Text Size

Stardrive


The question Lenny should have asked in that lecture is whether we are 3D images whose information is scrambled all over our past and future 2D horizons relative to observers outside them in the multiverse?


Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram http://t.co/iGIdSw91es


Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram
lnkd.in
Leonard Susskind of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics discusses the indestructability of information and the nature of black holes in a lecture ...



Jack Sarfatti 1 minute ago

Lenny is a very clear and good teacher. We worked together at Cornell with Johnny Glogower in the early 1960's on the problem of time and coherent phase of oscillators in quantum theory. The lecture is excellent and clearly explains important cutting edge ideas. I do have a number of comments below.

·

Jack Sarfatti 1 second ago

1) alleged first law of physics (technically unitarity of the S-Matrix) that the total number of bits is conserved. Is this really consistent with the second law of thermodynamics that the entropy of a closed system generally increases? Is it consistent with the evolution of complexity of matter including life and knowledge as the universe expands? The universe was very small at the moment of inflation followed by the hot big bang. Are all the bits we see today already hidden in the big bang?

· in reply to Jack Sarfatti (Show the comment)

Jack Sarfatti 1 second ago

With the emergence of new order as in spontaneous symmetry breaking of the vacuum for virtual particles and the ground states of real many-particle complex systems - is the S-Matrix fundamentally non-unitary? At least the question needs to be asked and made conscious. Lenny's description of horizon thermodynamics & complementarity is excellent - how Alice's bits get scrambled all over the black hole horizon as seen by Bob far away from her. Bob's light will burn up her if he tries to look etc.

· in reply to Jack Sarfatti (Show the comment)

Jack Sarfatti 1 second ago

We are outside black holes, but we are inside our cosmological horizons. Lenny only talks about our observer-dependent past particle horizon. That's half the story. Tamara Davis shows that we also have a future event horizon and that the Hubble sphere where expansion rate is c is different from both horizons. Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar­-Cramer-Aharonov all show that the future absorptions of light are loops in time with the past emissions.

· in reply to Jack Sarfatti (Show the comment)

Jack Sarfatti 1 second ago

Dark energy accelerating our universe may be advanced back-from-the-future Hawking radiation emissions from our future de Sitter horizon of energy density hc/Lp^4 that is gravitationally redshifted down to hc/Lp^2A where A is the area of our future horizon at its intersection with our future light cone. The competing cosmological blue shift is tiny at z = 1/2 compared to the advanced gravity redshift of z ~ A^1/4/Lp^1/2 ~ 10^30.5



Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Professor Dr. Sir Roger Penrose on new clues to the basics of conscious ... http://t.co/ZJGqgTJUr7


Professor Dr. Sir Roger Penrose on new clues to the basics of conscious mentality
lnkd.in
Professor Dr. Sir Roger Penrose is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and has received numerous prizes and awards, amon...
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
The something new that Roger is aware of is brain presponse - most recently "Feeling the (@YouTube http://t.co/dp9jwpzxWs)


Sir Roger Penrose — The quantum nature of consciousness
youtu.be
Sir Roger Penrose. Quantum Consciousness Theorist — Co-creator of the Orch OR model of the quantum nature of consciousness and memory. http://GF2045.com/spea...
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Boeing brings 787 Dreamliners, ScanEagle UAS to Paris Air Show http://t.co/MqML5nKdO2


Boeing brings 787 Dreamliners, ScanEagle UAS to Paris Air Show
lnkd.in
bPARIS, 17 June 2013. bThe Boeing Company is featuring a pair of superefficient 787 Dreamliner commercial airliners and the Boeing ScanEagle unmanned aircraft system (UAS) at the Paris Air Show. img src=content/dam/etc/medialib/platform-7/avionics-intelligence/articles/news/2010/07/50244.res One 787…
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Buzz Aldrin signs copies of his book at Paris Air Show http://t.co/sMgkMtmYe1


Buzz Aldrin signs copies of his book at Paris Air Show
lnkd.in
bPARIS, 17 June 2013.bnbsp;American astronaut Buzz Aldrin--who walked on the moon 21 July 1969 as part of Apollo 11,nbsp;the first manned lunar landing in history--is signing copies of his book,nbsp;iMission to Mars: My Vision for Space Explorationi, at Paris Air Show today. img src=content/dam/avi/…
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Sir Roger Penrose, Aeons before the Big Bang (Copernicus Center Lecture ... http://t.co/EmvRPBcjnS


Sir Roger Penrose, Aeons before the Big Bang (Copernicus Center Lecture 2010)
lnkd.in
The second Copernicus Center Lecture was delivered by Professor Roger Penrose, a famous physicist and philosopher of science. Professor Penrose titled his sp...
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Closer To Truth asks Roger Penrose: What Things Really Exist? http://t.co/c9WNOKAS5C


