Jack Sarfatti's Blog Blog (Full Text Display)
Stardrive
NICK'S REVIEW OF THE KALAMIDAS AFFAIR (JUNE 5, 2013)
Posted by: JackSarfatti |Tagged in: Nick Herbert, entanglement signals, Demetrios A. Kalamidas
-
-
NICK'S REVIEW OF THE KALAMIDAS AFFAIR (JUNE 5, 2013)
"Recently CCNY physics graduate Demetrios Kalamidas proposed a clever
faster-than-light signaling scheme [DK1] which survived peer review and
was recently published in Journal of the Optical Society of America. Kalamidas's FTL scheme has generated much discussion and controversy which I will attempt to summarize in this brief review."
Debate with Jim Woodward on Cosmology D-Day June 6, 2013 V3
Posted by: JackSarfatti |Tagged in: Unruh effect, Rindler effect, Jim Woodward, de Sitter horizon, cosmology
PS
Everyone, except perhaps Jim, agrees that a retarded EM OFFER wave from Alice falling on a hovering detector Bob very close to any future horizon of area-entropy A either black hole or de Sitter or Rindler will blue shift. According to Jim the return advanced CONFIRMATION wave to Alice will blue shift even more! Hence, a HANDSHAKE is impossible due to the enormous frequency mismatch in Jim's way of thinking.
i.e.
fret(Alice) ---> fret(Bob) ~ (A^1/4/Lp^1/2)fret(Alice)
According to Jim,
fadv(Alice) = (A^1/4/Lp^1/2)fret(Bob) = (A^1/2/Lp)fret(Alice)
fadv(Alice) >> fret(Alice)
violates TI
On Jun 6, 2013, at 12:52 PM, JackSarfatti <JackSarfatti@comcast.net> wrote:
Jim's scheme violates TI because Jim if he worked out his idea in detail would have advanced offer wave at a higher frequency than the retarded confirmation wave at the PAST absorber in the retrocausal case.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 6, 2013, at 12:35 PM, Ruth Kastner wrote:
"The only reason I replied was because of your claim that Jim's model 'violates Cramer's TI' -- to point out that your debate with Jim has no bearing on TI. Nor does my model obscure any important conceptual insights.
Best wishes"
RK
http://www.academia.edu/36632/Debate_on_cosmology_Sarfatti_vs_Woodward_Part_1
Jim also confuses the Hubble sphere where expansion speed is that of light with the cosmic horizons.
if you use static coordinates
gtt = 1 - r^2/A
1 + z = [gtt(receiver)/gtt(source)]^1/2
use r ~ A^1/2 - Lp in gtt(source) and r = 0 for gtt(receiver)
for advanced offer wave in the Cramer transaction
result is (first order Taylor series)
1 + z ~ (1/(Lp/A^1/2)^1/2) = (A^1/2/Lp)^1/2
---> infinity as Lp ---> 0
My argument in co-moving Friedmann coordinates below is consistent with the in static coordinates above.
As above
So below ;-)
Indeed Tamara Davis in her PhD says what I say about the change of distance to our past and future horizons It's obvious from her diagram (Fig 1.1)
We recede from our past particle horizon, we approach our future dark energy de Sitter horizon.
1) In a Cramer transaction a retarded offer wave to us from near our past horizon is redshifted.
An advanced confirmation wave from us to near our past particle horizon is blue shifted.
Our relative space is effectively expanding forward in time in this transaction with our past horizon.
2) In a Cramer transaction an advanced offer wave to use from our future horizon is redshifted.
A retarded confirmation wave from us to it is blue shifted.
Our relative space is effectively contracting forward in time in this transaction with our future horizon.
Therefore, it is effectively expanding backwards in time for a back from the future advanced wave to us.
Advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking black body radiation of peak energy hc/Lp is then redshifted down to hc/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 at our detectors.
From Stefan-Boltzmann T^4 law this gives energy density hc/Lp^2A, which happens to agree with the actual dark energy density accelerating out causal diamond observable patch of the multiverse.
A = area of our future horizon at intersection with our future light cone.
