Text Size


Tag » Henry Stapp

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

    · Comment
  2. Friends
    See All
    • Jonathan Vos Post
    • Andreas Albrecht
    • Dan Smith
    • Tove K. Danovich
    • Maxine Pearson
    • Bonnie Tarwater
    • Stewart Swerdlow
    • Joseph Nechvatal
      Explaining the Paranormal with Physics - Debate with Garrett Moddel
      Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
  3. Photos
    See All
    Most of the FUN people on Christmas Eve!
    Hi Jack and Joe!
    Why Study Entanglement ?  Live version of presentation

(Flash Presentation, MP3, Windows Presentation,Windows Video File,PDF) -
  4. Explaining the Paranormal with Physics
    • Jack Sarfatti Garret Moddel
      Professor, Electrical, Computer & Energy Engineering
      University of Colorado
      Quantum Engineering Lab: http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/index.html
      PsiPhen Lab: http://psiphen.colorado.edu On Jan 17, 2013, at 6:17 PM, Garret Moddel wrote:

      Thank you for the respect!

      The answer is clearly not (1), but that does not mean it is (2). It could be none of the above.

      Jack: Again I strongly disagree. You are opting for no-explanation or perhaps a non-scientific supernatural explanation. It's obvious to my mind, and I think to many others that quantum entanglement when supplemented with signal nonlocality beyond orthodox quantum theory has all the properties in a natural way that the evidence demands. Now, ultimately to paraphrase Einstein - the correspondence of theory with experiment depends upon the "free invention of the human imagination" into making a coherent narrative. Either you grok it or you don't. Ultimately it comes down to intuitive judgement I suppose. That one can sense events which have not happened before they happen, but which will happen in a Novikov loop in time makes perfect sense in the coherent narrative (paradigm) of entanglement + signal nonlocality. This idea is Popper falsifiable. Without signal nonlocality the kind of evidence you say you believe could not possibly occur.

      The basic no-signal arguments of orthodox quantum theory assert that looking locally at one part B of an entangled system will only show perfectly random noise independent of how one changes the parameter settings (e.g. orientation of a Stern-Gerlach magnet) of a detector of a distantly entangled part A. With signal nonlocality that is no longer the case and a non-random signal can be detected at B's detector depending on the local time sequence of parameter settings for A's detector - without the need for a classical signal key to decrypt the entangled message as in orthodox quantum theory. Moreover, the spatio-temporal separation between the paired detections of A & B do not matter at all. Entanglement is independent of the space-time separation between the irreversible detections of A & B even if A the active sender is in the timelike future of B the passive receiver.

      Bottom line, you are happy not to have any explanation rooted in known physical theory. I am not happy with that, given that there is a natural explanation available that only requires a minimal extension of quantum physics analogous to extending special relativity to general relativity, or extending classical mechanics to orthodox quantum mechanics, or re-interpreting classical thermodynamics in terms of kinetic theory of gases and then beyond to classical statistical mechanics.

      Garrett: If we had been discussing solutions to the ultraviolet catastrophe in the late 19th century and you offered me (1) classical thermodynamics, or (2) natural radical conservative extensions of orthodox Maxwell equations, that would be too limited a choice. None-of-the-above would have included the Planck distribution and quantum mechanics. We may well be in a similar situation here.

      Jack: I think you are making a simple problem more complex. To my mind at least entanglement with signal nonlocality is a perfectly obvious natural explanation and why you cannot see that surprises me.

      Garrett: The only way I know of to distinguish whether natural radical conservative extensions of orthodox quantum theory do resolve the issue would be if they provided testable, and falsifiable, predictions that are then tested.

      Jack: You have put the cart before the horse. The kinds of evidence you say you believe is precisely what to expect from entanglement + signal nonlocality! Indeed, the ABSENCE of the kind of evidence you say you believe would have been the POPPER FALSIFICATION of the entanglement + signal nonlocality explanation!

      Now, in dealing with human subjects of enormous complexity with many variables we cannot control, you can't expect the kind of quantitative comparison of numerical data with equations that we get in Newtonian celestial mechanics or in the radiative corrections to quantum electrodynamics etc. If you are looking for that, you won't get it. However, given the idea that entanglement + signal nonlocality is the mechanism of consciousness itself, one may hope to mimic it in the laboratory with nano-engineering naturally conscious solid-state android brains for example - conscious computers. Such things become thinkable scientifically.
    • Jack Sarfatti BTW in case you are not aware of this:
      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)
      Submission history
      Excerpts from
    • Jack Sarfatti Theoretical model of a purported empirical violation of the predictions of quantum theory

      Henry P. Stapp

      (Originally published in Physical Review A, Vol.50, No.1, July 1994)

      ABSTRACT: A generalization of Weinberg's nonlinear quantum theory is used to model a reported violation of the predictions of orthodox quantum theory.

