Text Size

Stardrive

  1.  
    • Gerard 't Hooft's Biggest Blunder on Causality? http://t.co/myn111rTcg
      Gerard 't Hooft's Biggest Blunder on Causality?
      lnkd.in
      Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
    • Are We Holograms in the Destiny Matrix Simulation (Lenny Susskind's Theory and Beyond) V2
      lnkd.in
      Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
    • Godzilla in the room. When is the hologram we are inside of? http://t.co/qIpgSEOjZs
      Godzilla in the room: WHEN ARE the past and future hologram screens?.pdf
      tinyurl.com
      Do we live inside a hologram destiny matrix?
    • http://t.co/6TkC0yb9rt are we holograms in the Destiny Matrix? http://t.co/uPQLeBGX05
      Are We Holograms in the Destiny Matrix Simulation (Lenny Susskind's Theory and Beyond)
      tinyurl.com
      Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
    • A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full): http://t.co/SzJY7HrgON via @youtube
      A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full)
      youtu.be
      2011 World Science Festival panel discussion on the holographic principle. http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/a_thin_sheet_of_reality_the_universe_as_a_h...
    • Jack Sarfatti That's Buosso, Verlinde, 't Hooft and Susskind - the top guys in hologram universe theory at cutting edge of physics today. Briane Greene also briefly in a clip.
    • Jack Sarfatti 't Hooft toward the end does begin to notice Godzilla in the room. He is mistaken when he says there is no evidence for back-from-the-future retro-causal (e.g., Cramer handshake transactions, dark energy itself, Libet - Radin - Bierman - Bem brain EEG presponse, Aharonov destiny post-selection, Valentini signal nonlocality effects). However 't Hooft is correct to note a tension between the hologram idea and retarded causality. The future light cone of the observer where it intersects its future horizon is responsible for dark energy and most of the hologram voxel imaging. Of course he is right to notice the conflict between the hologram idea and his conception of ONLY past causes of future effects.

      It's curious that Lenny thinks it's a c-BIT per pixel. Why is it not a SPINOR q-BIT per pixel?
    • Jack Sarfatti Information being lost or hidden is not same as information being destroyed - they say. But how about information being created? - like works of art, music, literature, theoretical physics equations etc. Also the area-entropies of both our past and future horizons increase from the moment of inflation, though the future horizon has a finite upper bound asymptote of about 10^122 pixels in our causal diamond patch of the multiverse.

Gerard 't Hooft despite his Nobel Prize is incredibly naive about causality. He thinks advanced causation is irrational and threatens science. He does not seem to be aware of Wheeler-Feynman - hard to believe, nor of David Deutsch's, Seth Lloyd's et-al work on CTCs in quantum computing, Aharonov's destiny post-selection, Tony Valentini's signal nonlocality etc. He still thinks the Grandfather Paradox is a real obstacle.

 't Hooft toward the end does begin to notice Godzilla in the room. He is mistaken when he says there is no evidence for back-from-the-future retro-causal (e.g., Cramer handshake transactions, dark energy itself, Libet - Radin - Bierman - Bem brain EEG presponse, Aharonov destiny post-selection, Valentini signal nonlocality effects). However 't Hooft is correct to note a tension between the hologram idea and retarded causality. The future light cone of the observer where it intersects its future horizon is responsible for datk energy and most of the hologram voxel imaging.

It's curious that Lenny thinks it's a c-BIT per pixel. Why is it not a SPINOR q-BIT per pixel?

    •  
      A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full): http://t.co/SzJY7HrgON via @youtube
       
      A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full)
      youtu.be
      2011 World Science Festival panel discussion on the holographic principle. http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/a_thin_sheet_of_reality_the_universe_as_a_h...

 

    • A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full): http://t.co/SzJY7HrgON via @youtube
      A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full)
      youtu.be
      2011 World Science Festival panel discussion on the holographic principle. http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/a_thin_sheet_of_reality_the_universe_as_a_h...
    • BBC Horizon 2005: 5/7 The Hawking Paradox: http://t.co/CpDJtlN1Nn via @youtube
      BBC Horizon 2005: 5/7 The Hawking Paradox
      youtu.be
      According to Susskind, if Hawking's ideas were correct then it would infect all physics; there would no longer be any direct link between cause and effect. P...
  1. UFOS AND STAR GATE WORMHOLES
    Like · · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti Begin forwarded message:

      From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>
      Subject: Re: Curved Traversable Wormholes
      Date: June 22, 2013 9:07:21 AM PDT
      ...See More
      humansarefree.com
      L'expérience avec le tube de cuivre et l'aimant permanent s'explique grâce à un ...See More
    • Edgar Diem When comes the first official revelation to the world? You should know Jack
    • Jonathan Vos Post .
      Cool horizons for entangled black holes
      Juan Maldacena, Leonard Susskind
      (Submitted on 3 Jun 2013)
      General relativity contains solutions in which two distant black holes are connected through the interior via a wormhole, or Einstein-Rosen bridge. The
      se solutions can be interpreted as maximally entangled states of two black holes that form a complex EPR pair. We suggest that similar bridges might be present for more general entangled states.
      In the case of entangled black holes one can formulate versions of the AMPS(S) paradoxes and resolve them. This suggests possible resolutions of the firewall paradoxes for more general situations.
      Comments: 48 pages, 23 figures
      Subjects: High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
      Cite as: arXiv:1306.0533 [hep-th]
      (or arXiv:1306.0533v1 [hep-th] for this version)
      Submission history
      From: Juan Maldacena [view email]
      [v1] Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:56:30 GMT (303kb,D)
On Jun 20, 2013, at 1:10 AM, Basil Hiley wrote:
On 19 Jun 2013, at 22:52, Ruth Kastner wrote:
OK, not sure what the 'yes' was in response to, but I should perhaps note that you probably need to choose between the Bohmian theory or the transactional picture, because they are mutually exclusive. There are no 'beables' in TI. But there is a clear solution to the measurement problem and no discontinuity between the relativistic and non-relativistic domains as there are in the Bohmian theory (which has to abandon particles as beables at the relativistic level).
This last statement is not correct. Bohmian theory can now be applied to the Dirac particle. You do not have to abandon the particle for Fermions at the relativistic level. There is a natural progression from Schrödinger → Pauli → Dirac. See Hiley and Callaghan, Clifford Algebras and the Dirac-Bohm Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi Equation. {em Foundations of Physics}, {f 42} (2012) 192-208. More details will be found in arXiv: 1011.4031 and arXiv: 1011.4033.
BJH.
Like · · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 21, 2013, at 3:54 AM, Basil Hiley <b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk> wrote:

    Ruth,

    My work on the ideas that Bohm and I summarised in "The Undivided Universe" have moved on considerably over the last decade. But even in our book, we were suggesting that the particle could have a complex and subtle structure (UU p. 37) which could be represented as a point-like object only above the level of say 10^-8 cm. This comment, taken together with point 2 in our list of key points on p. 29 implies that we are not dealing with 'small billiard balls'. There could be an interesting and subtle structure that we have not explored-indeed we can't explore with the formalism in common use, i.e. the wave function and the Schrödinger equation. This is my reason for exploring a very different approach based on a process philosophy (See my paper arXiv: 1211.2098).

    In the case of the electron, we made a partial attempt to discuss the Dirac particle in our book (UU chapter 12). The presentation there (section12.2) only scratched the surface since we had no place for the quantum potential. However we showed in arXiv: 1011.4033 that if we explored the role of the Clifford algebra more throughly, we could provide a more detailed picture which included a quantum potential. We could then provide a relativistic version of what I call the Bohm model or, more recently, Bohmian non-commuting dynamics to distinguish it from a number of other variants of the model.

    In our approach all fermions could then be treated by one formalism which in the classical limit produced our 'rock-like' point classical particles. Bosons had to be treated differently, after all we do not have a 'rock-like' classical limit of a photon. Rather we have a coherent field. Massive bosons have to be treated in a differently way, but I won't go into that here.

    reference? I have been struggling with that in my dreams.

    We noted the difference between bosons and fermions in the UU and treated bosons as excited states of a field. In this case it was the field that became the beable and it was the field that was organised by what we called a 'super quantum potential'. In this picture the energy of say an emitted photon spread into the total field and did not exist as a localised entity. Yes, a rather different view from that usually accepted, but after all that was the way Planck himself pictured the situation. John Bell immediately asked, "What about the photon?" so we put an extra section in the UU (sec. 11.7). The photon concept arises because the level structure of the atom. It is the non-locality and non-linearity of the super quantum potential that sweeps the right amount of energy out of the field to excite the atom.

    Since the photon is no longer to be thought of as a particle, merely an excitation of the field, there is no difficulty with the coherent state. It is simply the state of the field whose energy does not consist of a definite number of a given hν. A high energy coherent field is the classical limit of the field, so there is no problem there either.

    All of this is discussed in detail in "The Undivided Universe".

    Hope this clarifies our take on these questions.

    Basil.
  • Jack Sarfatti The Brown-Wallace is an interesting paper, but I do not agree with its conclusions. Of course, this is exactly what you would expect me to say! What is needed is a careful response which I don't have time to go into here, so let me be brief. The sentence that rang alarm bells in their paper was "Our concern rather is with the fact that for Bohm it is the entered wave packet that determines the outcome; the role of the hidden variable, or apparatus corpuscle, is merely to pick or select from amongst all the other packets in the configuration space associated with the final state of the joint object-apparatus system." (See top of p. 5 of arXiv:quant-ph/0403094v1). As soon as I saw that sentence, I knew the conclusion they were going to reach. It gives the impression that it is the wave packet that is the essential real feature of the description and there need be nothing else. For us the 'wave packet' was merely short hand which was meant to signify the quantum potential that would be required to describe the subsequent behaviour of the particle. For us it was the quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation that was THE dynamical equation. The Schrödinger equation was merely an part of an algorithm for calculating the probable outcomes of a given experimental arrangement. ( Yes it's Bohr!) But for us THERE IS an underlying dynamics which is a generalisation of the classical dynamics. Indeed my recent paper (arXiv 1211.2098) shows exactly how the classical HJ equation emerges from the richer quantum dynamics. The term 'wave packet' was merely short hand. There is no wave! This is why we introduced the notion of active information which is universally ignored.

    On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:21 AM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

    Thank you Basil, but what about other particles? E.g. photons and quanta of other fields. -RK

    On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Ruth Kastner wrote:

    Well my main concern re photons is coherent states where there isn't a definite number of quanta. Perhaps this has
    been addressed in the Bohmian picture -- if so I'd be happy to see a reference. However I still think that TI provides
    a better account of measurement since it gives an exact physical basis for the Born Rule rather than a statistical one,
    and also the critique of Brown and Wallace that I mentioned earlier is a significant challenge for Bohmian approach. What
    B & W point out is that it is not at all clear that the presence of a particle in one 'channel' of a WF serves as an effective reason for collapse of the WF.

    RK

    From: adastra1@me.com
    Subject: Re: Reality of possibility
    Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:13:10 -0700
    To: rekastner

    Never a problem for boson fields just look at undivided universe book now online

    Sent from my iPhone

    Subject: Re: Reality of possibility
    From: b.hiley
    Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:10:39 +0100
    CC: adastra1@me.com

    On 19 Jun 2013, at 22:52, Ruth Kastner wrote:

    OK, not sure what the 'yes' was in response to, but I should perhaps note that you probably need to choose between the Bohmian theory or the transactional picture, because they are mutually exclusive. There are no 'beables' in TI. But there is a clear solution to the measurement problem and no discontinuity between the relativistic and non-relativistic domains as there are in the Bohmian theory (which has to abandon particles as beables at the relativistic level).