Closer To Truth asks Roger Penrose: What Things Really Exist?
lnkd.in
For more videos and information, visit http://www.closertotruth.com What things really exist? Our host Robert Lawrence Kuhn poses the question to Roger Penro...
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share
This post is now hidden from your timeline.
It will still appear in search, news feed and other places on Facebook. Delete

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Roger Penrose on Twistors and Quantum Non-Locality http://t.co/m0Y2pOmlQ6


Roger Penrose on Twistors and Quantum Non-Locality
lnkd.in
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at University of Oxford, Sir Roger Penrose, discusses Twistors and Quantum Non-Locality.
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

Jack Sarfatti

11 hours ago via Twitter
Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram http://t.co/iGIdSw91es


  1.  
    • Sir Roger Penrose, Aeons before the Big Bang (Copernicus Center Lecture ... http://t.co/EmvRPBcjnS
      Sir Roger Penrose, Aeons before the Big Bang (Copernicus Center Lecture 2010)
      lnkd.in
      The second Copernicus Center Lecture was delivered by Professor Roger Penrose, a famous physicist and philosopher of science. Professor Penrose titled his sp...
    • Closer To Truth asks Roger Penrose: What Things Really Exist? http://t.co/c9WNOKAS5C
      Closer To Truth asks Roger Penrose: What Things Really Exist?
      lnkd.in
      For more videos and information, visit http://www.closertotruth.com What things really exist? Our host Robert Lawrence Kuhn poses the question to Roger Penro...
    • Sir Roger Penrose — The quantum nature of consciousness http://t.co/XWSGIeMtGH
      Sir Roger Penrose — The quantum nature of consciousness
      lnkd.in
      Sir Roger Penrose. Quantum Consciousness Theorist — Co-creator of the Orch OR model of the quantum nature of consciousness and memory. http://GF2045.com/spea...
    • Roger Penrose on Twistors and Quantum Non-Locality http://t.co/m0Y2pOmlQ6
      Roger Penrose on Twistors and Quantum Non-Locality
      lnkd.in
      Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at University of Oxford, Sir Roger Penrose, discusses Twistors and Quantum Non-Locality.
    • Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram http://t.co/iGIdSw91es
      Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram
      lnkd.in
      Leonard Susskind of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics discusses the indestructability of information and the nature of black holes in a lecture ...
    • Michael Persinger on No More Secrets http://t.co/JD4W7OnNxu
      Michael Persinger on No More Secrets
      lnkd.in
      Big Ideas presents Michael Persinger, winner of the 2007 Best Lecturer Competition, on Just Suppose You Could Know What Others Are Thinking: No More Secrets

It's clear that DK's scheme won't work - nor will any scheme that is based on unitary linear orthodox quantum theory using orthogonal base states.
However, concerning Valentini's, Josephson, Weinberg, Stapp & my different & independent from from DK's approaches: while the trace operation to get expectation values of observables on quantum density matrices is invariant under unitary transformations of the base states which preserve orthogonality, that is not true for the transformation from an orthogonal Fock basis to the non-orthogonal Glauber coherent state basis, which is clearly a non-unitary transformation that is OUTSIDE the domain of validity of orthodox quantum theory. I think many Pundits have missed this point?

Hawking's former assistant Bernard Carr spells this out clearly in Can Psychical Research Bridge the Gulf Between Matter and Mind?" Bernard Carr Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol 59 Part 221 June 2008

Begin forwarded message:

From: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: AW: AW: More on the |0>|0> term
Date: June 14, 2013 11:14:57 AM PDT
To: Suda Martin <Martin.Suda.fl@ait.ac.at>


Thank you, Martin.
I finally get it.
My confusion lay in the attribution of the short calculation below.
I thought this calculation (which leads to rA) was due to Gerry.

Instead it is a calculation done by Gerry but attributed to DK.
It was not a calculation that DK ever carried out but
arose from Gerry taking Gerry's FULL CALCULATION,
applying the Kalamidas approximation
and getting an incorrect result.

The correct result is Zero
on which you and Gerry agree.

So if Kalamidas would have carried out the calculation this way
he would have gotten an incorrect answer.

I hope I have now understood the situation correctly.

But Kalamidas did not carry out the calculation that Gerry displays.
DK did not start out with the FULL CALCULATION and then approximate.

DK starts with an approximation and then calculates.