      This work concerns the possibility of causal anomalies. By a causal anomaly I mean a theoretical or empirical situation in which the occurrence or nonoccurrence of an observable event at one time must apparently depend upon a subsequently generated (pseudo) random number, or willful human act.

      Considerations of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen [1] and Bell's-Theorem [2] type entail [3] -- if many-world's interpretations are excluded -- the occurrence of causal anomalies on the theoretical level, provided certain predictions of quantum theory are at least approximately valid. However, those anomalies cannot manifest on the empirical level if the quantum predictions hold exactly [4]. On the other hand, slight departures from the exact validity of the quantum predictions [5] could lead to small but observable causal anomalies [6].

      Empirical causal anomalies have been reported in the past in experiments that appear, at least superficially, to have been conducted in accordance with scientific procedures [7], and the protocols are becoming ever more stringent [8]. I do not enter into the difficult question of assessing the reliability of these reports. The scientific community generally looks upon them with skepticism. But at least part of this skepticism originates not from specific challenges to the protocols and procedures of the works of, for example, Jahn, Dobyns and Dunne [7], but from the belief that such results are not compatible with well-established principles of physics, and hence to be excluded on theoretical grounds. However, it turns out that small modifications of the standard quantum principles would allow some of the most impossible sounding of the reported phenomena to be accommodated. According to the report in Ref. [8], it would appear that in certain experimental situations willfull human acts, selected by pseudorandom numbers generated at one time, can shift, relative to the randomness predicted by normal quantum theory, the timings of radioactive decays that were detected and recorded months earlier on floppy discs, but that were not observed at that time by any human observer. Such an influence of an observer backward in time on atomic events seems completely at odds with physical theory. However, a slight modification of normal quantum theory can accommodate the reported data. In the scientific study of any reported phenomena it is hard to make progress without a theoretical description that ties them in a coherent way into the rest physics.

      The purpose of the present work is to construct, on the basis of an extension of Weinberg's nonlinear generalization of quantum theory [5], a theoretical model that would accommodate causal anomalies of the kind described above. Specifically, the present work shows that the reported phenomena, although incompatible with the main currents of contemporary scientific thought, can be theoretically modeled in a coherent and relatively simple way by combining certain ideas of von Neumann and Pauli abut the interpretation of quantum theory with Weinberg's nonlinear generalization of the quantum formalism.


      To retain the mathematical structure of quantum theory almost intact, I shall exploit the ideas of von Neumann [9] and Pauli [10], according to which the von Neumann process number 1 (reduction of the wave packet) is physically associated with the mental process of the observer. It is interesting that two of our most rigorous-minded mathematical physicists should both be inclined to favor an idea that is so contrary to our normal idea of the nature of the physical world. most physicists have, I think, preferred to accept the common-sense idea that the world of macroscopic material properties is factual: e.g., that the Geiger counter either fires or does not fire, independently of whether any observer has witnessed it; and that the mark on the photographic plate is either there or not there, whether anyone observes it or not. Yet it is difficult to reconcile this common-sense intuition with the mathematical formalism of quantum theory. For there is in that structure no natural breakpoint in the chain of events that leads from an atomic event that initiates the chain to the brain event associated with the resulting observational experience. From the perspective of the mathematical physicist the imposition of a breakpoint at any purely physical level is arbitrary and awkward: it would break the close connection between mathematics and the physical world in a way that is mathematically unnatural, and moreover lacks any empirical or scientific justification. From a purely logical perspective it seems preferable to accept the uniformity of nature's link between the mathematical and physical worlds, rather than to inject, without any logical or empirical reason, our notoriously fallible intuitions about the nature of physical reality.
    • Jack Sarfatti Following, then, the mathematics, instead of intuition, I shall adopt the assumption that the Schrodinger equation holds uniformly in the physical world. That is, I shall adopt the view that the physical universe, represented by the quantum state of the universe, consists merely of a set of tendencies that entail statistical links between mental events.

      In fact, this point of view is not incompatible with the Copenhagen interpretation, which, although epistemological rather than ontological in character [11], rests on the central fact that in science we deal, perforce, with connections between human observations: the rest of science is a theoretical imagery whose connection to reality must remain forever uncertain.

      According to this point of view, expressed however in ontological terms, the various possibilities in regard to the detection of a radioactive decay remain in a state of "possibility" or "potentiality," even after the results are recorded on magnetic tape: no reduction of the wave packet occurs until some pertinent mental event occurs.

