Text Size


Tag » Brian Josephson

On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:33 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:

I agree with Brian. And as far as M-theory is concerned, it is offered as the complete theory of everything, in my view to avoid the problem of consciousness.

I have yet to watch all the Stanford Susskind videos on string and M-theory to see if there is any "there" there?

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Josephson [mailto:bdj10@cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:33 PM
To: Ruth Kastner

Subject: Re: Reality of Possibility

On 25 Jun 2013, at 15:45, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Brian, I will look at this, but first let me clarify something.

By 'complete' in the book, what I'm really getting at is that the theory doesn't need either

(1) the addition of beables a la Bohm

Bohm's idea which is very natural actually starts with Bohr, but goes beyond it.

In my own formulation for the masses:

The EM 2-form F = dA is the REAL IT beable. It has a BIT super-Q as described by Basil Hiley. All pointer reading of all experiment on all matter fields in the final analysis ends up with F. I think Geoffrey Chew first emphasized this at the Berkeley meetings described by David Kaiser in "How the Hippies Saved Physics."

The classical world corresponds to Q negligible - with the exception of spontaneous broken ground state symmetries giving emergent  over-complete distinguishably non-orthogonal Glauber coherent states of both real and virtual quanta. That's a lot of exceptions including crystals (both space and time), superfluids, lasers, ferromagnets, ferroelectrics, nematics, superconductors, and finally life and consciousness itself. See P.W. Anderson's "More is different."

(2) ad hoc modifications such as 'spontaneous collapse' theories

The point has to be made though that unless there is a theory of everything QM cannot be considered complete.  QM is no use unless it has a Hamiltonian to work with, and all we have at present is approximations that work only in a limited domain, or theories such as M-theory that are a kind of 'vapourware', having no existence in the form of written text.  This is independent of any considerations relating to life.


Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge Director, Mind-Matter Unification Project
WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
Tel. +44(0)1223 337260/337254

On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Thanks Basil for this clarification. It is true that Bohm's original motivation was a realist (as opposed to instrumentalist, Bohrian interpretation). I should have been more clear about that. But it rather quickly became a path to resolving the measurement problem -- if not for its original author(s), certainly for those who have championed it since then.
Also, regarding the quote ["What I felt to be particularly unsatisfactory was the fact that the quantum theory had no place in it for an adequate notion of an independent actuality-i.e. of an actual movement or activity by which one physical state could pass over into another".] This is a key component of the measurement problem.  Also, let me take the opportunity to note that it is not necessary to  identify a 'realist' view of qm with the existence of  'hidden variables'.  I have been proposing a realist view that does not involve hidden variables -- but it does involve an expansion of what we normally like to think of as 'real'. The usual tacit assumption is that
'real' = 'existing within spacetime'  (and that of course requires 'hidden variables' that tell us 'where' the entity lives in spacetime, or at least identifies some property compatible with spacetime existence)" (end-quote)

Me: We all seem to agree that the idea that "real" must be "local in spacetime" is false. Q is real, but it is generally not a local BIT field in 3D + 1 spacetime when there is entanglement. Oddly enough the macro-quantum coherent signal Q in spontaneous breakdown of ground state symmetry is local in 3D+1 but it is generally coupled to nonlocal micro-quantum "noise."

Ruth "In contrast, I think PTI provides us with a realist concept of an independent actuality -- a "movement or activity by which one physical state could pass over into another". "

Me: So does Bohm's ontological interpretation.

Ruth: "But that 'actuality' is rooted in potentiality, which is a natural view given the mathematical properties of quantum objects."

Me: Seems to me you are playing with nouns replacing one vague metaphysical notion with another. What is "potentiality"? Mathematically it's Bohm's Q - perhaps extended to Yakir Aharonov's weak measurements with advanced Wheeler-Feynman back from the future post selection in a post quantum theory with Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality". Some think that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, since it only obtains in open systems that is not so. Furthermore our actual universe, the causal diamond bounded by both the past and future horizons is an open system out of thermal equilibrium.

