Text Size

Stardrive

  1.  
  2. A crisis for Bohm's version of quantum theory
    Like · · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti re: http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1306.1576.pdf

      Where is the flaw in Valentini's argument that the Born rule is so unstable in it, that orthodox quantum theory would not even work for inanimate simple systems like spectroscopy and scattering where in fact it works so well? It seems "too cheap" (Einstein to Bohm, 2952) that de Broglie's p = gradS works and dp/dt = - grad(V + Q ) does not. Q has such beautiful properties explaining spooky quantum weirdness.

      Will coupling to a gauge field help?

      p = gradS - (e/c)A ?

      even though the field harmonic oscillators are also unstable just like the hydrogen atom electron - perhaps when coupled to sources "a miracle happens"? I don't have much hope for that at the moment.

      Of course, I rejoice that the Born probability rule should be unstable - but not too unstable. It should be meta-stable to allow signal nonlocality - post-quantum voodoo "magick without magic" as in http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049 Valentini still seems to believe in that as well, but not with Q. What's wrong with this picture?
Jack Sarfatti
Sunday via Twitter
  • quantum heretic | research and creative discovery | Clemson University http://t.co/6695ZinRX9
    quantum heretic
    clemson.edu
    In the warm winter sunshine, a distinguished man stands on the curb outside a local bank, wearing a casual jacket, his dark, curly hair stranded with silver
  • Jack Sarfatti agreed
    his effective Hamiltonian for 4-port passive devices (beam splitters, interferometers) and for active devices like parametric down converters for making EPR pairs is useful - note formal analogy with BCS superconductivity effective Hamiltonian a
    1a2 + a1*a2* except in light bosons, in BCS fermions.

    ps the new Valentini paper claiming that Bohm's Q dynamics violates observation - but de Broglie's dynamics still OK is important.

    of course instability of Born rule collapsing no-signaling glass ceiling is what I am after - actually so is Valentini

    Life is that in my opinion.

    http://www.clemson.edu/glimpse/?p=1177

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1576

    On Jun 10, 2013, at 10:12 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

    Thanks, Jack.
    A review of quantum optics
    of astonishlng depth and breadth.
    Who is Ulf Leonhardt?
    Decendent of the Vikings
    who ran the place in the old days?

    On Jun 9, 2013, at 2:08 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

    <QuantumOpticsReview0305007v2.pdf>
    www.clemson.edu
    In the warm winter sunshine, a distinguished man stands on the curb outside a local bank, wearing a casual jacket, his dark, curly hair stranded with silver
  • Jack Sarfatti It seems that special relativity won't save "Bohm dynamics" in Valentini's sense either.

    Valentini et-al write:

    "This is in sharp contrast with de Broglie's dynamics, where efficient relaxation to equilibrium implies that one should expect to see equilibrium at later times (except, possibly, for very long-wavelength modes in the early universe (Valentini 2007, 2008b, 2010; Colin and Valentini 2013)). It is then reasonable to conclude that, while de Broglie's dynamics is a viable physical
    theory, Bohm's dynamics is not. ...

    It might be suggested that Bohm's dynamics is only an approximation, and that corrections from a deeper theory will (in reasonable circumstances) drive the phase-space distribution to equilibrium. Such a suggestion was in fact made by Bohm (1952a, p. 179). While this may turn out to be the case, the fact remains that Bohm's dynamics as it stands is unstable and therefore (we
    claim) untenable.

    In our view Bohm's 1952 Newtonian reformulation of de Broglie's 1927 pilot wave dynamics was a mistake, and we ought to regard de Broglie's original
    formulation as the correct one. Such a preference is no longer merely a matter
    of taste: we have presented concrete physical reasons for preferring de Broglie's dynamics over Bohm's."

    "The above results provide strong evidence that there is no tendency to relax to
    quantum equilibrium in Bohm's dynamics, and that the quantum equilibrium
    state is in fact unstable. It is then reasonable to conclude that if the universe
    started in a nonequilibrium state { and if the universe were governed by Bohm's
    dynamics { then we would not see quantum equilibrium today. The Born rule
    for particle positions would fail, momenta would take non-quantum-mechanical values, and there would be no bound states such as atoms or nuclei. ... the same instability appears if one applies Bohm's dynamics to high-energy field theory. ... Similar results would be obtained for the electromagnetic field, for example, resulting in unboundedly large electric and magnetic field strengths even in the vacuum. This is grossly at variance with observation"

    On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:48 AM, Basil Hiley wrote:

    "Colin and Valentini are not addressing Bohmian non-commutative dynamics that I wrote about in arXiv 1303.6057
    They are considering what Bohm and I called the stochastic interpretation of QM. [see our paper "Non-locality and Locality in the Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Phys. Reports 172, 93-122, (1989).] That was based on the earlier work of Bohm "Proof that Probability Density Approaches |Ψ|2 in Causal Interpretation of the Quantum Theory", Phys. Rev., 89, no. 2, 458-406, (1953) and the work in Bohm and Vigier, Model of the Causal Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of a Fluid with Irregular Fluctuations, Phys. Rev. 96, no. 1, 208-216, (1954). These approaches add a new stochastic 'sub-quantum' field to 1952 model in order to explain the quantum probability P=|Ψ|^2 as an equilibrium condition in this stochastic background. It should be noted that de Broglie supported these approaches and conclusions in his book "Non-linear Wave Mechanics: a Causal Interpretation", Elsevier, Amsterdam, ch XIII, (1960). All these authors including de Broglie, concluded that under the right assumptions the distribution approaches quantum distribution. Bohm and I gave a brief summary of the essentials that lead to that conclusion. I have not had time to study why Colin and Valentini arrive at a contrary conclusion.

    One of the conclusions of our Phys. Reports paper was that because the stochastic model adds the possibility of new features arising beyond those given by the standard QM approach. For example, in sufficiently fast processes, results different from those given by the equilibrium Ψ could result and that further investigation could potentially be useful in giving rise to new physics. We failed to find any new physics that agreed with experiment and therefore abandoned the stochastic approach.

    I find it very surprising that Colin and Valentini set up de Broglie v Bohm in view of what de Broglie himself wrote in his book "Non-linear Wave Mechanics". Just read the book!

    Basil."