    Basil: This last statement is not correct. Bohmian theory can now be applied to the Dirac particle. You do not have to abandon the particle for Fermions at the relativistic level. There is a natural progression from Schrödinger → Pauli → Dirac. See Hiley and Callaghan, Clifford Algebras and the Dirac-Bohm Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi Equation. {em Foundations of Physics}, {f 42} (2012) 192-208. More details will be found in arXiv: 1011.4031 and arXiv: 1011.4033.

    BJH.

    RK

    > Subject: Reality of possibility
    > From: adastra1@me.com
    > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:14:42 -0700
    >
    > To: rekastne
    >
    > Yes
    > That's what i mean when I say that Bohm's Q is physically real.
    >
    > Sent from my iPhone


The question Lenny should have asked in that lecture is whether we are 3D images whose information is scrambled all over our past and future 2D horizons relative to observers outside them in the multiverse?


Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram http://t.co/iGIdSw91es


Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram
lnkd.in
Leonard Susskind of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics discusses the indestructability of information and the nature of black holes in a lecture ...



Jack Sarfatti 1 minute ago

Lenny is a very clear and good teacher. We worked together at Cornell with Johnny Glogower in the early 1960's on the problem of time and coherent phase of oscillators in quantum theory. The lecture is excellent and clearly explains important cutting edge ideas. I do have a number of comments below.

·

Jack Sarfatti 1 second ago

1) alleged first law of physics (technically unitarity of the S-Matrix) that the total number of bits is conserved. Is this really consistent with the second law of thermodynamics that the entropy of a closed system generally increases? Is it consistent with the evolution of complexity of matter including life and knowledge as the universe expands? The universe was very small at the moment of inflation followed by the hot big bang. Are all the bits we see today already hidden in the big bang?

· in reply to Jack Sarfatti (Show the comment)

Jack Sarfatti 1 second ago

With the emergence of new order as in spontaneous symmetry breaking of the vacuum for virtual particles and the ground states of real many-particle complex systems - is the S-Matrix fundamentally non-unitary? At least the question needs to be asked and made conscious. Lenny's description of horizon thermodynamics & complementarity is excellent - how Alice's bits get scrambled all over the black hole horizon as seen by Bob far away from her. Bob's light will burn up her if he tries to look etc.

· in reply to Jack Sarfatti (Show the comment)

Jack Sarfatti 1 second ago

We are outside black holes, but we are inside our cosmological horizons. Lenny only talks about our observer-dependent past particle horizon. That's half the story. Tamara Davis shows that we also have a future event horizon and that the Hubble sphere where expansion rate is c is different from both horizons. Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar­-Cramer-Aharonov all show that the future absorptions of light are loops in time with the past emissions.

· in reply to Jack Sarfatti (Show the comment)

Jack Sarfatti 1 second ago

Dark energy accelerating our universe may be advanced back-from-the-future Hawking radiation emissions from our future de Sitter horizon of energy density hc/Lp^4 that is gravitationally redshifted down to hc/Lp^2A where A is the area of our future horizon at its intersection with our future light cone. The competing cosmological blue shift is tiny at z = 1/2 compared to the advanced gravity redshift of z ~ A^1/4/Lp^1/2 ~ 10^30.5



Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Professor Dr. Sir Roger Penrose on new clues to the basics of conscious ... http://t.co/ZJGqgTJUr7


Professor Dr. Sir Roger Penrose on new clues to the basics of conscious mentality
lnkd.in
Professor Dr. Sir Roger Penrose is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and has received numerous prizes and awards, amon...
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
The something new that Roger is aware of is brain presponse - most recently "Feeling the (@YouTube http://t.co/dp9jwpzxWs)


Sir Roger Penrose — The quantum nature of consciousness
youtu.be
Sir Roger Penrose. Quantum Consciousness Theorist — Co-creator of the Orch OR model of the quantum nature of consciousness and memory. http://GF2045.com/spea...
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Boeing brings 787 Dreamliners, ScanEagle UAS to Paris Air Show http://t.co/MqML5nKdO2


Boeing brings 787 Dreamliners, ScanEagle UAS to Paris Air Show
lnkd.in
bPARIS, 17 June 2013. bThe Boeing Company is featuring a pair of superefficient 787 Dreamliner commercial airliners and the Boeing ScanEagle unmanned aircraft system (UAS) at the Paris Air Show. img src=content/dam/etc/medialib/platform-7/avionics-intelligence/articles/news/2010/07/50244.res One 787…
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Buzz Aldrin signs copies of his book at Paris Air Show http://t.co/sMgkMtmYe1


Buzz Aldrin signs copies of his book at Paris Air Show
lnkd.in
bPARIS, 17 June 2013.bnbsp;American astronaut Buzz Aldrin--who walked on the moon 21 July 1969 as part of Apollo 11,nbsp;the first manned lunar landing in history--is signing copies of his book,nbsp;iMission to Mars: My Vision for Space Explorationi, at Paris Air Show today. img src=content/dam/avi/…
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Sir Roger Penrose, Aeons before the Big Bang (Copernicus Center Lecture ... http://t.co/EmvRPBcjnS


Sir Roger Penrose, Aeons before the Big Bang (Copernicus Center Lecture 2010)
lnkd.in
The second Copernicus Center Lecture was delivered by Professor Roger Penrose, a famous physicist and philosopher of science. Professor Penrose titled his sp...
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Closer To Truth asks Roger Penrose: What Things Really Exist? http://t.co/c9WNOKAS5C


Closer To Truth asks Roger Penrose: What Things Really Exist?
lnkd.in
For more videos and information, visit http://www.closertotruth.com What things really exist? Our host Robert Lawrence Kuhn poses the question to Roger Penro...
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share
This post is now hidden from your timeline.
It will still appear in search, news feed and other places on Facebook. Delete