Ruth: "So one can give a  realist, physical account, but it is indeterministic -- involving a kind of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Given that we already have spontaneous symmetry breaking elsewhere in physics, I think we should allow for it in QM.

Thanks again for the clarification --"


Jack Sarfatti
David Bohm, Albert Einstein, Louis De Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli, Richard Feynman
  • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 26, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Basil Hiley wrote:

    Ruth, may I make a correction to what you wrote below. Bohm '52 work was not 'originally undertaken to solve the measurement problem.' He had a different motive. I asked him to clarify, in writing, w
    ...See More
    This paper is dedicated to three great thinkers who have insisted that the world is not quite the straightforward affair that our successes in describing it mathematically may have seemed to suggest: Niels Bohr, whose analyses of the problem of explaining life play a central role in the following di...
  • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:08 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

    Ruth wrote:

    "I don't rule out that some deeper theory might eventually be found, that could help answer ultimate questions in more specific terms. But it hasn't been demonstrated, to my knowledge, that one has to have violations of Born Rule in order to explain life." (end quote)

    To the contrary, it has been demonstrated in my opinion. First start with Brian's paper "On the biological utilization of nonlocality" with the Greek physicist whose name escapes me for the moment.

    Second: Lecture 8 of http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

    Specifically, how the Born rule depends on violation of the generalized action-reaction (relativity) principle that Q has no sources. Q pilots matter without direct back-reaction of matter on Q.

    In other words, orthodox quantum theory treats matter beables as test particles! - clearly an approximation.

    Obviously signal nonlocality violating no-signaling theorems has a Darwinian advantage. Indeed, without it, entanglement appears as static noise locally. Imagine that Alice and Bob's minds are represented each by a giant macroscopic coherent entangled quantum potential Q(A,B). It would obviously be a survival advantage for Alice and Bob to directly send messages to each other at a distance like the Austraiian aborigines do in the Outback. Now use scale invariance. It's obviously an advantage for separate nerve cells in our brains to do so. Also in terms of morphological development of the organisim - signal nonlocality is an obvious plus, which I think is part of Brian Josephson's message in that paper.


    Subquantum Information and Computation
    Antony Valentini
    (Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
    It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
    Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
    Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
    Journal reference: Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
    DOI: 10.1007/s12043-002-0117-1
    Report number: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
    Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
    (or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)

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

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:


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,

-----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

---- 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

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
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

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

1. Kalamidas's scheme is WRONG because he treats approximations
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

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


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



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.


Christopher C. Gerry
Professor of Physics
Lehman College
The City University of New York

---- 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

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
not of their own
nor of somebody else's
totally different FTL signaling scheme,


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


 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
|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.

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:44:42 -0700
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
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.
On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:

 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:
Sarfatti sent around a nice review of quantum optics
by Ulf Leonhardt that discusses the structure of path-uncertain
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
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,
| 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.
ref: Ulf Leonhardt's wonderful review of quantum optics,
starting   with reflections from a window pane and concluding
Hawking radiation.

OK, here is a simple case - not same as Kalamidas mind you - that seems to be outside the rules of orthodox quantum theory.

Alice the receiver has an ordinary orthodox quantum bit with base states |0> & |1> for a given orientation of her apparatus which never changes in the experiment. Bob the sender has two distinguishable non-orthogonal Glauber coherent eigenstates |z> and |w> of the non-Hermitian observable boson destruction operator a, where z and w are complex numbers. Right at this point we have violated one of the axioms of orthodox quantum theory in a factual way since Glauber states are facts.

Suppose we have the entangled state

|A,B> = (1/2)^1/2[|0>|z> + |1>|w>]

then using the orthodox Born probability rule in density matrix formulation gives

p(0) = p(1) = (1/2)[1 + |<z|w>|^2]

p(0) + p(1) = 1 +  |<z|w>|^2 > 1

the entanglement signal at Alice's receiver is  |<z|w>|^2 violating conservation of Born's rule for probability - because the observable is not hermitian and actually a closer examination shows a non-unitary time evolution. This is a larger theory that reduces to orthodox quantum theory in the appropriate limit.



