Text Size

Stardrive

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

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

i.e.

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


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

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

Sent from my iPhone

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

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

Best wishes"
RK

 

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

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

if you use static coordinates

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

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

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

for advanced offer wave in the Cramer transaction

result is (first order Taylor series)

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

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

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

As above
So below ;-)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






 if you use static coordinates

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

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

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

for advanced offer wave in the Cramer transaction

result is (first order Taylor series)

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

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

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

As above
So below ;-)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

in static LNIF coordinates ONLY

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

dgtt/dr = -2r/A

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

note that we are at r = 0.

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

For details see Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

Ruth

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

Nick, thanks for nice comment!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demetrios--

Indeed. Right now it doesn't add up.

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

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

Nick


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

Hi all,

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


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




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

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


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

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


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



GianCarlo Ghirardi
Emeritus
University of Trieste
Italy

Begin forwarded message:

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


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

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

Hello Everyone,
  I just have a few comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear all,

Thank you very much for emails and discussion!

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

4 files are attached:

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

I would like to discuss these 4 short statements sequentially.

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

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

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

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

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

Nice regards,

Peter Lynn Martin
  1.  
  1.  
  2. Like · · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 2, 2013, at 7:22 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

      Yes it's always the case that if the time evolution is unitary signal interference terms cancel out. That is essence of the no-signal argument.

      It's what defeated my 1978 attempt usin
      g two interferometers on each end of the pair source that David Kaiser describes in How the Hippies Saved Physics that was in first edition of Gary Zukav's Dancing Wu Li Masters. Stapp gave one of the first no-signal proofs in response to my attempt.

      I. However, one of the tacit assumptions is that all observables must be Hermitian operators with real eigenvalues and a complete orthogonal basis.

      II. Another assumption is that the normalization once chosen should not depend on the free will of the experimenter.

      Both & II are violated by Glauber states. The linear unitary dynamics is also violated when the coherent state is Higgs-Goldstone vacuum/groundstate expectation value order parameter of a non-Hermitian boson second quantized field operator where the c number local nonlinear nonunitary Landau-Ginzburg equation in ordinary space replaces the linear unitary Schrodinger equation in configuration (or Wigner phase space more generally) as the dominant dynamic. P. W. Anderson called this "More is different."

      For example in my toy model NORMALIZED so as to rid us of that damn spooky telepathic psychokinetic voodoo magick without magic

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

      <0|1> = 0 for Alice A

      <w|z> =/= 0 for Bob B

      Take

      Trace over B {|0><0| |A,B><A,B|} = 1/2 etc.

      probability is conserved and Alice receives no signal from Bob in accord with Abner Shimony's "passion at a distance".

      However, probability is not conserved on Bob's side!

      Do the calculation if you don't believe me.

      Two more options

      i. use 1/2^1/2 normalization, then we get an entanglement signal for Alice with violation of probability conservation for Alice, though not for Bob

      ii Final Rube Goldberg option (suspect)

      use different normalizations depending on who does the strong von Neumann measurement Alice or Bob.

      Now this is a violation of orthodox quantum theory ladies and gentlemen.

      Sent from my iPhone in San Francisco, Russian Hill

      ====================================================================
    • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:56 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

      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

      ====================================================================

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

Extra-Dimensional Intelligence EDI
1Like · · Share
  • 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
Like · · Share
  • 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
  1. 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.
    • Jack Sarfatti On May 17, 2013, at 9:00 AM, AC 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 "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.
    • Jack Sarfatti On May 17, 2013, at 10:14 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@mac.com> wrote:

      Eric has outed himself many times in the public record.

      Begin forwarded message:

      From: ....
      Subject: Re: Eric Davis On the Limits of Academic Discussion and How this Stifles Progress
      Date: May 17, 2013 8:37:03 AM GMT+01:00
      To: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@mac.com>

      Interesting. I've read the Hill book and have owned a copy since its initial publication. It's littered with margin notes and highlighting, as I consider it among the best in print on the subject. You might also be aware of Dr. Wang Sichao's statements, of Nanjing University's Purple Mountain Observatory, regarding tracking inbound objects decelerating from .8c.