Back From The Future Destiny Physics in Modern Cosmology V2
Posted by: JackSarfatti |Tagged in: Dark Energy, Cosmological Constant, Back From The Future
if you use static coordinates
gtt = 1 - r^2/A
1 + z = [gtt(receiver)/gtt(source)]^1/2
use r ~ A^1/2 - Lp in gtt(source) and r = 0 for gtt(receiver)
for advanced offer wave in the Cramer transaction
result is (first order Taylor series)
1 + z ~ (1/(Lp/A^1/2)^1/2) = (A^1/2/Lp)^1/2
---> infinity as Lp ---> 0
My argument in co-moving Friedmann coordinates below is consistent with the in static coordinates above.
As above
So below ;-)
Indeed Tamara Davis in her PhD says what I say about the change of distance to our past and future horizons It's obvious from her diagram (Fig 1.1)
We recede from our past particle horizon, we approach our future dark energy de Sitter horizon.
1) In a Cramer transaction a retarded offer wave to us from near our past horizon is redshifted.
An advanced confirmation wave from us to near our past particle horizon is blue shifted.
Our relative space is effectively expanding forward in time in this transaction with our past horizon.
2) In a Cramer transaction an advanced offer wave to use from our future horizon is redshifted.
A retarded confirmation wave from us to it is blue shifted.
Our relative space is effectively contracting forward in time in this transaction with our future horizon.
Therefore, it is effectively expanding backwards in time for a back from the future advanced wave to us.
Advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking black body radiation of peak energy hc/Lp is then redshifted down to hc/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 at our detectors.
From Stefan-Boltzmann T^4 law this gives energy density hc/Lp^2A, which happens to agree with the actual dark energy density accelerating out causal diamond observable patch of the multiverse.
A = area of our future horizon at intersection with our future light cone.
The co-moving distance from us to our future horizon decreases forward in time.
The co-moving distance from us to our past horizon increases forward in time.
Virtual electron-positron pairs "stuck" on our future horizon are properly accelerating unlike real co-moving charges with zero proper acceleration AWAY from us. Therefore, using Doppler analogy radiation from them to us is redshifted. The virtual pairs are elevated to real pairs by the very hot Unruh radiation they feel locally. This is all in relation to us distant observers according to Susskind's "horizon complementarity".
proper acceleration of the virtual electron positron pairs stuck on the horizon is
g(r) = -(c^2/2)gtt^-1/2dgtt/dr
in static LNIF coordinates ONLY
gtt = 1 - r^2/A
dgtt/dr = -2r/A
g(r) = +c^2(1 - r^2/A)^-1/2r/A
note that we are at r = 0.
IN CONTRAST, for comoving sources in usual FRW coordinates gt't' = 1 so g'(r) = 0.
For details see Wikipedia.
Yes, I think that is a fair summary. As long as one uses the standard rules of orthodox quantum theory, i.e. linearity of the operators in Hilbert-Fock spaces, unitarity in the dynamics between von-Neumann strong measurements (including only Hermitian observables, one will get no-signaling in the sense that there is no dependence on distant settings in the local probabilities computed according to standard tracing of the total entangled density matrix (over configuration and/orWigner phase space) over the distant eigenstates.
What I, Antony Valentini, Brian Josephson, Henry Stapp, Steven Weinberg and others have all independently suggested in different variations is a violation of orthodox quantum theory in a more general theory (like Einstein's 1916 GR is to his earlier 1905 SR) allowing non-linear & non-unitary dynamics with a complete breakdown of the Born probability rule. Emergence of new order, as in ground state spontaneous symmetry breaking with Higgs & Goldstone modes, means that the original space of possibilities is changed and there is no reason to expect conservation of probabilities in the original space of possibilities.
On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
As I understand it, John's point is that DK's approximation, though it may appear valid and could be considered acceptable in some contexts, cannot be used for FTL signalling -- because Nature does not truncate at that level and the terms that Nature keeps in play serve to eliminate the interference DK needs for the signal. So, for purposes of FTL signalling, DK's approximation is not a valid one. This seems to me to address the requirement for a specific refutation of DK's scheme: once Nature's actual detailed behavior is taken into account, the interference goes away.