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Roger Penrose on Twistors and Quantum Non-Locality http://t.co/m0Y2pOmlQ6


Roger Penrose on Twistors and Quantum Non-Locality
lnkd.in
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at University of Oxford, Sir Roger Penrose, discusses Twistors and Quantum Non-Locality.
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram http://t.co/iGIdSw91es


  1.  
    • Sir Roger Penrose, Aeons before the Big Bang (Copernicus Center Lecture ... http://t.co/EmvRPBcjnS
      Sir Roger Penrose, Aeons before the Big Bang (Copernicus Center Lecture 2010)
      lnkd.in
      The second Copernicus Center Lecture was delivered by Professor Roger Penrose, a famous physicist and philosopher of science. Professor Penrose titled his sp...
    • Closer To Truth asks Roger Penrose: What Things Really Exist? http://t.co/c9WNOKAS5C
      Closer To Truth asks Roger Penrose: What Things Really Exist?
      lnkd.in
      For more videos and information, visit http://www.closertotruth.com What things really exist? Our host Robert Lawrence Kuhn poses the question to Roger Penro...
    • Sir Roger Penrose — The quantum nature of consciousness http://t.co/XWSGIeMtGH
      Sir Roger Penrose — The quantum nature of consciousness
      lnkd.in
      Sir Roger Penrose. Quantum Consciousness Theorist — Co-creator of the Orch OR model of the quantum nature of consciousness and memory. http://GF2045.com/spea...
    • Roger Penrose on Twistors and Quantum Non-Locality http://t.co/m0Y2pOmlQ6
      Roger Penrose on Twistors and Quantum Non-Locality
      lnkd.in
      Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at University of Oxford, Sir Roger Penrose, discusses Twistors and Quantum Non-Locality.
    • Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram http://t.co/iGIdSw91es
      Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram
      lnkd.in
      Leonard Susskind of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics discusses the indestructability of information and the nature of black holes in a lecture ...
    • Michael Persinger on No More Secrets http://t.co/JD4W7OnNxu
      Michael Persinger on No More Secrets
      lnkd.in
      Big Ideas presents Michael Persinger, winner of the 2007 Best Lecturer Competition, on Just Suppose You Could Know What Others Are Thinking: No More Secrets

It's clear that DK's scheme won't work - nor will any scheme that is based on unitary linear orthodox quantum theory using orthogonal base states.
However, concerning Valentini's, Josephson, Weinberg, Stapp & my different & independent from from DK's approaches: while the trace operation to get expectation values of observables on quantum density matrices is invariant under unitary transformations of the base states which preserve orthogonality, that is not true for the transformation from an orthogonal Fock basis to the non-orthogonal Glauber coherent state basis, which is clearly a non-unitary transformation that is OUTSIDE the domain of validity of orthodox quantum theory. I think many Pundits have missed this point?

Hawking's former assistant Bernard Carr spells this out clearly in 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

Begin forwarded message:

From: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: AW: AW: More on the |0>|0> term
Date: June 14, 2013 11:14:57 AM PDT
To: Suda Martin <Martin.Suda.fl@ait.ac.at>


Thank you, Martin.
I finally get it.
My confusion lay in the attribution of the short calculation below.
I thought this calculation (which leads to rA) was due to Gerry.

Instead it is a calculation done by Gerry but attributed to DK.
It was not a calculation that DK ever carried out but
arose from Gerry taking Gerry's FULL CALCULATION,
applying the Kalamidas approximation
and getting an incorrect result.

The correct result is Zero
on which you and Gerry agree.

So if Kalamidas would have carried out the calculation this way
he would have gotten an incorrect answer.

I hope I have now understood the situation correctly.

But Kalamidas did not carry out the calculation that Gerry displays.
DK did not start out with the FULL CALCULATION and then approximate.

DK starts with an approximation and then calculates.

DK starts with an approximation and carries out a series of steps which all seem to be valid
but whose conclusion is preposterous. Furthermore the approximation (weak coherent states)
is an approximation used in dozens of laboratories by serious quantum opticians without
as far as I am aware leading to preposterous or impossible conclusions.

Therefore it seems to me that the calculation below is another nail in the Kalamidas coffin, BUT
THE BEAST IS STILL ALIVE.

1. No one yet has started with Kalamidas's (approximate) assumptions, and discovered a mistake in his chain of logic.

2. No one yet has started with Kalamidas's (approximate) assumptions, followed a correct chain of logic and shown that FTL signaling does not happen.

Martin Suda came the closest to carrying out problem #2. He started with the Kalamidas (approximation) assumptions and decisively proved that all FTL terms are zero. But Martin's proof contains an unphysical |0>|0> term that mars his triumph.

I am certain that the Kalamidas claim is wrong. The FULL CALCULATION refutations of Ghirardi, Howell and Gerry are pretty substantial coffin nails. But unless I am blind there seems still something missing from a clean and definitive refutation of the Kalamidas claim. See problems #1 and #2 above.

I do not think that Nick is being stubborn or petty in continuing to bring these problems to your attentions. I should think it would be a matter of professional pride to be able to bring this matter to a clean and unambiguous conclusion by refuting Kalamidas on his own terms.

Thank you all for participating in this adventure whatever your opinions.

Nick Herbert


On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:29 AM, Suda Martin wrote:

Nick,

Thank you for comments!

I would still like to explain my short considerations below a bit more precisely, anyway. I feel there was perhaps something unclear as regards my email (12th June), because you wrote "you were confused".

I only considered the following:

DK disclosed a calculation (see attachment) which is completely wrong because he made a mathematical limit (see first line, where he omitted the term ra^{+}_{a3}) which is absolutely not justifiable here (just as CG mentioned, see below) because both parts are equally important if you make the expectation value properly. If you take both parts you get exactly zero: alpha^{*}(tr^{*}+rt^{*})=0.
So one does not obtain a quantity like (r alpha)^{*}.