Now, we can squirm out of this by a-priori ad-hoc forcing of the non-universal normalization

|A,B>' =  [1 +  |<z|w>|^2]^-1/2|A,B>


p'(0) = p'(1) = 1/2 with no signaling Note, that Bob does not need to use that normalization at all because of Alice's <0|1> = 0.

That's why I use "non-universal" above.

However, it's not clear the Nature works this way without more testing.

On Jun 1, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Ghirardi Giancarlo <ghirardi@ictp.it> wrote:

Il giorno 01/giu/2013, alle ore 18:38, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> ha scritto:

Ghirardi: I do not agree at all on this. The actual situation is that there has never been a clear cut indication that in Kalamidas serf-up something (probabilities, outcomes or whatever you want) actually changes something at left as a consequence of preparing one or the other state at right, so that it can be used to send faster than light signals. It is his duty and not ours to prove that the effect exist. I believe to have argued against its existence and I have also checked that for the most natural observables at left no difference occurs when you choose one or the other of the two initial states. The game is back to Kalamidas. And, sincerely, I am a little bit disturbed by all this enormous mess and many inadequate and unjustified statements that have been put forward during the debate. I am not keen to follow the matter any more.

On Jun 1, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Suda Martin <Martin.Suda.fl@ait.ac.at> wrote:

Dear all,
thanks to everybody for emails, papers, contributions to discussion and comments. I enjoyed very much the highly interesting dialogues. I can fully agree to the arguments of CG and GG, of course.
Only a comment with respect to the question of the approximation:
As regards the approximation done in the calculation of DK, I would like to point out again - and I sent a pdf called Interf_BS_50_50_Suda.pdf two days ago -  that because of such an approach the normalization of the output wave function behind the 50/50 BS has been changed to (1+2|alpha|^2+|alpha|^4), see Eq.(7), instead of being exactly 1. The probabilities for the potential "interference part" (see Eq.(6)) are (|p_10|^2+|p_01|^2)/4=2|alpha|^2 and the other parts give all together  2(|q_10|^2+|q_01|^2)/4=1+|alpha|^4. One keeps therefore precisely the modified normalization of Eq.(7). One can clearly see that the "interference part" and the other parts are outcomes from an incorrect normalization.
Nice regards,

Begin forwarded message:

Subject: Re: The Kalamidas affair
Date: June 1, 2013 9:46:37 AM PDT
To: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Cc: Ghirardi Giancarlo <ghirardi@ictp.it>, Demetrios Kalamidas <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>, John Howell <howell@pas.rochester.edu>, Suda Martin <martin.suda.fl@ait.ac.at>, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com>, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>, "Romano rromano@iastate.edu [MATH]" <rromano@iastate.edu>

Nick and everyone,

The specific failings of the Kalamidas proposal have, in fact, been pointed out in the papers you mentioned and elsewhere. I don't understand why anyone continues to say otherwise. To say that they have not been addressed does not make it so, and comes off merely an act of denial. This has been an interesting episode, but I think it's time to stop beating a dead horse. Chris

On Jun 1, 2013, at 9:13 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Kalamidas fans--

NH: I believe that everyone is in agreement that general considerations prove that the Kalamidas proposal must fail.

JS: Yes

In both Ghirardi's and Gerry's papers, they emphasize these general considerations and decline to engage in the specifics of Kalamidas's calculations. Whether one wishes to engage the specifics or not is a matter of taste. But Kalamidas is asking us to engage in specifics. As he puts it: Since you know that I am wrong, it should be "easy pickins" to
point out exactly where I am mistaken.

Gerry comes closest to meeting Kalamidas's challenge to move out of the safety of generalities and deal with specifics.