Ruth
> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:14:56 -0400
> Subject: Re: The end of the problem, hopefully
> From: howell@pas.rochester.edu
> To: quanta@cruzio.com
> CC: howell@pas.rochester.edu; dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu; adastra1@me.com; martin.suda.fl@ait.ac.at; rekastner@hotmail.com;rromano@iastate.edu; dikaiser@mit.edu; sirag@mindspring.com; bdj10@cam.ac.uk; questions@fredalanwolf.com
> > Nick, I would say that so far the approximations are what have lead to the
> errors.
> Cheers
> John
> > > > John
> >
> > "We will mess things up if we do anything
> > other than an exact calculation."
> >
> > This is a rather pessimistic view, John, and amounts
> > to abandoning the Kalamidas Scheme without any explanation
> > of where it fails except: "Well it's just an approximation".
> >
> > Since the approximations rA < 1 is used all the time in quantum optics,
> > it seems we owe Kalamidas and the quantum optics community at least
> > the favor
> > of showing them how to make a "correct approximation" in this matter
> > of single photon/Coherent state mixing.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > PS: I've uncoupled G & C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:43 AM, John Howell wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Everyone,
> >> I just have a few comments
> >>
> >> 1) I think we should respect Giancarlo's and Chris's desire to
> >> decouple
> >> from this conversation. So, I think they should not be copied in on
> >> further emails.
> >>
> >> 2) I have done the full calculation without any approximations,
> >> expansions
> >> etc. for the PACS and DFS, and as expected, there is no
> >> interference. I
> >> have already shown the DFS, so the PACS is Attached.
> >>
> >> 3) The second order cross correlation for the evolution of the field
> >> operators vs the Suda state evolution yield different results. I
> >> need to
> >> double check my answers (long calculation).
> >>
> >> 4) I like Chris's approach, which is basically to consider a
> >> binomially
> >> distributed photon number outcome interfering with a photon from
> >> the other
> >> port. That will take me a while, but it should corroborate the Suda's
> >> state evolution paper.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> John<FullCalculationNoSignaling.pdf>
> >
> >
>
On Jun 3, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Suda Martin <Martin.Suda.fl@ait.ac.at> wrote:
Nick, thanks for nice comment!
As regards the |00> term I am not at all surprised. In fact, because of the following considerations:
Each coherent state (CS) consists of an infinite sum of Fock states of certain probabilities, the vacuum state included. If these infinite many terms are taken into account this state has more or less classical properties (fully contrary to a Fock state), even though a CS is a regular quantum state! A CS = D|0>. D is the well-known exponential operator where a and a+ appear in the exponent. A DFS = D|1>. Both states (of different modes 3 and 4, in our case) can therefore be expanded in (infinite) Taylor series. The product of such a series expansion inevitably includes a |00> term. An artificial truncation of the series after few terms (2 in our case) contains automatically a |00> term at a prominent position. Therefore a physical interpretation becomes difficult and is in a certain manner misleading. So don't attach too great importance to such a |00> state. It's a result of the early truncation of the Taylor expansion. And it has to be considered whatsoever. Martin
________________________________________
Von: nick herbert [quanta@cruzio.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 3. Juni 2013 18:12
An: Suda Martin
Cc: JACK SARFATTI; Demetrios Kalamidas; Ghirardi Giancarlo; CHRISTOPHER GERRY; John Howell; Ruth Elinor Kastner; Romano rromano@iastate.edu [MATH]; David Kaiser; S-P Sirag; Brian Josephson; Fred Wolf
Betreff: Re: AW: Martin Suda's Refutation? Wait a minute Nick your 11 & 00 amplitudes do not cancel to zero!
Martin--
This is a nice summary of your work.
But could you say a bit more about
where the |0, 0> term comes from?
Does it emerge naturally
from the renormalization procedure.
Nick
PS. Nick has been calling result #1
(PACS_DFS_BS.pdf) the Martin Suda Paradox
because its conclusion is rather counter-intuiyive.
On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:44 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Demetrios--
Indeed. Right now it doesn't add up.
Once the pros are able to clearly explain
the physical origin of the high amplitude |00> term
the refutation is airtight and complete.
But minus an understanding
of how this term physically arises
at the beamsplitter
Suda's wonderful (and surely correct) refutation seems
mere sleight of math.