That’s all. There is absolutely no discrepancy between me and CG.

Nice regards,
Martin




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: nick herbert [mailto:quanta@cruzio.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2013 23:33

Betreff: Re: AW: More on the |0>|0> term

"And again, the notion that an alleged approximate calculation (I say "alleged" because as with everything else there are correct and incorrect approximate calculations) based on a weak signal coherent state somehow trumps an exact computation valid for any value of the coherent state parameter, is, well, just insane. If you want to see where things go wrong just take more terms in the series expansions. Add up enough terms and, viola, no effect! One can't get much more specific than that." --Christopher Gerry

Actually, Chris, one can get much more specific than that by explicitly displaying the Correct Approximation Scheme (CAS) and showing term by term than Alice's interference vanishes (to the proper order of approximation).

Absent a correct CAS and its refutation these general claims are little more than handwaving.

Produce a CAS.
Refute it.

Is anyone up to this new Kalamidas challenge?
Or does everyone on this list except me
consider deriving a CAS a waste of time?

Nick Herbert

On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:03 PM, CHRISTOPHER GERRY wrote:

We are both right: the two terms cancel each other out!  That the
whole expectation value is zero is actually exactly what's in our
paper's Eq. 9. This happens because the reciprocity relations must
hold. That Kalamidas thought (or maybe even still thinks) his
calculation is correct, is at the heart of the matter, that is, that
he is either unable to do the calculations or that he can do them but
chooses not too because they don't get him where he wants to go.

The Kalamidas scheme will not work not work on the basis of general
principles as we showed in the first part of our paper (see also
Ghirardi's paper).

And again, the notion that an alleged approximate calculation (I say
"alleged" because as with everything else there are correct and
incorrect approximate calculations) based on a weak signal coherent
state somehow trumps an exact computation valid for any value of the
coherent state parameter, is, well, just insane. If you want to see
where things go wrong just take more terms in the series expansions.
Add up enough terms and, viola, no effect! One can't get much more
specific than that.

Christopher C. Gerry
Professor of Physics
Lehman College
The City University of New York
718-960-8444
christopher.gerry@lehman.cuny.edu


---- Original message ----
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:28:16 -0700
From: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: AW: More on the |0>|0> term
To: Suda Martin
All--

Excuse me for being confused.
Gerry refutes Kalamidas by showing that an omitted term is large.
Suda refutes Kalamidas by showing that the same term is identically
zero.
What am I missing here?

I wish to say that I accept the general proofs. Kalamidas's scheme
will not work as claimed.
That is the bottom line. So if the general proofs say FTL will fail
for full calculation, then it will certainly fail for approximations.

The "weak coherent state" is a common approximation made in quantum
optics. And dozens of experiments have been correctly described using
this approximation. So it should be a simple matter to show if one
uses Kalamidas's approximation, that FTL terms vanish to the
appropriate level of approximation. If this did not happen we would
not be able to trust the results of approximation schemes not
involving FTL claims.

Gerry's criticism is that Kalamidas's scheme is simply WRONG--that he
has thrown away terms DK regards as small.
But in fact they are large. Therefore the scheme is flawed from the
outset.

If Gerry is correct, then it seems appropriate to ask: Is there a
CORRECT WAY of formulating the Kalamidas scheme using the "weak
coherent state" approximation, where it can be explicitly shown that
this correct scheme utterly fails?

It seems to me that there are still some loose ends in this Kalamidas
affair, if not a thorn in the side, at least an unscratched itch.

It seems to me that closure might be obtained. And the Kalamidas
affair properly put to rest if everyone can agree that 1. DK has
improperly treated his approximations; 2. Using the CORRECT
APPROXIMATION SCHEME, the scheme abjectly fails just as the exact
calculation says it must.

Why should it be so difficult to construct a correct description of
the Kalamidas proposal, with CORRECT APPROXIMATIONS, and show that it
fails to work as claimed?

AS seen from the Ghirardi review, there are really not that many
serious FTL proposals in existence. And each one teaches us
something-- mostly about some simple mistakes one should not make when thinking
about quantum systems. Since these proposals are so few, it is really
not a waste of time to consider them in great detail, so we can learn
to avoid the mistakes that sloppy thinking about QM brings about.

When Ghirardi considers the Kalamidas scheme in his review, I would
consider it less than adequate if he did not include the following
information:

1. Kalamidas's scheme is WRONG because he treats approximations
incorrectly.
2. When we treat the approximations correctly, the scheme fails, just
as the general proofs say it must.

Gerry has provided the first part of this information. What is
seriously lacking here is some smart person providing the second
part.

Nick Herbert


On Jun 12, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Suda Martin wrote:

Dear all,

Yes, if one calculates precisely the Kalamidas - expression given in
the attachment of the email of CG one obtains exactly

alpha^{*}(tr^{*}+rt^{*})=0

due to the Stokes-relation of beam splitters. No approximations are
necessary. So, I am astonished about the sloppy calculations of
Demetrios.

Cheers,
Martin

________________________________________
Von: CHRISTOPHER GERRY [CHRISTOPHER.GERRY@lehman.cuny.edu]

Betreff: Re: More on the |0>|0> term

I probably shouldn't jump in on this again, but...

I can assure you that there's no thorn in the side of the quantum
optics community concerning the scheme of Kalamidas. There are only
people doing bad calculations. Despite claims to the contrary, our
paper, as with Ghirardi's, does specifically deal with the Kalamidas
proposal. It is quite clearly the case that EXACT calculations in
the Kalamidas proposal shows that the claimed effect disappears. To
suggest that it's there in the approximate result obtained by series
expansion, and therefore must be a real effect, is simply
preposterous. All it means is that the approximation is wrong; in
this case being due to the dropping important terms.