    On 10 Jun 2013, at 17:32, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

    11 hours ago via Twitter
    quantum heretic | research and creative discovery | Clemson University http://t.co/6695ZinRX9
    quantum heretic
    clemson.edu
    In the warm winter sunshine, a distinguished man stands on the curb outside a local bank, wearing a casual jacket, his dark, curly hair stranded with silver
    Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1576
    [1306.1576] Instability of quantum equilibrium in Bohm's dynamics
    arxiv.org
    www.clemson.edu
    In the warm winter sunshine, a distinguished man stands on the curb outside a local bank, wearing a casual jacket, his dark, curly hair stranded with silver
ack Sarfatti
Paul Zielinski report on time travel to the past
Like · · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti CTC = Closed Timelike Curves allows in principle time travel to the past as in some UFO evidence.

    On Jun 7, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Paul Zelinsky <paulz@fuzzychip.com> wrote:

    Jack,

    Here is the review of CTCs I did for Dan. Let me know what you think.

    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject: Re: CTCs.....
    Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:13:50 -0700
    From: Paul Zielinski <paulz@fuzzychip.com>
    Reply-To: iksnileiz@gmail.com
    To: Dan <danthroopsmith@gmail.com>
    CC: David Gladstone <d14947@gmail.com>

    Hi Dan,

    OK I've done my technical review of CTCs and here is a summary of my take on this. I won't copy Jack on this until we've had a chance to talk about it.

    Here goes:

    1. CTCs are a feature of numerous spacetimes with metrics that are mathematically well behaved and are fully compatible
    with the principles of classical GR.

    agreed

    Well known examples include

    => The Godel universe: Rev. Mod. Phys. 21 (3): 447–450 (1949)
    => Van Stockum spacetimes: van Stockum, WJ, Proc. R. Soc. Edin. 57, 135–154 (1937)
    => Tipler cylinders: Tipler FJ, Phys. Rev. D9, 2203–2206 (1974)
    => Longitudinally spinning cosmic strings: Visser M. (1995).
    => Kerr and Kerr–Newman geometries: Hawking and Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime (1973)
    => Gott’s time machines: Gott JR, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1126-1129 (1991)
    => Wheeler wormholes (spacetime foam): Wheeler JA, Geometrodynamics (1962)
    => Morris–Thorne traversable wormholes: Morris MS and Thorne KS, Am. J. Phys. 56, 395–412 (1988).
    => Alcubierre “warp drive” spacetimes: Alcubierre M, Class. Quant. Grav. 11, L73–L77 (1994)

    right

    2. Paradoxes allegedly associated with such CTCs, namely the grandfather paradox and the self-causality paradox, were
    initially thought to exclude CTCs and GR time machines as unphysical, leading to Hawking's "chronology protection conjecture"
    (CPC) which barred all GR metrics featuring CTCs (Hawking SW, Phys. Rev. D46, 603-611 (1992)). The divergences predicted
    to occur at chronology horizons in such universes in the context of classical GR (Hawking SW, Ellis GFR: The large scale
    structure of space-time (1973)) which would prevent CTCs from forming were later found not to occur in the context of quantum
    gravity (e.g., Kim SW, Thorne KS, Phys. Rev. D43, 3929 (1991)).

    right

    3. In the 1970s and 1980s Igor Novikov discussed the possibility of CTCs in the context of classical GR, and then later
    co-authored a paper on the subject (Friedman, Novikov, et al, Phys. Rev. D, 42 (6). pp. 1915-1930 (1990)) in which
    the following self-consistency conditions for physical CTCs was proposed:

    "The only solutions to the laws of physics that can occur locally in the real Universe are those which are globally self-
    consistent."

    The authors of the 1990 Phys. Rev. paper remarked,

    "This principle allows one to build a local solution to the equations of physics only if that local solution can be extended to a
    part of a (not necessarily unique) global solution, which is well defined throughout the non-singular regions of the spacetime."

    right

    3. Further research, reviewed for example by Kip Thorne et al. (Morris MS, Thorne KS, and Yurtsever U, Phys. Rev.
    Lett. 61(13) 1446-1449 (1988)) and later by Matt Visser (Visser M, “The Quantum Physics of Chronology Protection” (2003)) led to
    the conclusion that Hawking's CPC is not an essential feature of classical GR, and that definitive answers to the question of the
    physical admissibility of CTCs would have to await a deeper and more complete understanding of quantum gravity.

    right

    4. In a seminal 1991 paper David Deutsch (Phys. Rev. D 44(10): 3197–3217 (1991)) explored the implications of CTCs in the
    context of quantum computational theory, and proposed a self-consistency condition on the density matrices of CTC qubits that he
    claims resolves the grandfather paradox (although not everyone accepts Deutsch's arguments). Deutsch’s self-consistency condition
    essentially requires that the density matrix of the CTC system after an interaction be equal to the density matrix before the interaction.
    Deutsch tacitly assumes a spacetime in which CTCs exists and applies QM to the CTC forward-in-time and backwards-in-time
    information transfers and concludes that quantum phenomena observable near such trajectories at the macroscopic level ensure
    that the grandfather paradox is resolved and the proposed consistency condition is satisfied.

    right
  • Jack Sarfatti In his 1991 paper Deutsch said:

    "I have shown that the traditional 'paradoxes' of chronology violation, whatever position one takes on their seriousness, do not
    occur at all under quantum mechanics."

    "The physics near closed timelike lines is dominated by macroscopic quantum effects and has many novel features. The
    correspondence principle is violated. Pure states evolve into mixed states. The dynamical evolution is not unitary nor is it even
    the restriction to a subsystem of unitary evolution in a larger system."

    "All these effects are stable and do not require the maintenance of quantum coherence. They therefore apply to macroscopic
    systems."

    5. In 2009 G. Svetlichny proposed ("Effective Time Travel", arXiv:0902.4898v1 [quant-ph] (2009)) that a quantum teleportation
    protocol can be used to simulate a physical CTC, arguing that the probabilistic nature of the QM predictions resolves all paradoxes
    associated with CTCs. Such a time loop is described as the "QM analog of a CTC". However, since this is a QM teleportation
    model, in such models only the qubit content of the state of the teleported entangled system is sent back into the past, as opposed
    to the entangled system itself:

    "What we have... is effective time travel. After the fact of the measurement M taken place there is no empirical way to falsify
    the statement that the qubit at A did travel back in time to B, but this is not true time travel. By true time travel I mean one whose
    denial can be falsified by empirical evidence. One can however ask if any of the supposed effects and benefits of supposed
    true time travel do somehow exist in this case. The surprising answer is yes, but obviously those that cannot lead to time travel
    paradoxes. In these cases, time travel is a reading of the situation which can otherwise be analyzed in usual quantum
    mechanical terms."