In the conclusion of Gerry's paper he states "Clearly, if the exact calculation shows no interference, but the approximate calculation does, there is something wrong with the approximate calculation. Looking at Eq 6, one notes that while some terms to order rA have been kept in going from 6a to 6c, the terms labeled "vanishing" in Eq 6b are also of this order and have been discarded. Thus the approximate calculation in {1} is inconsistent and wrong."

Gerry engages in specifics. He is meeting Kalamidas on his own terms. But he neglects to specify exactly which terms of order rA Kalamidas has mistakenly labeled as "vanishing". When Gerry displays these wrongly-neglected terms (perhaps in an informal note), he would have definitively "slain the beast in his own lair" and we can all get on with the non-Kalamidas aspects of our lives.

JS: Agreed, thanks Nick :-)


PS: There is still the fascinating Martin Suda Paradox which was discovered in the context of the Kalamidas refutation, but that is a separate issue altogether.

JS: What is that Nick? Please give details.

Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>
Subject: [ExoticPhysics] Fwd: The Kalamidas affair
Date: June 1, 2013 7:45:42 AM PDT
To: Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
Reply-To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>

Sent from my iPad

Subject: Re: The Kalamidas affair

yes I agree with this
any attempt at signaling within axioms of orthodox quantum theory will fail e.g. Adrian Kent's papers
however, antony valentini, myself and others (Stapp, Weinberg, Josephson) have all independently proposed several extensions giving a more general non-orthodox post quantum theory containing orthodox quantum theory as a limiting case. In particular, the non-hermitian boson destruction operator is a macroscopic observable with Glauber coherent eigenstates that are non-orthogonal distinguishable violating orthodox quantum theory. Furthermore, they obey a non-unitary dynamics given by the c-number landau-ginzburg equation for spontaneous broken symmetry ground/vacuum state emergent local order parameters. These order parameters entangle with others and also with orthodox qubits, so we have a new larger theory here analogous to general relativity in relation to special relativity.

Furthermore, there is no violation with the group structure of relativity because  intervals are frame invariant and what matters is the interval between actual irreversible detections. What is violated is the retarded casuality axiom appended to relativity that is adhoc like Euclid's fifth axiom. Again the analogy to non-Euclidean geometry is appropriate.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:40 AM, CHRISTOPHER GERRY <CHRISTOPHER.GERRY@lehman.cuny.edu> wrote:


I'm in total agreement with Prof. Ghirardi's assessment. The beam splitter transformations are not the essential point here, as even if the are done correctly, the claimed effect goes away. We addressed the beam splitter issue in our comment to demonstrate that sloppy calculations in general are contained in the Kalamidas paper. We then assumed that the one case of his t and r of parameters that would satisfy the reciprocity relations actually held, thus ensuring that his transformations did not violate unitarity (for that one case!) and from there showed via an exact calculation that the effect disappears. As I said, it will disappear even with totally correct, unitary beam splitter transformations, just as stated by Prof. Ghirardi. Chris

Christopher C. Gerry
Professor of Physics
Lehman College
The City University of New York

---- Original message ----
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 14:57:07 +0200
From: Ghirardi Giancarlo <ghirardi@ictp.it>  Subject: The Kalamidas affair  To: CHRISTOPHER GERRY <christopher.gerry@lehman.cuny.edu>, Demetrios Kalamidas <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>, John Howell <howell@pas.rochester.edu>, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>, Suda Martin <martin.suda.fl@ait.ac.at>, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com>, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>, "Romano rromano@iastate.edu [MATH]" <rromano@iastate.edu>

Dear all,
  attached herewith you will find a letter (even though it looks like a paper for technical reasons) that I have decided to forward to you to make clear the conceptual status of the situation. I hope of having been clear and I wait for comments.

With my best regards


remarks.pdf (83k bytes)

ExoticPhysics mailing list

Steven Corneliussen clarified his intent and position in an email to me and Josephson

"It’s important to emphasize one thing that Professor Sarfatti wrote in one of his messages: “Corneliussen did not at all make clear what side he was on.” That’s right, and the reason is that I have no side. I’m a media analyst and a writer and reporter, not a physicist. The article’s purpose was to report on media coverage, not physics merits."