      "During his August 23 speech in Guangzhou, Sichao stated that UFOs have been observed by astronomers traveling as fast as 80 percent of the speed of light at distances of between 150 and 1,500 km from Earth."

      http://technorati.com/technology/article/chinese-astronomer-claims-some-ufos-are/

      I have been trying to find a contact for Dr. Wang for some time for a quote on the record, but my Chinese isn't good enough for cogent communication; I only took two years at uni.

      However, out of respect, I do not wish to use this statement of yours about Dr. Davis unless you wish to publicly out him, and I don't think that would benefit your working relationship. He is not responding to requests for comment. Nor will Professor Peter Sturrock of Stanford, who I am almost certain asked the question based on video imagery and audio of his voice, as well as a nondenial-denial statement of his in email. I recognize that going public could have damaging repercussions for Dr. Davis' career and do not wish to impede his work. On the other hand, that statement of his I quoted has been unnoticed on the public record for over two years and so I believed it was fair game. I note Dr. Davis is scheduled to speak at MUFON's 2013 symposium. I'm trying to line up someone in attendance to directly ask him for a quote regarding that statement.

      The technical details regarding the correctness, or lack thereof, in his analysis I'll leave to those better educated in the field. If I might quote that I'd be thankful. But a general quote on the stifling of fringe research into anomalous events is also of interest. I'm currently reading a fascinating paper by Roland Benabou of Princeton, "Groupthink: Collective Delusions in Organizations and Markets" which I believe to be relevant, along with Kuhn's classic.

      http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Review of Economic Studies-2013-Benabou-429-62.pdf

      Thank you,
      --M
      technorati.com
      Purple Hills Observatory professor says objects demonstrate anti-gravity capabilities
    • Jack Sarfatti On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@mac.com> wrote:
      Yes, of course. I know Eric Davis for years from Joe Firmage's ISSO and I am completely aware of his position on this and what his real secret work is/was about. Eric is wrong about no evidence for warp drive in near earth flight. 180 degree turns at high speed is evidence as is sudden stopping and apparent dematerialization. See, e.g. Paul Hill's book. Also he contradicts himself below when he talks about the possible wormhole on the Bigelow ranch. Wormhole and warp drive physics are both essentially the same and the evidence is that there is a low power technology for them. I gave a paper on this at the Oct 1, 2011 DARPA 100 yss Starship Meeting. Vince Tefilio and two referees at JBIS, who obviously were not competent, mistakenly thought I was talking about simulations of warp drive in meta-materials. That is not the case and Jim Woodward correctly describes what I actually wrote in his Star Ship book (Springer-Verlag). One referee did not understand textbook quantum density matrix formalism - pathetic.

      On May 17, 2013, at 5:28 AM, JMG wrote:

      Dr. Sarfatti,

      We have been in limited contact before. Would you be willing to give a quote on the record concerning the limits of academic debate in regard to fringe physics and other scientific matters? I wish to write about how cultural limits within the scientific, academic and grant funding establishment impede discovery and stifle careers.

      The context of this regards a rather remarkable statement by Astrophysicist Dr. Eric W. Davis, who spoke about how some members of NASA's Advanced Propulsion Physics Project had researched aspects of the UFO phenomena in deriving speculative theories that were later published. This statement was made during a Society for Scientific Exploration lecture on the potential for Warp Drives, Wormholes, and Gravity manipulation in 2010. The talk is posted to the SSE website, and has also been available on the SSE Youtube channel for about two years; a link will be included at the bottom of this email.

      Dr. Davis obtained a PhD in Astrophysics from the University of Arizona in 1991, was a co-founding member of NASA-JSC's Advanced Deep Space Transport Technology Assessment Group, and was a contract physicist for NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project before it was disbanded due to funding shortfalls in 2002. He has numerous published papers on the potential for wormhole and warp drive physics.

      During the Q&A session after his lecture, he was asked: "Is there any thought to using the known properties of UFOs as a guide to your thinking and research?"

      His answer was quite remarkable. A full transcript of his statement is provided at the bottom of this email. I've written a short news article on the matter which may be of interest as well, if only to show the quality of my writing and accuracy of presentation.