    Essentially the quantum circuit with the back-in-time channel is treated as a metaphor for a physical CTC that allows certain
    conclusions to be drawn about their behavior and to show how time travel paradoxes can be resolved:

    "Of course the above is a narrative and should not be simply accepted as a description of a physical process. All philosophically
    or scientifically motivated discussions of time travel have been likewise narratives as the time travel process, or time machine, is
    necessarily merely hypothesized to have certain properties not being able to refer to physically realizable situations. This type of
    narrative is at best a meta-theoretic discussion, for instance exploring the question as to whether the existence of supposed true
    time travel is consistent with present physical laws or do these need to be modified to admit it. In our narratives neither the claim
    nor the denial of time travel can be empirically falsified. This non-falsifiability makes both the claim and the denial non-scientific
    assertions. On the other hand our narrative takes place in the context of a physically realizable process and so cannot lead to
    any contradiction. We thus have a source of time travel narratives in which all paradoxes are resolved and this has interesting
    philosophical and scientific implications." - p5
  • Jack Sarfatti 6. In 2010 Seth Lloyd et al., following the same basic approach as Svetlichny, published two papers in which they proposed the
    use of post- selected quantum teleportation protocol to simulate a physical CTC, with a self-consistency condition
    different from Deutsch's that has different physical consequences ("P-CTC"). Lloyd et al.'s P-CTC protocol operates by combining
    a chronology-respecting qubit with a chronology-violating qubit, and allowing them to interact under unitary evolution. After such
    interaction, the chronology-respecting qubit goes forward in time, while the chronology-violating qubit goes back in time. It is
    assumed that the unitary evolution of the 2-qubit system is mathematically equivalent to combining the state of the chronology-
    respecting qubit with a maximally entangled Bell state. There follows a unitary interaction between the chronology-respecting
    qubit and half of the entangled Bell state. The final steps in the protocol are the projection of the two substates onto the entangled
    Bell state, then non-linear renormalization of the state, followed by tracing out of the last two systems.

    As mentioned above, Deutsch’s self-consistency condition requires that after unitary interaction the density matrices of the CTC
    system before and after the interaction are equal. This was designed to reproduce the predictions of ordinary QM without CTCs.
    Post-selected CTCs, on the other hand, are effectively equivalent in this approach to “post-selection with certainty”, which the
    authors argue neatly excludes all unitary evolutions resulting in paradoxes.

    7. The thermodynamic implications of CTCs, and thermodynamic arguments for and against chronology protection, are explored
    by Michael Devin (Devin M: Thermodynamics of Time Machines (2013)). No conclusive argument against CTCs is evident in this
    Devins' paper.

    Links:

    Hawking SW, Phys. Rev. D 46, 603-611 (1992)
    http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v46/i2/p603_1

    Thorne K: Closed Timelike Curves (1993)
    http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/scripts/ClosedTimelikeCurves-II121.pdf

    Visser M: The quantum physics of chronology protection (2002)
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0204022v2.pdf

    Roberts B: Closed Timelike Curves (2008)
    http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~bwrobert/research/RobertsB_CTCreview.pdf

    Morris et al: Wormholes. Time Machines, and the Weak Energy Condition (1988)
    http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9262/1/MORprl88.pdf

    Deutsch D: Quantum mechanics near closed timelike lines, Phys Rev D 44(10), 3197–3217 (1991)
    http://www.hpc.unm.edu/~alsing/Courses/RQI/articles/deutsch_prd44_p3197_Y91_qm_closed_timelike_curves.pdf

    Svetlichny G: Effective Quantum Time Travel (2009)
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.4898v1.pdf

    Lloyd S et al: Closed timelike curves via post-selection: theory and experimental demonstration (2010)
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2219v1.pdf

    Lloyd S et al: The quantum mechanics of time travel through post-selected teleportation (2010)
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.2615v2.pdf

    ___________________________________________________________________________________

    So from the standpoint of physics, what is the bottom line for CTCs? From the above it appears that CTCs are not only a feature
    of numerous mathematically well-behaved spacetimes that are compatible with classical GR, but the feared time-travel paradoxes
    associated with CTCs in the context of classical or semi-classical GR can be resolved by the use of quantum computational protocols
    to model the forward-in-time and back-in-time qubit information transfers that can be expected to occur in such loops, even if the QM
    protocols are really only metaphors (models) in relation to actual physical CTCs that are associated with certain solutions of the GR
    field equations. Thus far from enforcing Hawking's CPC, these protocols appear to make it irrelevant. Which I suppose is good news
    for you.

    What is not so good news for you is that both the Deutsch and Seth Lloyd et al. approaches piggyback on classical CTCs. They
    both *presuppose* the existence of spacetime CTCs, and investigate the time travel paradoxes associated with then using quantum
    computational techniques. The only difference between Deutsch and Lloyd et al. consists in application of different quantum
    informational self-consistency principles with different physical consequences, which in the case of Lloyd et al. is based on a post-
    selected quantum teleportation model. This means that CTCs are still a feature of certain 4D spacetimes, and are thus not buried in
    any quantum "implicate order". Both Deutsch and Lloyd et al. use QM to see how the information transfer properties of classically
    defined CTCs play out in the context of QM.

    Thus the relationship between CTCs and the holographic universe is much the same as any other world line -- CTCs belong to the
    "explicate" order. So if only the explicate order is to be regarded as fundamental, such CTCs cannot be regarded as fundamental.
    The belong to the explicate physical reality that may or may not be encoded on a 3D hypersurface according to the holographic
    model.

    correct

    Now as to the relevance of CTCs to your BPWH, there is a tricky question of interpretation. The standard interpretation of physical
    CTCs wherein a particle moving along a CTC can return to an earlier time to "bump into itself" seems questionable, since there is
    nothing in the principles of GR to suggest that the mere existence of such a closed timelike trajectory must convert one object into
    two. It seems arguable to me that an alternative interpretation in which the returning object is one and the same as the starting object,
    and experiences endless recurrences of its life history along the CTC, is a more natural one. But then one has to deal with the
    internal properties of the object and irreversible thermodynamic processes and how they relate to the proper time intervals around
    the CTC.

    I disagree here. There will be two copies and older and a younger. This is what Deutsch says and I agree with Deutsch.

    You said that you would like to insert a "spark gap" into such a CTC, that would somehow be analogous to a Wheelerian self-excited
    loop. The only solution I have been able to think of so far is a wormhole with its mouth positioned along the CTC. This might create a
    "gap" without actually interrupting the CTC. But I'd like to hear more from you about exactly you are looking for before pursuing this
    idea.