The whole business about the |00> and whatever (the beam splitter
transformations and all that) is not the issue. I'm astonished at
how the debate on this continues. The real problem, and I cannot
emphasize it enough, is this: Kalamidas cannot do quantum optical
calculations, even simple ones and therefore nothing he does should
be taken seriously. As I've said before, his calculation of our Eq.
(9), which I have attached here, is embarrassingly wrong. It's
obvious from the expression of the expectation value in the upper
left that there has to be two terms in the result both containing
the product of r and t. But Kalamidas throws away one of the terms
which is of the same order of magnitude as the one he retains. Or
maybe he thinks that term is zero via the quantum mechanical
calculation of its expectation value, which it most certainly is
not.  His limits have been taken inconsistently.  So, he not only
does not know how to do the quantum mechanical calculations, he
doesn't even know how or when the limits should be taken. There's
absolutely no point in debating the meaning of the results incorrect
calculations. Of course, by incorrectly doing these things he gets
the result he wants, and then thinks it's the duty of those of us
who can do these calculations to spend time showing him why his
calculations are wrong, which he then dismisses anyway.
My point in again bringing this specific calculation of his is not
to say anything about his proposal per se, but to demonstrate the
abject incompetence of Kalamidas in trying to do even the most
elementary calculations.  And if anyone still wonders why I'm angry
about the whole affair, well, what should I feel if some guy unable
to do simple calculations tries to tell established quantum optics
researchers, like me and Mark Hillery, that our paper showing where
he's wrong dismisses ours as being "irrelevant?" He doesn't even
seem to know that what he said was an insult.

And finally, the continued claim that the specific proposal of
Kalamidas has not been addressed must simply stop. It has been
repeatedly. I suspect this claim is being made because people don't
like the results of the correct calculations. That's not the problem
of those of us can carry through quantum optical calculations.

CG


Christopher C. Gerry
Professor of Physics
Lehman College
The City University of New York
718-960-8444
christopher.gerry@lehman.cuny.edu


---- Original message ----
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:12:19 -0700
From: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: More on the |0>|0> term
To: "Demetrios Kalamidas" <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>


yer right, demetrios--
the |00> term on the right is always accompanied in Suda's
calculation by a real photon on the left.

But this is entirely non-physical.
No real or virtual quantum event corresponds to this term.

Especially with the high amplitude required for
Suda-interference-destruction.

So your specific approximate FTL scheme despite many general
refutations still remains a puzzlement.

A thorn in the side
of the quantum optics community.

if any think otherwise
let them put on the table
one unambiguous refutation
OF YOUR SPECIFIC PROPOSAL--
not of their own
nor of somebody else's
totally different FTL signaling scheme,

Nick


On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:


Nick,

 The EP and CSs do derive from the same laser pulse: part of the
pulse pumps the nonlinear crystal and the other part is split off
accordingly to create the CSs.
 However, you are still misssing the point: If no EP pair is
created, then you will certainly get '00' on the right
sometimes.... BUT there will be no left photon in existence. The
problem with the Suda term is that when it appears, it appears
only accompanied by a left photon in a superposition state: ie it
always appears as (10+e01)(00+11).
 Think of it this way: Suppose you just have an EP source that
creates pairs, with one photon going left and the other right.
Imagine that on the right there is a highly trasnparent BS with
say
|r|^2=0.001. That means that only one out of every thousand right
photons from the EP are reflected, and 999 are transmitted. So,
this means that for every 1000 counts ON THE LEFT, there will be
999 counts tranmitted on the right. Now introduce, at the other
input of that same BS, a CS so that it has a tiny reflected
portion of amplitude |ralpha>. Allegedly then, there will arise
cases where no photon is found in the transmitted channel with
probability equal to |ralpha|^2. Since alpha is arbitrary, we can
choose |
ralpha|=0.1. This means that the probabilty of getting no
photon in
the transmitted channel will be |ralpha|^2=0.01.....Which now
means that, for every 1000 EP pairs created, we will get 1000
counts on the left, but only 900 counts in the transmitted channel
on the right! Whereas, without the CS in the other channel, there
would be
999 counts on the right for that same 1000 counts on the left.
Demetrios


On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:44:42 -0700
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Demetrios--
I don't know how the entangled pair (EP) and CSs are generated.
I supposed all three are created with a single PULSE in a non-
linear  crystal.
Now one can imagine that this pulse fails to create an EP but
does  create a CS
Then some of Bob's detectors will fire but no ES is formed.
So this kind of process could lead to lots of |0>|0> terms.
However what we need are not "lots of |0>|0> terms" but a precise
amplitude (rA) of |0>|0> term.
Given our freedom (in the thought experiment world) to
arbitrarily  select
the efficiency of the non-linear crystal, it is hard to see why
the  elusive |0>|0>
term would have exactly the right magnitude and phase to cancel
out  the interference.
Your original FTL scheme still continues to puzzle me.
Nick
On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:
Nick,

 The 'entire experimental arrangement' is indeed where the
problem  (mystery) arises:
 When both CSs are generated it is easy to understand that '00'
will arise, simply because each CS has a non-zero vacuum term.
 However, the entire arrangement means inclusion of the
entangled  photon pair:
 Any time that pair is generated, you are guaranteed to get a
photon on the right, regardless of whether the CSs are there.
 So, when entangled pair and CSs are present, there must be at
least one photon at the right. In fact, when only one photon
emerges at the right WE KNOW both CSs were empty.