      By adopting this non-common-sense point of view, we shift the problem raised by the reported results from that of accounting for an influence of willful thoughts occurring at one time upon radioactive decays occurring months earlier to the simpler problem of accounting for the biasing of the probabilities for the occurrence of the thoughts themselves, i.e., a biasing relative to the probabilities predicted by orthodox quantum theory. This latter problem is manageable: Weinberg [5] has devised a nonlinear quantum mechanics that is very similar to quantum theory, but that can produce probabilities that are biased, relative to the probabilities predicted by linear quantum mechanics. Gisin [6] has already pointed out that Weinberg's theory can lead to causal anomalies.

      According to the interpretation of quantum theory adopted here, the mechanical recording of the detection of the products of a radioactive decay generates a separation of the physical world into a collection of superposed "channels" or "branches": the physical world, as represented by the wave function of the universe, divides into a superposition of channels, one for each of the different possible recorded (but unobserved) results. Contrary to common sense the recorded but unobserved numbers remain in a state of superposed "potentia," to use the word of Heisenberg. Later, when the human observer looks at the device, the state of his brain will separate into a superposition of channels corresponding to the various alternative macroscopic possibilities, in the way described by von Neumann [9]. FInally, when thepsychological event of observation occurs, the state of the universe will be reduced by a projection onto those brain states that are singled out by the conscious experience of the observer [12].

      If the probabilities associated with the various alternative possibilities for the brain state are those given by orthodox quantum theory, then there can be no systematic positive bias of the kind reported: the probabilities associated with the alternative possible brain events will necessarily, according to the orthodox theory, as explained by von Neumann, agree with those that were determined earlier from the probabilities of the alternative possible detections of radioactive decays: there could be no biasing of those probabilities due to a subsequent willful intent of an observer. However, a generalization of Weinberg's nonlinear quantum mechanics allows the probabilities for the possible reductions of the state of the brain of the observer to be biased, relative to those predicted by orthodox quantum theory, by features of the state of the brain of the conscious observer. If such a feature were the activity of the brain that is associated with "intent," then the effect of the anomalous term in the Hamiltonian would be to shift the quantum probabilities corresponding to the various alternative possible conscious events toward the possibilities linked to his positive intent.

      We turn, therefore, to a description of Weinberg's theory, in the context of the problem of the shifting of the probabilities away from those predicted by orthodox quantum theory, and toward those defined by an "intent" represented by particular features of the state of the brain of the observer.

      Weinberg's nonlinear quantum theory is rooted in the fact that the quantum-mchanical equations of motion for a general quantum system are just the classical equations of motion for a very simple kind of classical system, namely a collection of classical simple harmonic oscillators. Thus a natural way to generalize quantum theory is to generalize this simple classical system.
      [ technicalities deleted... ]

      This example shows that the reported phenomena, although contrary to orthodox ideas about causality, can be model within a Weinberg-type of nonlinear quantum theory if the Hamiltonian functionh(psi,psi*) is allowed to be nonreal.

      If there are in nature nonlinear contributions of the kind indicated...then it seems likely that biological systems would develop in such a way as to exploit the biasing action. The biasing states, illustrated in the model by the state |chi>, could become tied, in the course of biological evolution, to biological desiderata, so that the statistical tendencies specified by the basic dynamics would be shifted in a way that would enhance the survival of the organism.

      The Weinberg nonlinearities were intially introduced in the present context because of Gisin's result, which showed that these nonlinearities could lead to causal anomalies of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) kind. However, the considerations given above indicate that those nonlinearities alone cannot produce anomalies of the kind reported in Ref. [8]: a nonreal h is apparently needed to obtain an effect of that kind.

      Because the nonlinear aspect is not obviously needed, one could try to revert to a linear theory. Yet it is important to recognize that in the modeling of acausal effects one has available the more general nonlinear framework.

      If the purported acausal phenomena is a real physical eitect and is explainable in terms of a nonreal h that arises solely in conjunction with nonlinear terms, as in the model given above, then orthodox quantum theory could become simply the linear approximation to a more adequate nonlinear theory.

      [1] A. Einstein, B. Podoisky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
      [2] J.S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964).
      [3] H.P. Stapp, Phys. Rev. A 47, 847 (1993); 46, 6860 (1992); H.P. Stapp and D. Bedford, Synthese (to be published).
      [4] P. Eberhard, Nuovo Ciniento 46B, 392 (1978).
      [5] S. Weinberg, Ann. Phys.(N.Y.)194,336 (1989).
      [6] N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A 143, 1 (1990).
      [7] R. Jahn, Y. Dobyns, and B. Dunne, J. Sci. Expl. 5, 205 (1991); B.J. Dunne and R.G. Jahn, ibid. 6, 311 (1992).
      [8] H. Schmidt, J. Parapsychol. 57, 351 (1993).
      [9] J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955), Chap. VI.
      [10] W. Pauli, quoted in Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993), Chap. 7.
      [11] H.P. Stapp, Am. J. Phys. 40, 1098 (1972).
      [12] H.P. Stapp, Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics (Ref. [10]).