    As I see it the next step in this project is to investigate the meaning of black hole thermodynamics (as per Beckenstein) and the
    holographic model for the universe, and there implications for your BPWH metaphysics.

    OK
    link.aps.org
    S. W. HawkingDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EW, United Kingdom

http://physics.aps.org/browse/subjectarea/quantum-info

http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-selected-papers-network-part-1/

  1.  
  2. NICK'S REVIEW OF THE KALAMIDAS AFFAIR (JUNE 5, 2013)
    "Recently CCNY physics graduate Demetrios Kalamidas proposed a clever
    faster-than-light signaling scheme [DK1] which survived peer review and
    was recently published in Journal of the Optical Society of America. Kalamidas's FTL scheme has generated much discussion and controversy which I will attempt to summarize in this brief review."
    5Like · · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti Nick Herbert continues: "I wish to emphasize that I am not a member of the quantum-optics community nor am I proficient in boson algebra. I am however familiar with devising and refuting FTL communication schemes [1]. I would appreciate comments, corrections and additions to this review.
      Kalamidas's scheme is based on a path-uncertain pair of photons shared by
      Alice and Bob. Whenever Bob's photon path is certain, then so is Alice's, and
      no path interference can occur at Alice's detectors. But if Bob erases which-path information at his detectors, so the argument goes, Alice's which-path information is also (instantly!) erased and interference ensues at Alice's detectors.
      By turning his quantum eraser on and off, Bob can send an FTL signal
      to Alice in the form of patterns of interference or no-interference.
      The beauty of Kalamidas's scheme resides in his original method of which-path
      erasure. When Bob's path info is certain, one path contain a single photon
      and the other path is empty, symbolized by |10> or |01>."
    • Jack Sarfatti "Kalamidas proposes to erase which-path info by mixing into each path a kind of light whose photon number is uncertain. The source of this number-uncertain light is a coherent state |A> which is mixed with Bob's photons via a weakly reflecting beam splitter ( r --> 0) where A is adjusted so that a "weak
      coherent state" |rA> = |0> + rA |1> blends with whatever is in Bob's path. [2] This scheme leads to 5 possible outputs |01>, |01>, |11>, |02> and |20>. For four of these outputs, the path Bob's photon took is not erased, but whenever Bob's counters read |11>, which path the photon took is uncertain and erasure ensues. Using this scheme, Kalamidas can demonstrate apparent FTL signaling from Bob to Alice."
    • Jack Sarfatti "Once I heard of this scheme, I publicized it on my blog [NH1] and hastened to refute it. I was able to invent a simpler path-erasure scheme using "Gray light" |U> instead of a coherent state (where |U> = x|0> + y|1>) which was easy to refute[NH2]. But I could not refute Kalamidas's original scheme.
      Instead of refuting DK's scheme, I actually enhanced it by showing that if he
      strengthened his "weak coherent state" by expanding it to higher powers of
      (rA), the intensity of his FTL signal would actually increase [NH3]. At about
      this same time I wrote the theme song for an opera celebrating DK's quixotic
      quest [NH4] and issued a second blog post [NH5] publicly challenging the
      physics community to refute DK's audacious scheme. The first physicist to take up the challenge was John Howell at the University of Rochester who produced a general refutation of FTL schemes using photon- mixing of the Kalamidas type [JH1]. John's proof used Displaced Fock States (DFS) as Bob's counter outputs and suggested moreover that Kalamidas had erred by using Photon-added Coherent States (PACS) instead of DFS.
      "Everyone knows" that DFS are the correct output states for this kind of experiment, Howell insisted. This has been shown both theoretically and by experiment, for instance here [L&B] and here [W/MS/al]. Kalamidas could not see where his derivation was flawed, but it was clear that his states were of the PACS type. So if DFS was correct, he was prepared to reluctantly admit defeat. However Martin Suda from Austrian Institute of Technology came to the rescue with a simple proof, that at this particular stage of the beam-splitter algebra, both PACS and DFS were correct states [MS1], an astonishing result I call "the Martin Suda Paradox".
    • Jack Sarfatti Nick continued: "Coincidently, GianCarlo Ghirardi had just published a review of past FTL signaling schemes [GCG1] and was drawn into the debate. Together with Raffaele Romano, Ghirardi produced a general refutation [G&R] based on "unitary operations." If the operations that Kalamidas performed on his photons were all unitary, then G & R showed that no FTL signaling would ensue.
      Then one of Kalamidas's former teachers and author of several lucid texts on
      quantum-optics, Christopher Gerry, composed a general refutation [CG/etal]
      based on PACS, the same states Kalamidas had used in his scheme. John
      Howell, at about the same time, published a slightly different refutation [JH2]
      also based on PACS.
    • Jack Sarfatti "One might imagine that, confronted with so many general refutations from all sides, that Kalamidas would cave in and admit defeat. But a funny thing happened on the way to the refutation.
      Despite all the general proofs that his scheme was impossible, no one had
      been able to find a mistake in Kalamidas's math nor his physics. It was true
      that his scheme involved an APPROXIMATION but approximations are used
      all the time in physics. DK's "weak coherent state", for instance, is a veritable
      workhorse of quantum optics, is quite well-understood and appears in numerous experiments where it causes no paradoxical behavior. Kalamidas could cite considerable precedent for using this approximation. One of the reviewers quite rightly pointed out that if the general proofs (which contain no approximations) said that DK's FTL scheme could not work, then that certainly spelled doom for all approximate schemes such as the one DK was proposing. To which DK boldly replied: since you are so certain--because of your general proofs--that I am wrong, then it should be "easy pickins" for you to discover my mistake. But no one has yet met this Kalamidas challenge."
    • Jack Sarfatti "There are two issues here 1. the PACS vs DFS issue and 2. the EXACT vs
      APPROXIMATION issue.
      General refutations using both the PACS and DFS formulations have been
      derived but the PACS APPROXIMATION scheme has not been refuted. It
      remains a mystery why this refutation has not occurred.
      To top things off, Martin Suda formulated a Kalamidas-like scheme using
      DFS APPROXIMATION instead of PACS [MS2]. Suda's new scheme, even
      though approximate, was easily refuted--all the FTL signaling terms obligingly
      summed to zero. However, Martin's nice refutation was spoiled by the
      presence of an ugly non-physical |00> term which no one could justify or
      explain.
      What is the meaning of this impasse? Why can't Kalamidas's simple approximation be refuted when the unapproximated schemes are easily destroyed.
      Martin faintly suspects it has to do with the way the vacuum states |0> are
      treated in approximation schemes. I've always been confused whenever vacuum
      states appear in calculations mixed with "real states". Maybe Kalamidas's
      stubbornly unrefuted FTL scheme (which is certainly wrong, make no
      mistake) has something new and subtle to teach us about boson algebra."
      Nick Herbert (quanta@cruzio.com) June 5, 2013
    • Jack Sarfatti REFERENCES
      [1] Nick Herbert "Faster Than Light: Superluminal Loopholes in
      Physics" NAL (1989)<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/
      0452263174?ie=UTF8&tag=nikkherbert-20>
      - 4 -
      [2] A coherent state is conventionally written |alpha>, where "alpha"
      is a complex number. For typographical convenience, I write a
      coherent state as |A> where A is understood to be the upper-case
      Greek "alpha".
      [DK1] Demetrios Kalamidas "A Proposal for a Feasible Quantum-
      Optical Experiment to Test the Validity of the No-signaling
      Theorem" <http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1110.4629>--Kalamidas's
      original proposal in the physics arXiv.
      [NH1] Nick Herbert "The Kalamida Experiment (blog)" <http:/
      /quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-kalamidasexperiment.
      html>--Publicizing (#1) DK's FTL communication
      scheme; Confirmation of APPROX DK FTL Scheme
      [NH2] Nick Herbert "The Kalamidas Experiment (pdf)" <http:/
      /quantumtantra.com/KalamidasFINAL.pdf>--Refutation of FULL
      Gray-light version of DK FTL Scheme. (In these references "FULL"
      means NO APPROXIMATIONS)
      [NH3] Nick Herbert "Maximizing the Kalamidas Effect (pdf)" <http:/
      /quantumtantra.com/Kalamidas1.pdf>--Expanding & Confirming
      DK APPROX FTL Scheme to higher powers of rA.
      [NH4] Nick Herbert "Demetrios! The Opera (blog)" <http:/
      /quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2013/02/demetrios-opera.html>--
      Demetrios! The Opera.
      [NH5] Nick Herbert (blog) "FTL Signaling Made Easy" <http:/
      /quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2013/05/ftl-signaling-madeeasy.
      html>--Publicizing (#2) APPROX DK FTL Signaling Scheme.
      [JH1] John Howell "Refutation of the Kalamidas's Signaling" (private
      communication) //Refutation of FULL DFS version of DK FTL Scheme
      - 5 -
      [W/MS/al] A. Windhager, Martin Suda et al "Quantum Interference
      between a Single-photon Fock State and a Coherent State" <http:/
      /arxiv.org/pdf/1009.1844.pdf> -- derivation of DFS output of a
      beamsplitter with input |A, 1>
      [L&B] AI Lvovski & SA Babichev "Synthesis and Tomographic
      Characterization of the Displaced Fock State" <http://lanl.arxiv.org/
      abs/quant-ph/0202163>--production and measurement of DFS at
      beam splitter output.
      [GCG1] GianCarlo Ghirardi "Entanglement, Non-locality,
      Superluminal Signaling and Cloning" <http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/
      1305.2305v1.pdf>--Refutation of several historical FTL signaling
      schemes
      [G&R] GianCarlo Ghirardi & Raffaelle Romano "On a quite recent
      proposal of faster than light communication" (private
      communication)--General Refutation of all Full Unitary Systems.
      [CGetal] Christopher Gerry, VV, Ugur Güney & Mark Hillery
      "Comment on a superluminal signaling scheme" (private
      communication)--Refutation of FULL PACS version of DK FTL
      Scheme
      [MS1] "MARTIN SUDA PARADOX" (private communication)--"Martin
      Suda Paradox": Symmetry of PACS and DFS at BS output.
      [MS2] Martin Suda "Interferometry at the 50/50 BS" (private
      communication)--refutation of APPROX DFS version of DK FTL
      Scheme
      [JH2} John Howell "Full Calculation No Approximation" (private
      communication)//refutation of FULL PACS version of DK FTL
      Scheme.