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:34:30 -0700
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Demetrios--
Sarfatti sent around a nice review of quantum optics
by Ulf Leonhardt that discusses the structure of path-uncertain
photons.
Here is an excerpt:
The interference experiments with single photons mentioned in
Sec.  4.3 have been
performed with photon pairs generated in spontaneous
parametric   downconversion
[127]. Here the quantum state (6.28) of light is essentially
|01> |02> + ζ |11>|12 >. (6.29)
In such experiments only those experimental runs count where
photons  are counted,
the time when the detectors are not firing is ignored, which
reduces  the quantum
state to the photon pair
|11> |12> .
Postselection disentangles the two-mode squeezed
vacuum.
We argued in Sec. 4.3 that the interference of the photon pair
|11> |12> at a 50:50 beam splitter generates the entangled
state   (4.24). Without postselection,
however, this state is the disentangled product of two single-
mode  squeezed vacua,
as we see from the factorization (6.6) of the S matrix. The
notion  of  entanglement
is to some extent relative.
this excerpt suggests a possible origin for Suda's |0>|0> term.
In  the above process, it's just
the inefficiency of the down converter that generates a |0>|0>
term.  That won't do the trick.
But in your more complicated situation--containing two properly
timed  coherent states--
when Bohr's "entire experimental arrangement" is considered,
the
| 0>| 0> term may
arise naturally with the proper amplitude and phase. It would
correspond to events when
the coherent states were successfully generated but there were
no   events in either upper or lower path.
If this conjecture can be shown to hold true, then the
original   Kalamidas proposal would
be refuted by Suda's calculation.
The trick would be to examine--in a thought experiment way--
exactly  how those two |A> beams
are created--looking for entanglement  with |0>|0> states in
the  part  of the experiment considered in your proposal.
Nick
ref: Ulf Leonhardt's wonderful review of quantum optics,
starting   with reflections from a window pane and concluding
with
Hawking radiation.



  • Jack Sarfatti "We present an exactly-solvable model for the suppression of quantum noise at large scales on expanding space. The suppression arises naturally in the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave formulation of quantum theory, according to which the Born probability rul...See More
  • Jack Sarfatti here is another one: Their last sentence

    "If all this is a dead end, there remains analog systems, like the ones studied in quantum information and condensed matter."

    is the most important - Frank Wilczek's anyons in 2D with fractional quantum statistics like quantum Hall effect, topological computers with sub-quantum non-equilibrium signal nonlocality?

    On Jun 12, 2013, at 8:06 AM, art wagner <wagnerart@hotmail.com> wrote:

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1306.0967.pdf
Kalamides entanglement signal design refuted decisively
  • Steve Schultz Well, that's no fun. Guess that means I won't be need to register the radio station letters KFTL...
  • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 12, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Suda Martin wrote:

    Dear all,

    Yes, if one calculates precisely the Kalamidas - expression given in the attachment of the email of CG one obtains exactly
    ...See More
  • Jack Sarfatti Von: CHRISTOPHER GERRY
    Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2013 16:18
    An: nick herbert; Demetrios Kalamidas
    Cc: John Howell; Suda Martin; ghirardi Giancarlo; Ruth Elinor Kastner; JACK SARFATTI
    Betreff: Re: More on the |0>|0> term


    I probably shouldn't jump in on this again, but...

    I can assure you that there's no thorn in the side of the quantum optics community concerning the scheme of Kalamidas. There are only people doing bad calculations. Despite claims to the contrary, our paper, as with Ghirardi's, does specifically deal with the Kalamidas proposal. It is quite clearly the case that EXACT calculations in the Kalamidas proposal shows that the claimed effect disappears. To suggest that it's there in the approximate result obtained by series expansion, and therefore must be a real effect, is simply preposterous. All it means is that the approximation is wrong; in this case being due to the dropping important terms.

    The whole business about the |00> and whatever (the beam splitter transformations and all that) is not the issue. I'm astonished at how the debate on this continues. The real problem, and I cannot emphasize it enough, is this: Kalamidas cannot do quantum optical calculations, even simple ones and therefore nothing he does should be taken seriously. As I've said before, his calculation of our Eq. (9), which I have attached here, is embarrassingly wrong. It's obvious from the expression of the expectation value in the upper left that there has to be two terms in the result both containing the product of r and t. But Kalamidas throws away one of the terms which is of the same order of magnitude as the one he retains. Or maybe he thinks that term is zero via the quantum mechanical calculation of its expectation value, which it most certainly is not. His limits have been taken inconsistently. So, he not only does not know how to do the quantum mechanical calculations, he doesn't even know how or when the limits should be taken. There's absolutely no point in debating the meaning of the results incorrect calculations. Of course, by incorrectly doing these things he gets the result he wants, and then thinks it's the duty of those of us who can do these calculations to spend time showing him why his calculations are wrong, which he then dismisses anyway. My point in again bringing this specific calculation of his is not to say anything about his proposal per se, but to demonstrate the abject incompetence of Kalamidas in trying to do even the most elementary calculations. And if anyone still wonders why I'm angry about the whole affair, well, what should I feel if some guy unable to do simple calculations tries to tell established quantum optics researchers, like me and Mark Hillery, that our paper showing where he's wrong dismisses ours as being "irrelevant?" He doesn't even seem to know that what he said was an insult.

    And finally, the continued claim that the specific proposal of Kalamidas has not been addressed must simply stop. It has been repeatedly. I suspect this claim is being made because people don't like the results of the correct calculations. That's not the problem of those of us can carry through quantum optical calculations.

    CG
  • Keith Kenemer disappointing, but not unexpected...
  • Jack Sarfatti Yes, but here is latest from Nick Herbert - Custer's Last Stand
    On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:28 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

    All--

    Excuse me for being confused.
    Gerry refutes Kalamidas by showing that an omitted term is large.
    Suda refutes Kalamidas by showing that the same term is identically zero.
    What am I missing here?

    I wish to say that I accept the general proofs. Kalamidas's scheme will not work as claimed.
    That is the bottom line. So if the general proofs say FTL will fail for full calculation, then it will certainly fail for approximations.

    The "weak coherent state" is a common approximation made in quantum optics. And dozens of experiments have been correctly described using this approximation. So it should be a simple matter to show if one uses
    Kalamidas's approximation, that FTL terms vanish to the appropriate level of approximation. If this did not happen we would not be able to trust the results of approximation schemes not involving FTL claims.