    • Jack Sarfatti Garrett: I don't know of any such predictions and tests for psi phenomena. We've entered the realm of philosophy and may not be able to resolve this for now.

      Jack: Start here:

      Research papers of interest:
      ...See More
      RPKP wishes to thankHelmut Schmidtfor his continuing advice and encouragement, as well as the loan of anoise-based true random generator. Thanks also toRoger Nelsonat thePrinceton Engineering Anomalies Research lab,Peter Moorein Theology and Religious Studies (UKC), Sir Robert Bunkum for guidance, s...
    • Jack Sarfatti On Jan 17, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

      I respectfully disagree completely with you. A post-quantum theory for this exists. There are several alternative independently derived natural radical conservative extensions of orthodox quantum theory e.g. Stapp, Valentini, Cramer, myself, et-al that have entanglement signaling. There are only two possible interpretations of the evidence
      1) classical electromagnetic OR 2) quantum entanglement supplemented by non-unitary signal nonlocality. If 1) is false, then 2) is true. There is no other alternative if we accept the data as true. If u have a third rational physical alternative, what is it?

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Jan 17, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Garret Moddel wrote:

      Those examples are evidence for psi, which I have no argument with. In a number of studies my lab has also found robust evidence for psi and retrocausal effects.

      However, to conclude that these are due to quantum entanglement is speculative, and so far unsupported by the evidence. Psi shares characteristics with quantum phenomena and psi does influence quantum states (along with any other statistically fluctuating states). But no quantum theory of psi that I am aware of provides accurate predictions. Until there is a falsifiable (in the Popper sense) theory for psi that incorporates quantum entanglement I will remain skeptical of the connection between the two.

      That is the reason that I stated there is a similarity but no direct connection between psi and quantum entanglement.


      On Jan 14, 2013, at 1:27 PM, jack <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

      Sent from my iPad

      On Jan 14, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Garret Moddel <Moddel@Colorado.EDU> wrote:

      Chris & Jack-

      Garrett: My statement was based on the standard interpretation of quantum entanglement, in which correlation is maintained but there cannot be any information transferred between the distant particles.
      Jack: Right but the evidence clearly shows that no entanglement signal theorem is empirically wrong in my opinion. This is the debate.

      Garrett:I know there are alternative theories, but is there solid evidence of superluminal information transfer in QE? I haven't been following this discussions. It would be great to have evidence that my statement has been shown to be false, because that really would open a lot of doors.

      Jack: Theory along lines of Stapp, Weinberg, Josephson, myself, Cramer, Valentini, i.e. radical conservative extension of orthodox qm to include non-unitary nonlinear effects

      Evidence: presponse Libet, Radin, Bierman, Bem

      Puthoff & Targ SRI

      On Jan 12, 2013, at 7:53 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:


      On Jan 12, 2013, at 6:35 PM, hris W wrote:

      Hey Dr. S,

      Here is a link to Garret Moddel's interview (I was incorrect about it being a talk). The transcript of the interview is on this page. If you search for ....

      Garrett: "There’s a similarity, but there’s no direct connection. For example, quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in which two particles at a distance are inter-related. So if you measure one particle, you affect the other particle, instantly, and as far away as you like."

      Jack: I think Moddel is mistaken. It's a direct connection in my opinion provided that electromagnetic communication (both near and far field) can be excluded. Entanglement with Valentini's signal nonlocality is the only remaining explanation assuming good data.

      Chris: You will find the context of the statement also at 4:11 in the mp3 recording. The statement is not directly related to Radin's research but to PSI. I'm assuming (I'm not an expert in these areas) that the underlying phenomenon is related. The following URL contains the podcast interview.


      Additionally, in case you are interested, I have linked the papers that are related to the Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiment.

      Jack: Yes, Fred Alan Wolf & I I knew Jacobo Grinberg in Brazil in 1984. I think he was murdered in Mexico years ago.

      // 2005 Paper TL Richards et al...

      // 2004 Paper Standish (TL Richards) et al...

      // 2003 Paper by Jiri Wackerman (published in Neuroscience Letters)

      Professor at University of Colorado's Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering guides students through experiments demonstr