PS
Everyone, except perhaps Jim, agrees that a retarded EM OFFER wave from Alice falling on a hovering detector Bob very close to any future horizon of area-entropy A either black hole or de Sitter or Rindler will blue shift. According to Jim the return advanced CONFIRMATION wave to Alice will blue shift even more! Hence, a HANDSHAKE is impossible due to the enormous frequency mismatch in Jim's way of thinking.

i.e.

fret(Alice) ---> fret(Bob) ~  (A^1/4/Lp^1/2)fret(Alice) 
According to Jim,
fadv(Alice) = (A^1/4/Lp^1/2)fret(Bob) = (A^1/2/Lp)fret(Alice) 
fadv(Alice) >> fret(Alice) 
violates TI


On Jun 6, 2013, at 12:52 PM, JackSarfatti <JackSarfatti@comcast.net> wrote:

Jim's scheme violates TI because Jim if he worked out his idea in detail would have advanced offer wave at a higher frequency than the retarded confirmation wave at the PAST absorber in the retrocausal case.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 6, 2013, at 12:35 PM, Ruth Kastner  wrote:

"The only reason I replied was because of your claim that Jim's model 'violates Cramer's TI' -- to point out that your debate with Jim has no bearing on TI.  Nor does my model obscure any important conceptual insights.

Best wishes"
RK

 

http://www.academia.edu/36632/Debate_on_cosmology_Sarfatti_vs_Woodward_Part_1

Jim also confuses the Hubble sphere where expansion speed is that of light with the cosmic horizons.

if you use static coordinates

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

1 + z = [gtt(receiver)/gtt(source)]^1/2

use  r ~ A^1/2 - Lp  in gtt(source)  and r = 0 for gtt(receiver)

for advanced offer wave in the Cramer transaction

result is (first order Taylor series)

1 + z ~ (1/(Lp/A^1/2)^1/2) = (A^1/2/Lp)^1/2

---> infinity as Lp ---> 0

My argument in co-moving Friedmann coordinates below is consistent with the in static coordinates above.

As above
So below ;-)

Indeed Tamara Davis in her PhD says what I say about the change of distance to our past and future horizons It's obvious from her diagram (Fig 1.1)

We recede from our past particle horizon, we approach our future dark energy de Sitter horizon.

1) In a Cramer transaction a retarded offer wave to us from near our past horizon is redshifted.