    Gerry's criticism is that Kalamidas's scheme is simply WRONG--that he has thrown away terms DK regards as small. But in fact they are large. Therefore the scheme is flawed from the outset.

    If Gerry is correct, then it seems appropriate to ask: Is there a CORRECT WAY of formulating the Kalamidas scheme using the "weak coherent state" approximation, where it can be explicitly shown that this correct scheme utterly fails?

    It seems to me that there are still some loose ends in this Kalamidas affair, if not a thorn in the side, at least an unscratched itch.

    It seems to me that closure might be obtained. And the Kalamidas affair properly put to rest if everyone can agree that
    1. DK has improperly treated his approximations; 2. Using the CORRECT APPROXIMATION SCHEME, the scheme abjectly fails just as the exact calculation says it must.

    Why should it be so difficult to construct a correct description of the Kalamidas proposal, with CORRECT APPROXIMATIONS, and show that it fails to work as claimed?

    AS seen from the Ghirardi review, there are really not that many serious FTL proposals in existence. And each one teaches us something-- mostly about some simple mistakes one should not make when thinking about quantum systems. Since these proposals are so few, it is really not a waste of time to consider them in great detail, so we can learn to avoid the mistakes that sloppy thinking about QM brings about.

    When Ghirardi considers the Kalamidas scheme in his review, I would consider it less than adequate if he did not include the following information:

    1. Kalamidas's scheme is WRONG because he treats approximations incorrectly.
    2. When we treat the approximations correctly, the scheme fails, just as the general proofs say it must.

    Gerry has provided the first part of this information. What is seriously lacking here is some smart person providing the second part.

    Nick Herbert
  • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:07 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

    Lest anyone be confused. I am not defending Kalamidas's gedankenexperiment. Neither is Nick Herbert.
    I agree, that in contrast to Antony Valentini's strategy, any proposal for stand-alone entanglement signaling that does not violate an axiom of orthodox quantum theory will fail. Furthermore, one must show why such a violation is found in Nature. It's not clear whether John Cramer's experiment is supposed to violate quantum theory or not?
    Going for a blast into the real past - seattlepi.com

    www.seattlepi.com/.../Going-for-a-blast-into-the-real-past-1219...
    by Tom Paulson - in 171 Google+ circles
    Nov 14, 2006 – Going for a blast into the real past ... The reflection of UW physicist John Cramer can be seen as he prepares an experiment with lasers. Cramer ...
    Going for a blast into the real past - Worldnews.com
    article.wn.com/view/2013/05/20/Going_for_a_blast_into_the_real_past/
    May 20, 2013 – ... splitting photons actually works, says University of Washington physicist John Cramer, the next step will ... >Going for a blast into the real past ...
    Going for a blast into the real past (quantum retrocausality ...
    www.democraticunderground.com › Discuss
    Nov 15, 2006 - 11 posts - 10 authors
    Going for a blast into the real past. If his experiment with splitting photons actually works, says University of Washington physicist John Cramer, ...
    An Experimental Test of Signaling using Quantum Nonlocality
    faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/NLS/NL_signal.htm
    John G. Cramer. Reports: UW CENPA ... "Going for a blast into the real past", Tom Paulson, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 15, 2006 · "Science hopes to ...
    John Cramer's Retrocausality Experiment
    sci.physics.narkive.com › sci physics
    Nov 17, 2006 – "Going for a blast into the real past. If the experiment works, ...University of Washington physicist John Cramer, the next step will be to test for ...
    Retrocausality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality
    Furthermore, the ability to affect the past suggests that causes could be negated by their own ... The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory, proposed by John Archibald Wheeler and .... "Going for a blast in the real past". ... "Five Decades of Physics" http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~lisa/CramerSympo
    Begin forwarded message:

    From: ghirardi
    Date: June 12, 2013 1:33:38 PM PDT
    To: CHRISTOPHER GERRY

    To reinforce the appropriate remarks by Christopher, I want to stress that suggesting that my, as well as Gerry's contributions do not deal with Kalamidas' proposal is an unacceptable position to take. Both of us have PROVED that precisely Kalamidas' proposal does not work and is affected by basic errors that either derive from a mistaken use of general quantum rules or from resorting to unjustified and wrong approximations. That's the story.

    GianCarlo Ghirardi

    P.S. I believe that the debate which is going on, if it becomes known to a larger community of physicists, is seriously damaging the investigations on foundational issues since it puts into clear evidence that part of the people involved is not even capable of using correctly the basic principles of quantum mechanics.

    GianCarlo Ghirardi
    Emeritus
    University of Trieste
    Italy
  • Jack Sarfatti For the record I agree with Chris Gerry below: "On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:03 PM, CHRISTOPHER GERRY <christopher.gerry@lehman.cuny.edu> wrote:

    We are both right: the two terms cancel each other out! That the whole expectation value is zero is actually exactly what's in our paper's Eq. 9. This happens because the reciprocity relations must hold. That Kalamidas thought (or maybe even still thinks) his calculation is correct, is at the heart of the matter, that is, that he is either unable to do the calculations or that he can do them but chooses not too because they don't get him where he wants to go.

    The Kalamidas scheme will not work not work on the basis of general principles as we showed in the first part of our paper (see also Ghirardi's paper).

    And again, the notion that an alleged approximate calculation (I say "alleged" because as with everything else there are correct and incorrect approximate calculations) based on a weak signal coherent state somehow trumps an exact computation valid for any value of the coherent state parameter, is, well, just insane. If you want to see where things go wrong just take more terms in the series expansions. Add up enough terms and, viola, no effect! One can't get much more specific than that.

    Christopher C. Gerry
    Professor of Physics
    Lehman College
    The City University of New York
    718-960-8444
    christopher.gerry@lehman.cuny.edu"