Nick
On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:
Hi all,
Here is my concise understanding of the |00> term:
The probability of the right-going Fock photon being reflected is proportional to |r|^2, with |r|-->0. Thus, this reflection probability is vanishing.
However, as everybody can plainly see, the probability for the |00> outcome to occur is proportional to |r*alpha|^2, which is never equal |r|^2, and can be made far larger.
So it doesn't add up....you can't explain the missing right-going Fock photon as that being reflected by the highly transmissive beam splitters.
Probability |r|^2 is vanishing, and can be made as small as we wish (infinitesimal), while the product |r*alpha| can be maintained at any value we want just by increasing 'alpha' accordingly, and therefore the probability |r*alpha|^2 is always finite.
Demetrios
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 09:14:53 -0700
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
GianCarlo--
It's important that all aspects of Martin's proof be examined to make certain that what we have is a true refutation and not a
mere pseudo-refutation motivated by what we know the answer has to be.
Nick
On Jun 3, 2013, at 5:28 AM, ghirardi wrote:
Dear all,
I have no doubts now that Kalamidas' proposal does not work and its refutation does not require any new insight in subtle quantum problems.
Accordingly I will write a precise comment and I invite everybody to consider it seriously and not to go on suggesting strange effects and so on to overcome difficulties which do not exist.
GianCarlo
Il giorno Jun 3, 2013, alle ore 6:06 AM, nick herbert ha scritto:
The problem here, as in summing Feynman diagrams, is to account for all possible outcomes. One possible outcome is that lower path is EMPTY and the
upper photon "goes down the hole", that is, it's reflected instead of being transmitted. Have you calculated the amplitude of this "down the hole" event and compared its magnitude with the amplitudes of all the other events you are looking at, especially the amplitude |1, 1>. Every photon that goes "down the hole" contributes to |0, 0>. So how big is this term?
On Jun 2, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:
Indeed Jack, but it seems that this term is quite problematic: the |00> term means that there is a left-going photon present in a superposition of modes a1 and b1 BUT its right-going partner has vanished! I am studying this and I don't think it is trivial or easily explained. Last, the PACS formulation only contains terms that make physical sense. This |00> is a surprising feature that arose out of the discussion surrounding my scheme.
Demetrios
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:42:41 -0700
JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
These amplitudes, as you wrote them, do not cancel as you claim - see below.
Summing them ~ 2iIm{alpha} =/= 0
On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:56 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
However--and this is the gist of the Suda refutation--the additional Suda term |0.0> has precisely the right amplitude
to EXACTLY CANCEL the effect of the Kalamidas |1,1> term. Using A (Greek upper-case alpha) to represent "alpha",
Martin calculates that the amplitude of the Kalamidas |1,1> term is A. And that the amplitude of the Suda |0,0> term is -A*.
And if these amplitudes are correct, the total interference at Alice's detectors completely disappears.
Kalamidas Fans--
I have looked over Martin Suda's two papers entitled 1. Taylor expansion of Output States and 2. Interferometry at the 50/50 BS.
My conclusion is that Martin is within one millimeter of a solid refutation of the kalamidas scheme. Congratulations, Martin, on
achieving this result and on paying so much close attention to kalamidas's arguments.
The result, as expected, comes from a very strange direction. In particular, the approximation does not enter into Suda's refutation.
Martin accepts all of kalamidas's approximations and refutes him anyway.
I have not followed the math in detail but I have been able to comprehend the essential points.
First, on account of the Martin Suda paradox, either PACS or DFS can be correctly used at this stage of the argument. So martin
derives the kalamidas result both ways using PACS (Kalamidas's Way) and then DFS (Howell's Way). Both results are the same.
Then Martin calculates the signal at the 50/50 beam splitter (Alice's receiver) due to Bob's decision to mix his photon with a coherent state |A>.
Not surprisingly Martin discovers lots of interference terms.
So Kalamidas is right.
However all of these interference terms just happen to cancel out.
So Kalamidas is wrong.
Refutation Complete. Martin Suda Wins.