An advanced confirmation wave from us to near our past particle horizon is blue shifted.


Our relative space is effectively expanding forward in time in this transaction with our past horizon.

2) In a Cramer transaction an advanced offer wave to use from our future horizon is redshifted.

A retarded confirmation wave from us to it is blue shifted.

Our relative space is effectively contracting forward in time in this transaction with our future horizon.

Therefore, it is effectively expanding backwards in time for a back from the future advanced wave to us.

Advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking black body radiation of peak energy hc/Lp is then redshifted down to hc/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 at our detectors.

From Stefan-Boltzmann T^4 law this gives energy density hc/Lp^2A, which happens to agree with the actual dark energy density accelerating out causal diamond observable patch of the multiverse.

A = area of our future horizon at intersection with our future light cone.






 if you use static coordinates

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

1 + z = [gtt(receiver)/gtt(source)]^1/2

use  r ~ A^1/2 - Lp  in gtt(source)  and r = 0 for gtt(receiver)

for advanced offer wave in the Cramer transaction

result is (first order Taylor series)

1 + z ~ (1/(Lp/A^1/2)^1/2) = (A^1/2/Lp)^1/2

---> infinity as Lp ---> 0

My argument in co-moving Friedmann coordinates below is consistent with the in static coordinates above.

As above
So below ;-)

Indeed Tamara Davis in her PhD says what I say about the change of distance to our past and future horizons It's obvious from her diagram (Fig 1.1)

We recede from our past particle horizon, we approach our future dark energy de Sitter horizon.

1) In a Cramer transaction a retarded offer wave to us from near our past horizon is redshifted.

An advanced confirmation wave from us to near our past particle horizon is blue shifted.


Our relative space is effectively expanding forward in time in this transaction with our past horizon.

2) In a Cramer transaction an advanced offer wave to use from our future horizon is redshifted.

A retarded confirmation wave from us to it is blue shifted.

Our relative space is effectively contracting forward in time in this transaction with our future horizon.

Therefore, it is effectively expanding backwards in time for a back from the future advanced wave to us.

Advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking black body radiation of peak energy hc/Lp is then redshifted down to hc/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 at our detectors.

From Stefan-Boltzmann T^4 law this gives energy density hc/Lp^2A, which happens to agree with the actual dark energy density accelerating out causal diamond observable patch of the multiverse.

A = area of our future horizon at intersection with our future light cone.


The co-moving distance from us to our future horizon decreases forward in time.

The co-moving distance from us to our past horizon increases forward in time.

Virtual electron-positron pairs "stuck" on our future horizon are properly accelerating unlike real co-moving charges with zero proper acceleration AWAY from us. Therefore, using Doppler analogy radiation from them to us is redshifted. The virtual pairs are elevated to real pairs by the very hot Unruh radiation they feel locally. This is all in relation to us distant observers according to Susskind's "horizon complementarity".

proper acceleration of the virtual electron positron pairs stuck on the horizon is

g(r) = -(c^2/2)gtt^-1/2dgtt/dr

in static LNIF coordinates ONLY

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

dgtt/dr = -2r/A

g(r) = +c^2(1 - r^2/A)^-1/2r/A

note that we are at r = 0.

IN CONTRAST, for comoving sources in usual FRW coordinates  gt't' = 1 so g'(r) = 0.

For details see Wikipedia.

Yes, I think that is a fair summary. As long as one uses the standard rules of orthodox quantum theory, i.e. linearity of the operators in Hilbert-Fock spaces, unitarity in the dynamics between von-Neumann strong measurements (including only Hermitian observables, one will get no-signaling in the sense that there is no dependence on distant settings in the local probabilities computed according to standard tracing of the total entangled density matrix (over configuration and/orWigner phase space) over the distant eigenstates.

What I, Antony Valentini, Brian Josephson, Henry Stapp, Steven Weinberg and others have all independently suggested in different variations is a violation of orthodox quantum theory in a more general theory (like Einstein's 1916 GR is to his earlier 1905 SR) allowing non-linear & non-unitary dynamics with a complete breakdown of the Born probability rule. Emergence of new order, as in ground state spontaneous symmetry breaking with Higgs & Goldstone modes, means that the original space of possibilities is changed and there is no reason to expect conservation of probabilities in the original space of possibilities.

On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

As I understand it, John's point is that DK's approximation, though it may appear valid and could be considered acceptable in some contexts, cannot be used for FTL signalling -- because Nature does not truncate at that level and the terms that Nature keeps in play serve to eliminate the interference DK needs for the signal.  So, for purposes of FTL signalling, DK's approximation is not a valid one. This seems to me to address the requirement for a specific refutation of DK's scheme:  once Nature's actual detailed behavior is taken into account, the interference goes away.

Ruth

> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:14:56 -0400
> Subject: Re: The end of the problem, hopefully
> From: howell@pas.rochester.edu
> To: quanta@cruzio.com
> CC: howell@pas.rochester.edu; dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu; adastra1@me.com; martin.suda.fl@ait.ac.at; rekastner@hotmail.com;rromano@iastate.edu; dikaiser@mit.edu; sirag@mindspring.com; bdj10@cam.ac.uk; questions@fredalanwolf.com
> > Nick, I would say that so far the approximations are what have lead to the
> errors.
> Cheers
> John
> > > > John
> >
> > "We will mess things up if we do anything
> > other than an exact calculation."
> >
> > This is a rather pessimistic view, John, and amounts
> > to abandoning the Kalamidas Scheme without any explanation
> > of where it fails except: "Well it's just an approximation".
> >
> > Since the approximations rA < 1 is used all the time in quantum optics,
> > it seems we owe Kalamidas and the quantum optics community at least
> > the favor
> > of showing them how to make a "correct approximation" in this matter
> > of single photon/Coherent state mixing.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > PS: I've uncoupled G & C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:43 AM, John Howell wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Everyone,
> >> I just have a few comments
> >>
> >> 1) I think we should respect Giancarlo's and Chris's desire to
> >> decouple
> >> from this conversation. So, I think they should not be copied in on
> >> further emails.
> >>
> >> 2) I have done the full calculation without any approximations,
> >> expansions
> >> etc. for the PACS and DFS, and as expected, there is no
> >> interference. I
> >> have already shown the DFS, so the PACS is Attached.
> >>
> >> 3) The second order cross correlation for the evolution of the field
> >> operators vs the Suda state evolution yield different results. I
> >> need to
> >> double check my answers (long calculation).
> >>
> >> 4) I like Chris's approach, which is basically to consider a
> >> binomially
> >> distributed photon number outcome interfering with a photon from
> >> the other
> >> port. That will take me a while, but it should corroborate the Suda's
> >> state evolution paper.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> John<FullCalculationNoSignaling.pdf>
> >
> >
>
On Jun 3, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Suda Martin <Martin.Suda.fl@ait.ac.at> wrote:

Nick, thanks for nice comment!