      The man I believe to have asked the question is a well respected academic physicist at Stanford, but he is unwilling to go on the record. After contacting the gentleman, he agreed that he had attended the event but stated that he 'did not remember' if he had posed the question. He then did not respond to a further request in confirming his identity. Based on photographs and audio recordings, I am confidant he is the gentleman in question. I suspect you would recognize him as well. But I respect his unwillingness to confirm identity or go on the record and did not disclose it in the article. In addition, after attempting to contact Dr. Davis, I did not receive a reply, indicating that he too is unwilling to go on the record (as is his right).

      This unwillingness to talk about statements made in public and on camera about a matter of extreme sensitivity to the academic community is the impetus for the article I wish to write. It will not editorialize the existence or nonexistence of UFOs, but instead will focus strictly on the issue of how exploring fringe topics can endager academic careers and thus stifle scientific progress.

      Sources for this work would include Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions; Noam Chomsky's thesis on restricting the envelope of debate within Manufacturing Consent; material about the academic review conducted at Harvard University after Professor John Mack began investigating and publishing material about UFO abduction cases; etc. Again, the issue is not that I want a positive statement regarding the veracity of fringe matters, but that I would seek a statement about how fears of damage to academic credibility and even risk to tenure might impact future career paths for both established and up and coming academics.

      For background, I am a former technical staffer and computer services manager at the Laboratory for Nuclear Science at MIT, having worked there for about twelve years. Thus, I know the community and culture reasonably well. However, I am not an established print author, nor do I have a degree in physics. I simply hold a nontechnical BA from Harvard.

      Thank you,
      J

      ----

      Source Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xDx1po_apZU
    • Jack Sarfatti Full transcript of Dr. Eric Davis' SSE statement (see from 37m30s on):

      Audience Question: Is there any thought to using the known properties of UFOs as a guide to your thinking and research?

      Dr. Eric W. Davis: The answer is yes and no. Secretly, yes and overtly no. Because the mainstream academics don’t like the topic of UFOs and they really don’t have any credibility with them, especially with policy-makers and decision-makers in charge of funding and programatics. They don’t want to hear the topics of UFOs. So, for the purpose of doing this officially [we didn’t bring in UFOs], but we did consider it under the table.

      And yes, there is a subset of us who have looked at UFO data. And we’ve looked at all the physical events and physical descriptions that have been provided by investigators from Jacques Vallee to yourself, and whatnot, and George Hathaway and so forth. And we’ve been able to use that data as input to give us an idea, and that data does drive the concepts that we did derive later on [when we did] the book and went into the original NASA program. Like warp drives and wormholes. For example, at the NIDS Utah Ranch, where I used to work for Bob Bigelow for six years, we had the experience of one scientist and one investigator seeing a wormhole – what looked like a wormhole – with a creature crawling through, and then the ranch owners had seen an opening in the sky in broad daylight with a triangular craft that came through it. Well, that’s an example of data that indicates there’s a wormhole involved. I mean, geometry tells you what a wormhole looks like when it intersects our space. It appears as a very bright – intensely bright – point of light and then, as the intersection gets larger and larger, it opens up and you begin to see the hole. And, things would be going in and out of it. So, that’s an example of two datasets that we verified at the NIDS Utah Ranch that match what I know as a physicist what a wormhole would do.

      Warp drives. We haven’t seen UFOs do performances that adhere to the warp drive, because the warp drive… basically it’s just between stars and we don’t see UFOs warping anywhere or warping around. We see them doing ninety degree turns and rapid motions; they disappear and reappear. That is undetermined yet. I would think that wormhole is a big possibility still. I’m trying to think of anything else. I would think that anti-gravity – we have anti-gravity in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and I cover that in my chapter in the book; one of my three chapters. There are aspects of anti-gravity, the properties of negative vacuum energy that would create a repulsive force that allows something to levitate up. And UFOs do exhibit that. So there’s Hal Putthoff’s Polarized Vacuum Model. It’s a different form of Relativity where instead of a space-time you envision space-time as a polarized vacuum of a quantum zero point fluctuations. And, if you exert a field on that medium, the fluctuations are polarized, that creates a space-time bending effect similar to warp drive and wormholes. So, we see that. We see that in aspects of what’s predicted.

      Article text on the statement Dr. Davis made:

      http://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ed8uo/dr_eric_w_davis_of_nasas_breakthrough_propulsion/
      www.reddit.com
      By J. Maynard Gelinas Dr. Eric W. Davis, formerly a contract research physicist ...See More