This is a very elegant refutation and if it can be sustained, then Kalamidas's Scheme has definitively
entered the Dustbin of History. And GianCarlo can add it to his upcoming review of refuted FTL schemes.
But before we pass out the medals, there is one feature of the Suda Refutation that needs a bit of justification.
Suda's formulation of the Kalamidas Scheme differs in one essential way from Demetrios's original presentation.
And it is this difference between the two presentations that spells DOOM FOR DEMETRIOS.
Kalamidas has ONE TERM |1,1> that erases which-way information and Suda has two. Suda's EXTRA TERM is |0,0>
and represents the situation where neither of Bob's primary counters fires.
Having another term that erases which-way information would seem to be good, in that the Suda term might be expected to increase
the strength of the interference term.
However--and this is the gist of the Suda refutation--the additional Suda term |0.0> has precisely the right amplitude
to EXACTLY CANCEL the effect of the Kalamidas |1,1> term. Using A (Greek upper-case alpha) to represent "alpha",
Martin calculates that the amplitude of the Kalamidas |1,1> term is A. And that the amplitude of the Suda |0,0> term is -A*.
And if these amplitudes are correct, the total interference at Alice's detectors completely disappears.
Congratulations, Martin. I hope I have represented your argument correctly.
The only task remaining is to justify the presence (and the amplitude) of the Suda term. Is it really physically reasonable,
given the physics of the situation, that so many |0,0> events can be expected to occur in the real world?
I leave that subtle question for the experts to decide.
Wonderful work, Martin.
Nick Herbert
GianCarlo Ghirardi
Emeritus
University of Trieste
Italy
Begin forwarded message:
From: Suda Martin <Martin.Suda.fl@ait.ac.at>
Subject: AW: The end of the problem, hopefully
Date: June 3, 2013 11:10:24 AM PDT
To: John Howell , Demetrios Kalamidas <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>
Thanks, John, for "Full calculation, no approximation". Somewhere the phase exp(i Phi) is missing in Eq.(2)? And you forgot perhaps the different adjustments of 1,0 and 0,1 in Eq.(2)? But I am sure the results are the same as in Eqs.(3) and (4). Great!
Martin
________________________________________
Von: John Howell [howell@pas.rochester.edu]
Gesendet: Montag, 3. Juni 2013 19:43
An: Demetrios Kalamidas
Cc: nick herbert; ghirardi; JACK SARFATTI; CHRISTOPHER GERRY; John Howell; Suda Martin; Ruth Elinor Kastner; Romano rromano@iastate.edu [MATH]; David Kaiser; S-P Sirag; Brian Josephson; Fred Wolf
Betreff: The end of the problem, hopefully
Hello Everyone,
I just have a few comments
1) I think we should respect Giancarlo's and Chris's desire to decouple
from this conversation. So, I think they should not be copied in on
further emails.
2) I have done the full calculation without any approximations, expansions
etc. for the PACS and DFS, and as expected, there is no interference. I
have already shown the DFS, so the PACS is Attached.
3) The second order cross correlation for the evolution of the field
operators vs the Suda state evolution yield different results. I need to
double check my answers (long calculation).
4) I like Chris's approach, which is basically to consider a binomially
distributed photon number outcome interfering with a photon from the other
port. That will take me a while, but it should corroborate the Suda's
state evolution paper.
Cheers
John
Jack Sarfatti
From: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: AW: Martin Suda's Refutation? Wait a minute Nick your 11 & 00 amplitudes do not cancel to zero!
Date: June 3, 2013 9:11:17 AM PDT
To: Suda Martin
Martin--
This is a nice summary of your work.
But could you say a bit more about
where the |0, 0> term comes from?
Does it emerge naturally
from the renormalization procedure.
Nick
PS. Nick has been calling result #1
(PACS_DFS_BS.pdf) the Martin Suda Paradox
because its conclusion is rather counter-intuitive.
On Jun 3, 2013, at 3:46 AM, Suda Martin wrote:
Dear all,
Thank you very much for emails and discussion!
Let me summarize my results so far which are seen in the attachment. They demonstrate that it is unlikely to be FTL signaling in the system of DK.