As regards the |00> term I am not at all surprised. In fact, because of the following considerations:

Each coherent state (CS) consists of an infinite sum of Fock states of certain probabilities, the vacuum state included. If these infinite many terms are taken into account this state has more or less classical properties (fully contrary to a Fock state), even though a CS is a regular quantum state! A CS = D|0>. D is the well-known exponential operator where a and a+ appear in the exponent. A DFS = D|1>. Both states (of different modes 3 and 4, in our case) can therefore be expanded in (infinite) Taylor series. The product of such a series expansion inevitably includes a |00> term. An artificial truncation of the series after few terms (2 in our case) contains automatically a |00> term at a prominent position. Therefore a physical interpretation becomes difficult and is in a certain manner misleading. So don't attach too great importance to such a |00> state. It's a result of the early truncation of the Taylor expansion. And it has to be considered whatsoever. Martin

________________________________________
Von: nick herbert [quanta@cruzio.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 3. Juni 2013 18:12
An: Suda Martin
Cc: JACK SARFATTI; Demetrios Kalamidas; Ghirardi Giancarlo; CHRISTOPHER GERRY; John Howell; Ruth Elinor Kastner; Romano rromano@iastate.edu [MATH]; David Kaiser; S-P Sirag; Brian Josephson; Fred Wolf
Betreff: Re: AW: Martin Suda's Refutation? Wait a minute Nick your 11 & 00 amplitudes do not cancel to zero!

Martin--
This is a nice summary of your work.
But could you say a bit more about
where the |0, 0> term comes from?
Does it emerge naturally
from the renormalization procedure.
Nick

PS. Nick has been calling result #1
(PACS_DFS_BS.pdf) the Martin Suda Paradox
because its conclusion is rather counter-intuiyive.

 
 
 
On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:44 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Demetrios--

Indeed. Right now it doesn't add up.

Once the pros are able to clearly explain
the physical origin of the high amplitude |00> term
the refutation is airtight and complete.

But minus an understanding
of how this term physically arises
at the beamsplitter
Suda's wonderful (and surely correct) refutation seems
mere sleight of math.

Nick


On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:

Hi all,

Here is my concise understanding of the |00> term:
 The probability of the right-going Fock photon being reflected is proportional to |r|^2, with |r|-->0. Thus, this reflection probability is vanishing.
 However, as everybody can plainly see, the probability for the |00> outcome to occur is proportional to |r*alpha|^2, which is never equal |r|^2, and can be made far larger.
 So it doesn't add up....you can't explain the missing right-going Fock photon as that being reflected by the highly transmissive beam splitters.
 Probability |r|^2 is vanishing, and can be made as small as we wish (infinitesimal), while the product |r*alpha| can be maintained at any value we want just by increasing 'alpha' accordingly, and therefore the probability |r*alpha|^2 is always finite.
Demetrios


On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 09:14:53 -0700
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
GianCarlo--
It's important that all aspects of Martin's proof be examined to make  certain that what we have is a true refutation and not a
mere pseudo-refutation motivated by what we know the answer has to be.
Nick
On Jun 3, 2013, at 5:28 AM, ghirardi wrote:
Dear all,
    I have no doubts now that Kalamidas' proposal does not work and  its refutation does not require any new insight in subtle quantum  problems.
    Accordingly I will write a precise comment and I invite everybody  to consider it seriously and not to go on suggesting strange  effects and so on to overcome difficulties which do not exist.
    GianCarlo




Il giorno Jun 3, 2013, alle ore 6:06 AM, nick herbert ha scritto:

The problem here, as in summing Feynman diagrams, is to account  for all possible outcomes. One possible outcome is that lower path  is EMPTY and the
upper photon "goes down the hole", that is, it's reflected instead  of being transmitted. Have you calculated the amplitude of this  "down the hole" event and compared its magnitude with the  amplitudes of all the other events you are looking at, especially  the amplitude |1, 1>. Every photon that goes "down the hole"  contributes to |0, 0>. So how big is this term?


On Jun 2, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:

Indeed Jack, but it seems that this term is quite problematic:  the |00> term means that there is a left-going photon present in  a superposition of modes a1 and b1 BUT its right-going partner  has vanished! I am studying this and I don't think it is trivial  or easily explained. Last, the PACS formulation only contains  terms that make physical sense. This |00> is a surprising feature  that arose out of the discussion surrounding my scheme.
Demetrios


