocity and nonzero pressure. The equation of state has a more complicated form than the known equations of state in theory of the vacuum.
Comments:    23 pages, 7 figures
Subjects:    Fluid Dynamics (physics.flu-dyn)
Cite as:    arXiv:1205.2473v1 [physics.flu-dyn]

On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:01 PM, art wagner wrote:

"investigations of the strong quasigravity fields that are realized, for example, in synchrotrons,
where velocities of electrons rotation can achieveV ? 0,95c ? [17]. In this case quasigravity field
potential quasi ? and intensity quasi g can amount to the giant values ... "
 
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1205.2473     ?