4 files are attached:
1) PACS_DFS_BS.pdf
2) PACS_DFS_Howell_Suda.pdf
3) Taylor-Exp-PACS_DFS_Howell_Suda.pdf
4) Interf_BS_50_50_Suda.pdf
I would like to discuss these 4 short statements sequentially.
1) In PACS_DFS_BS.pdf I showed that for input |1>|alpha> or |alpha>|1>, behind a BS both the PACS-formulation of the output state and the DFS-formulation of the output state are identical. This can be shown using the relation a^{+}D = Da^{+} + alpha^{*}D and, in addition, using the well-known Stokes relations of a BS.
2) In PACS_DFS_Howell_Suda.pdf I have demonstrated (and this is only a supplement to John Howells paper) that the normalizations of both, the input wave function |psi_{0}> and the output wave function |psi'_{0}>, are exactly = 1. The orthogonality between DFS and the coherent state |alpha> is thereby crucial. This applies for the PACS-formulation as well as for the DFS-formulation. Because of this orthogonality no interference can appear.
3) In Taylor-Exp-PACS_DFS_Howell_Suda.pdf the Taylor expansion of the displacement operator D has been introduced in order to follow DK's calculation procedure. PACS as well as DFS are taken into account. The approximation |r alpha|<
4) In Interf_BS_50_50_Suda.pdf a more complete T series expansion of D and DFS is used (see Eq.27 and Eq.28 of John's paper) and the normalization of the wave function |psi'_{0}> behind the BS yields 1 + 2|r alpha|^{2} + |r alpha|^{4} instead of being exactly=1. The wave function after the 50/50 BS on the left side produces therefore an "interference term" with a probability |p_{10}|^{2} = 4|r alpha|^{2} [1-sin(Phi)] and this probability is proportional to
|r alpha|^{2}. This is not a miracle because of the modified normalization. The additional term appearing in the norm is proportional to |r alpha|^{2} as well!
As a result one can say that the whole problem is up to the T expansion of the D operator and hence of the modification of the normalization condition.
Nice regards,
Peter Lynn Martin
Beyond the Kalamides Gedankenexperiment which appears now to be refuted - June 2, 2013
Posted by: JackSarfatti |Tagged in: Nick Herbert, entanglement signals, Demetrios A. Kalamidas
Beyond the Kalamides Gedankenexperiment which appears now to be refuted - June 2, 2013
Posted by: JackSarfatti |Tagged in: Nick Herbert, entanglement signals, Demetrios A. Kalamidas
-
-
Kalamidas Affair
Latest on Demetrios Kalamides Entanglement SIgnaling Gedankenexperiment June 1, 2013 V5
Posted by: JackSarfatti |Tagged in: Steven Weinberg, signal nonlocality, Henry Stapp, Giancarlo Ghirardi, entanglement signals, Demetrios A. Kalamidas, Brian Josephson, Antony Valentini
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.
note
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_states
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>
giving
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,
Martin
Begin forwarded message:
From: CHRISTOPHER GERRY <CHRISTOPHER.GERRY@lehman.cuny.edu>
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 :-)
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:
Everyone,
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
718-960-8444
christopher.gerry@lehman.cuny.edu
---- 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
GianCarlo
________________
remarks.pdf (83k bytes)
________________
_______________________________________________
ExoticPhysics mailing list
ExoticPhysics@mail.softcafe.net
http://mail.softcafe.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exoticphysics
-
Uwe Langer likes this.
-
Jack Sarfatti On May 17, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Adam Crowl wrote:
Hi Jack
Your last statement is a goal I agree with, if not share.
Additional comments below...
On 17/05/2013 6:42 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 9:00 AM, qraal01 wrote:
"I am wary of claiming hard evidence when there is precisely zero evidence of FTL being achieved by UFOs. Tight-turns and flickering images is evidence? Sherlock Holmes' advised eliminating the possible before concluding the impossible. Don't mistake the light-show for the reality."
Jack: You miss the obvious point, which is that if UFOs are real alien ET craft, the only way they can get here is with low-power warp/wormhole technology. The evidence is much better than a Roschach inkblot. Many informed people on the list think you grossly under-value the UFO evidence for real machines of extraordinary technology - including weapons. It's ultimately a Bayesean gamble. I am betting that real low power UFO alien ET technology is out there. You can continue on your path, but I doubt you will ever get serious funding for it. I hope I am wrong in that prediction.