On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:42:41 -0700
JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
These amplitudes, as you wrote them, do not cancel as you claim  - see below.
Summing them ~ 2iIm{alpha} =/= 0
On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:56 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>  wrote:
However--and this is the gist of the Suda refutation--the  additional Suda term |0.0> has precisely the right amplitude
to EXACTLY CANCEL the effect of the Kalamidas |1,1> term. Using  A (Greek upper-case alpha) to represent "alpha",
Martin calculates that the amplitude of the Kalamidas |1,1>  term is A. And that the amplitude of the Suda |0,0> term is -A*.
And if these amplitudes are correct, the total interference at  Alice's detectors completely disappears.
Kalamidas Fans--
I have looked over Martin Suda's two papers entitled 1. Taylor  expansion of Output States and 2. Interferometry at the 50/50 BS.
My conclusion is that Martin is within one millimeter of a  solid refutation of the kalamidas scheme. Congratulations,  Martin, on
achieving this result and on paying so much close attention to  kalamidas's arguments.
The result, as expected, comes from a very strange direction.  In particular, the approximation does not enter into Suda's  refutation.
Martin accepts all of kalamidas's approximations and refutes  him anyway.
I have not followed the math in detail but I have been able to  comprehend the essential points.
First, on account of the Martin Suda paradox, either PACS or  DFS can be correctly used at this stage of the argument. So martin
derives the kalamidas result both ways using PACS (Kalamidas's  Way) and then DFS (Howell's Way). Both results are the same.
Then Martin calculates the signal at the 50/50 beam splitter  (Alice's receiver) due to Bob's decision to mix his photon with  a coherent state |A>.
Not surprisingly Martin discovers lots of interference terms.
So Kalamidas is right.
However all of these interference terms just happen to cancel out.
So Kalamidas is wrong.
Refutation Complete. Martin Suda Wins.
This is a very elegant refutation and if it can be sustained,  then Kalamidas's Scheme has definitively
entered the Dustbin of History. And GianCarlo can add it to his  upcoming review of refuted FTL schemes.
But before we pass out the medals, there is one feature of the  Suda Refutation that needs a bit of justification.
Suda's formulation of the Kalamidas Scheme differs in one  essential way from Demetrios's original presentation.
And it is this difference between the two presentations that  spells DOOM FOR DEMETRIOS.
Kalamidas has ONE TERM |1,1> that erases which-way information  and Suda has two. Suda's EXTRA TERM is |0,0>
and represents the situation where neither of Bob's primary  counters fires.
Having another term that erases which-way information would  seem to be good, in that the Suda term might be expected to  increase
the strength of the interference term.
However--and this is the gist of the Suda refutation--the  additional Suda term |0.0> has precisely the right amplitude
to EXACTLY CANCEL the effect of the Kalamidas |1,1> term. Using  A (Greek upper-case alpha) to represent "alpha",
Martin calculates that the amplitude of the Kalamidas |1,1>  term is A. And that the amplitude of the Suda |0,0> term is -A*.
And if these amplitudes are correct, the total interference at  Alice's detectors completely disappears.
Congratulations, Martin. I hope I have represented your argument correctly.
The only task remaining is to justify the presence (and the  amplitude) of the Suda term. Is it really physically reasonable,
given the physics of the situation, that so many |0,0> events  can be expected to occur in the real world?
I leave that subtle question for the experts to decide.
Wonderful work, Martin.
Nick Herbert



GianCarlo Ghirardi
Emeritus
University of Trieste
Italy

Begin forwarded message:

From: Suda Martin <Martin.Suda.fl@ait.ac.at>
Subject: AW: The end of the problem, hopefully
Date: June 3, 2013 11:10:24 AM PDT
To: John Howell , Demetrios Kalamidas <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>


Thanks, John, for "Full calculation, no approximation". Somewhere the phase exp(i Phi) is missing in Eq.(2)? And you forgot perhaps the different adjustments of 1,0 and 0,1 in Eq.(2)? But I am sure the results are the same as in Eqs.(3) and (4). Great!
Martin

________________________________________
Von: John Howell [howell@pas.rochester.edu]
Gesendet: Montag, 3. Juni 2013 19:43
An: Demetrios Kalamidas
Cc: nick herbert; ghirardi; JACK SARFATTI; CHRISTOPHER GERRY; John Howell; Suda Martin; Ruth Elinor Kastner; Romano rromano@iastate.edu [MATH]; David Kaiser; S-P Sirag; Brian Josephson; Fred Wolf
Betreff: The end of the problem, hopefully

Hello Everyone,
  I just have a few comments

1) I think we should respect Giancarlo's and Chris's desire to decouple
from this conversation.  So, I think they should not be copied in on
further emails.

2) I have done the full calculation without any approximations, expansions
etc. for the PACS and DFS, and as expected, there is no interference. I
have already shown the DFS, so the PACS is Attached.

3) The second order cross correlation for the evolution of the field
operators vs the Suda state evolution yield different results.  I need to
double check my answers (long calculation).

4) I like Chris's approach, which is basically to consider a binomially
distributed photon number outcome interfering with a photon from the other
port.  That will take me a while, but it should corroborate the Suda's
state evolution paper.

Cheers
John
Jack Sarfatti
Kalamidas Affair update June 3, 2013
Jack Sarfatti Begin forwarded message:

From: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: AW: Martin Suda's Refutation? Wait a minute Nick your 11 & 00 amplitudes do not cancel to zero!
Date: June 3, 2013 9:11:17 AM PDT
To: Suda Martin

Martin--
This is a nice summary of your work.
But could you say a bit more about
where the |0, 0> term comes from?
Does it emerge naturally
from the renormalization procedure.
Nick

PS. Nick has been calling result #1
(PACS_DFS_BS.pdf) the Martin Suda Paradox
because its conclusion is rather counter-intuitive.

On Jun 3, 2013, at 3:46 AM, Suda Martin wrote:

Dear all,

Thank you very much for emails and discussion!

Let me summarize my results so far which are seen in the attachment. They demonstrate that it is unlikely to be FTL signaling in the system of DK.

4 files are attached:

1) PACS_DFS_BS.pdf
2) PACS_DFS_Howell_Suda.pdf
3) Taylor-Exp-PACS_DFS_Howell_Suda.pdf
4) Interf_BS_50_50_Suda.pdf

I would like to discuss these 4 short statements sequentially.

1) In PACS_DFS_BS.pdf I showed that for input |1>|alpha> or |alpha>|1>, behind a BS both the PACS-formulation of the output state and the DFS-formulation of the output state are identical. This can be shown using the relation a^{+}D = Da^{+} + alpha^{*}D and, in addition, using the well-known Stokes relations of a BS.

2) In PACS_DFS_Howell_Suda.pdf I have demonstrated (and this is only a supplement to John Howells paper) that the normalizations of both, the input wave function |psi_{0}> and the output wave function |psi'_{0}>, are exactly = 1. The orthogonality between DFS and the coherent state |alpha> is thereby crucial. This applies for the PACS-formulation as well as for the DFS-formulation. Because of this orthogonality no interference can appear.

3) In Taylor-Exp-PACS_DFS_Howell_Suda.pdf the Taylor expansion of the displacement operator D has been introduced in order to follow DK's calculation procedure. PACS as well as DFS are taken into account. The approximation |r alpha|<

4) In Interf_BS_50_50_Suda.pdf a more complete T series expansion of D and DFS is used (see Eq.27 and Eq.28 of John's paper) and the normalization of the wave function |psi'_{0}> behind the BS yields 1 + 2|r alpha|^{2} + |r alpha|^{4} instead of being exactly=1. The wave function after the 50/50 BS on the left side produces therefore an "interference term" with a probability |p_{10}|^{2} = 4|r alpha|^{2} [1-sin(Phi)] and this probability is proportional to
|r alpha|^{2}. This is not a miracle because of the modified normalization. The additional term appearing in the norm is proportional to |r alpha|^{2} as well!

As a result one can say that the whole problem is up to the T expansion of the D operator and hence of the modification of the normalization condition.

Nice regards,

Peter Lynn Martin
  1.