Brian as the "plaintiff" in the case, as it were, seems content with that. He is happy that cold fusion is being aired anew in the major science media.
Jack Sarfatti
American Institute of Physics's trade magazine Physics Today commits libel on Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson.
  • Roosevelt McCarter likes this.
  • Jack Sarfatti The Physics Today blogger gives serious play to GrrlScientist in a vicious mud-slinging defaming general attack on parapsychology focused on Nobel Laureate physicist Brian Josephson a Fellow of the Royal Society, Professor at Cambridge, a guest of the Queen of England etc. These people have no integrity, no intellectual honesty and no shame it appears and they are in what should be fair responsible organizations.

    1) parapsychology is not based on "powerful brain waves"

    2) it is not "faith-based" it adheres to scientific method and this is a libel on several academics in mainstream universities

    As you told Grrl Scientist it is libel to repeat libel. The remarks below are false and designed to humiliate you.
    One more article requires inclusion in this list, but it has a different tenor. At the Guardian, the pseudonymous blogger GrrlScientist is described as a molecular evolutionary biologist and ornithologist. She recently criticized Josephson for "openly espousing parapsychology—a field of quantum kookiness that encompasses a wide array of anti-scientific and pseudoscientific hocus-pocus attributed to powerful brain waves" and for having become "an outspoken supporter of cold fusion, that faith-based idea that is often referred to as 'pathological science' by his scientific colleagues." He has, she charges, "abandoned rationality and the scientific method to advocate boneheaded fantasies."


    Steven T. Corneliussen, a media analyst for the American Institute of Physics, monitors three national newspapers, the weeklies Nature and Science, and occasionally other publications. He has published op-eds in the Washington Post and other newspapers, has written for NASA's history program, and is a science writer at a particle-accelerator laboratory.


    Note what US Law says:
    18 U.S.C. § 875(c) criminalizes the making of threats via Internet.

    Cyberbullying is defined in legal glossaries as

    actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm another or others.
    use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another person
    use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person.
    Examples of what constitutes cyberbullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient. The actions are deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior intended to harm another. Cyberbullying has been defined by The National Crime Prevention Council: “when the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person.[2][3]

    2 ^ Cyberbullying - Law and Legal Definitions US Legal
    3^ Cyber-bullying Definition Legal Definitions

    Stalking online has criminal consequences just as physical stalking. A target's understanding of why cyberstalking is happening is helpful to remedy and take protective action to restore remedy. Cyberstalking is an extension of physical stalking.[23] Among factors that motivate stalkers are: envy, pathological obsession (professional or sexual), unemployment or failure with own job or life; intention to intimidate and cause others to feel inferior; the stalker is delusional and believes he/she "knows" the target; the stalker wants to instill fear in a person to justify his/her status; belief they can get away with it (anonymity).[24][25]

    23 ^ Cyberstalking - Introduction Crime Library, Criminal Minds and Methods
    24 ^ Cyber-Stalking: Obsessional Pursuit and the Digital Criminal, by Wayne Petherick - Stalking Typologies and Pathologies
    25 ^ Ten Reasons Why Someone is Stalking You Online Quit Stalking Me - Cyberstalking

    A majority of states have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within stalking or harassment laws.[11][12]
    Most law enforcement agencies have cyber-crime units and often Internet stalking is treated with more seriousness than reports of physical stalking.[13] Help and resources can be searched by State or area.

    11 ^ Cyberstalking, cyberharassment and cyberbullying NCSL National Conference of State Legislatures
    12 ^ Cyberstalking Washington State Legislature
    13 ^ How To Recognize And Stop Stalking Behavior, by Stephanie Tallman Smith; Lifescript, November 09, 2007
  • Jack Sarfatti There is in addition to the above that deals mainly with single stalkers using emails, social networks and anonymous remailers a new crime and emerging law known as "Organized Stalking" which applies in the above Josephson case.