AC: And the possibilities I mentioned in another email don't bear thinking about?
Jack: Maybe I missed it?
AC: That "They" have been here a very long-time,
Jack: Yes, most likely.
AC: that They live for immense spans of time,
Jack: Perhaps.
AC: and so most of the issues people raise against conventional star-flight as the means by which They got here are totally irrelevant? "The only way..." is very restrictive on the possible - and the data isn't yet good enough to say either way.
Jack: My estimation of the relative Bayesean probabilities differ from yours. Also I had an actual contact experience as a child that is evidence for back from the future time travel technology. So have others including Uri Geller.
AC: As for "extraordinary technology" what makes you think we're not 50-100 years off emulating "Them"
Jack: I'm hoping 5 to 10.
AC: and that's why there's the "smoke-and-mirrors" show to bedazzle us?
Jack: Because, I know the physicists in power and I know what their limits are. Such a secret is impossible to keep at those levels. Pure military types simply don't have the expertise for the job and the DARPA people are completely clueless here.
AC: I maintain methodological scepticism - as much as I might want to believe in FTL Ufo technology, I can't assume it.
Jack: And that's why you will never get the funding. You and the others are banging your heads against a stone wall on this.
AC: But, as already noted, Eric's (Davis) experiences is suggestive. Not sure about the rest of the observed maneuvering. I maintain we have no proof that the high-gee maneuvers imply anything more than robotic control and/or acceleration mitigation. The lack of any visible exhaust implies either external reaction mass is used in the atmosphere - i.e. ionic wind thrusters - or the ability to make neutrino beams with high-efficiency. It doesn't equate to "anti-gravity" - we need more real data to rule out reaction drives of some sort.
Jack: I think you are wrong, but this is an issue on which we can agree to disagree
AC: As for funding proposals, it's far too early to propose to build starship. A sad fact that every starry-eyed dreamer presently lives with. My final question wasn't a rhetorical device - what sighting makes a solid case for FTL in UFOs?
Jack: Ask the experts like Eric Davis, Bruce Maccabee, Stanton Friedmann, Hal Puthoff. My own focus is NOT the observational UFO evidence. My job is simply, ASSUME as a thought experiment, that alien ET UFO machines are here (possibly time machines from our future descendants here on Earth in a Novikov loop in time - Destiny Matrix) then how can we copy/reverse engineer their technology.
AC: My friend .... suggests something like your Destiny Matrix in his own musings on what he calls "Morphians". His UFO encounters lie to the other end of the spectrum, away from hardware, more towards "living beings", intelligent plasmas, and/or higher dimensional life-forms.
Jack: I am not against that at all. It's a big universe with many different kinds of life forms at different levels of technology.
AC: His prehistoric research work on the significance of Cygnus X-3 in human mental/cultural evolution is suggestive of very high-energy life-forms able to fire "cygnons" our way - possibly John Cramer's high gamma-factor wormhole mouths - as well as modulating the cosmic-ray flux we encounter.
Jack: "cygnon"?
AC: The Universe's own goals might come into the picture as well. The recent preprint on Universal reproduction in the Multiverse, suggests that the evolutionary lineage that led to our current Universe has evolved "evolvability" - possibly the ability to make black-holes, which spawn new Universes in some theories. If life-forms evolve towards manipulating black-holes technologically, then there's clearly an "incentive" for the Universe to push us in that direction. There have been several papers which suggest means for turning black-holes into worm-holes technologically, thus an incentive for Life to shepherd the creation of black-holes. If the Kerr metric describes the conditions under the event horizon at all, then we might gain the means to explore the Multiverse.
Stephen Hawking's Warning on ET Contact & Jacques Vallee
Posted by: JackSarfatti |Tagged in: Stephen Hawking, SPECTRA - UFO COMPUTER, Michael Towler, Jacques Vallee, ET, Destiny Matrix, Antony Valentini
-
Jack Sarfatti Stephen Hawking has warned us to keep a low profile with ET.
Stephen Hawking's Tips for Contacting E.T: Everyone Please Just ...
gizmodo.com/.../stephen-hawkings-tips-for-contacting-et-every...
by Jack Loftus - in 107 Google+ circles
Apr 25, 2010 – Stephen Hawking, brilliant scientist, has a simple message for humanity when it comes to contacting E.T.: Shut up. No, really. The pessimistic ...
Stephen Hawking aliens warning: Contacting ET 'a bad idea' | Metro ...
metro.co.uk/.../stephen-hawking-aliens-warning-contacting-et-a-...
by Ted Thornhill - in 22 Google+ circles
Apr 25, 2010 – Stephen Hawking: Aliens warningThe world-reknowned theoretical physicist rings the alarm bells about reaching out to ET in a new ...
Stephen Hawking says Earth should not phone ET - New Scientist
www.newscientist.com/blogs/.../04/stephen-hawking-says-earth-sho.html
Apr 26, 2010 – Should we try to make contact with ET? Certainly not, says StevenHawking, citing concerns that our Earthly resources would be plundered.
Stephen Hawking: "We've Been Overlooked by Advanced ET ...
www.dailygalaxy.com/.../stephen-hawkings-wager-we-have-been-overlo...
Nov 22, 2011 – In his famous lecture, Life in the Universe, Stephen Hawking asks: "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as we ...
Stay home ET. Stephen Hawking: Aliens may pose risks
phys.org/news191420676.html
Apr 25, 2010 – (AP) -- British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with extraterrestrial ...
Hawking: Aliens may pose risks to Earth - Technology & science ...
www.nbcnews.com/id/.../ns/.../hawking-aliens-may-pose-risks-earth/
Apr 25, 2010 – British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with extraterrestrial life.
If Aliens Exist,They May Come to Get Us, Stephen Hawking Says ...
www.space.com/8288-aliens-exist-stephen-hawking.html
by Clara Moskowitz - in 395 Google+ circles
Apr 26, 2010 – If intelligent alien life forms do exist, they might not be the friendly cosmic neighbors the people of Earth are looking for, famed British scientist ... -
Jack Sarfatti On May 17, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Adam Crowl wrote:
"Of course no one ever discusses the theories that Eric's collaborator, Jacques Vallee, has about the nature and purpose of UFOs. Too scary? That ET might have a sinister agenda? Might want to mess with our heads for their own ends?"
I replied:
Yes, you are correct. However, if Jacques is correct there is even less reason to support clunky rockets for interstellar travel! Indeed, Dan Throop Smith is running with Vallee's ball in his comical eccentric way of course.
Of course, any advanced civilization with warp-wormhole WEAPONRY will also most likely have post-quantum signal nonlocality mind-control psychotronics.
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)
They will have solved the mind-matter problem perhaps along the lines I have suggested well described here by Michael Towler in Lecture 8
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html -
Failure of David Neyland's DARPA 100 Year Star Ship Project & UFO Controversy
Posted by: JackSarfatti |Tagged in: Mae Jemison, Eric Davis, David Neyland, DARPA, 100 Year Star Ship
-
There has been dissatisfaction on the right with Mae Jemison's handling of the DARPA grant to get private investors to build a starship in the next 100 years.
On May 12, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Angelo wrote:
Jack, I heard that in 2 years (from Orlando 2011) she just did nothing useful, she did not find any single investor, she spent almost all DARPA grant (500 k$) and no one knows how, she left her partner Icarus Interstellar without a penny. I don´t know if this is the whole truth but I think that we are very close to it! :-)
In fact this year Icarus interstellar is organizing his own symposium on interstellar propulsion and missions.
http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/congress-announcement/
Come on, Jack, regarding Hill´s book please tell me your opinion on the UFO propulsion system described by Hill. I think that it is consistent with the witnessed UFO performance, but...
Best,
Angelo
http://www.starpod.us/2011/10/06/ufos-crash-and-burn-at-100-year-starship-symposium/#.UZX65IKhSgg
Some see the whole effort as a political kow towing to the politically correct left.
Jack Sarfatti
Back in London after two weeks in Paris, Provence and Geneva, the UFO controversy and the failure of the DARPA 100 Year Star Ship Project heat up.