DK starts with an approximation and carries out a series of steps which all seem to be valid
but whose conclusion is preposterous. Furthermore the approximation (weak coherent states)
is an approximation used in dozens of laboratories by serious quantum opticians without
as far as I am aware leading to preposterous or impossible conclusions.

Therefore it seems to me that the calculation below is another nail in the Kalamidas coffin, BUT
THE BEAST IS STILL ALIVE.

1. No one yet has started with Kalamidas's (approximate) assumptions, and discovered a mistake in his chain of logic.

2. No one yet has started with Kalamidas's (approximate) assumptions, followed a correct chain of logic and shown that FTL signaling does not happen.

Martin Suda came the closest to carrying out problem #2. He started with the Kalamidas (approximation) assumptions and decisively proved that all FTL terms are zero. But Martin's proof contains an unphysical |0>|0> term that mars his triumph.

I am certain that the Kalamidas claim is wrong. The FULL CALCULATION refutations of Ghirardi, Howell and Gerry are pretty substantial coffin nails. But unless I am blind there seems still something missing from a clean and definitive refutation of the Kalamidas claim. See problems #1 and #2 above.

I do not think that Nick is being stubborn or petty in continuing to bring these problems to your attentions. I should think it would be a matter of professional pride to be able to bring this matter to a clean and unambiguous conclusion by refuting Kalamidas on his own terms.

Thank you all for participating in this adventure whatever your opinions.

Nick Herbert


On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:29 AM, Suda Martin wrote:

Nick,

Thank you for comments!

I would still like to explain my short considerations below a bit more precisely, anyway. I feel there was perhaps something unclear as regards my email (12th June), because you wrote "you were confused".

I only considered the following:

DK disclosed a calculation (see attachment) which is completely wrong because he made a mathematical limit (see first line, where he omitted the term ra^{+}_{a3}) which is absolutely not justifiable here (just as CG mentioned, see below) because both parts are equally important if you make the expectation value properly. If you take both parts you get exactly zero: alpha^{*}(tr^{*}+rt^{*})=0.
So one does not obtain a quantity like (r alpha)^{*}.

That’s all. There is absolutely no discrepancy between me and CG.

Nice regards,
Martin




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: nick herbert [mailto:quanta@cruzio.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2013 23:33

Betreff: Re: AW: More on the |0>|0> term

"And again, the notion that an alleged approximate calculation (I say "alleged" because as with everything else there are correct and incorrect approximate calculations) based on a weak signal coherent state somehow trumps an exact computation valid for any value of the coherent state parameter, is, well, just insane. If you want to see where things go wrong just take more terms in the series expansions. Add up enough terms and, viola, no effect! One can't get much more specific than that." --Christopher Gerry

Actually, Chris, one can get much more specific than that by explicitly displaying the Correct Approximation Scheme (CAS) and showing term by term than Alice's interference vanishes (to the proper order of approximation).

Absent a correct CAS and its refutation these general claims are little more than handwaving.

Produce a CAS.
Refute it.

Is anyone up to this new Kalamidas challenge?
Or does everyone on this list except me
consider deriving a CAS a waste of time?

Nick Herbert

On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:03 PM, CHRISTOPHER GERRY wrote:

We are both right: the two terms cancel each other out!  That the
whole expectation value is zero is actually exactly what's in our
paper's Eq. 9. This happens because the reciprocity relations must
hold. That Kalamidas thought (or maybe even still thinks) his
calculation is correct, is at the heart of the matter, that is, that
he is either unable to do the calculations or that he can do them but
chooses not too because they don't get him where he wants to go.

The Kalamidas scheme will not work not work on the basis of general
principles as we showed in the first part of our paper (see also
Ghirardi's paper).

And again, the notion that an alleged approximate calculation (I say
"alleged" because as with everything else there are correct and
incorrect approximate calculations) based on a weak signal coherent
state somehow trumps an exact computation valid for any value of the
coherent state parameter, is, well, just insane. If you want to see
where things go wrong just take more terms in the series expansions.
Add up enough terms and, viola, no effect! One can't get much more
specific than that.

Christopher C. Gerry
Professor of Physics
Lehman College
The City University of New York
718-960-8444
christopher.gerry@lehman.cuny.edu


---- Original message ----
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:28:16 -0700
From: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: AW: More on the |0>|0> term
To: Suda Martin
All--

Excuse me for being confused.
Gerry refutes Kalamidas by showing that an omitted term is large.
Suda refutes Kalamidas by showing that the same term is identically
zero.
What am I missing here?

I wish to say that I accept the general proofs. Kalamidas's scheme
will not work as claimed.
That is the bottom line. So if the general proofs say FTL will fail
for full calculation, then it will certainly fail for approximations.

The "weak coherent state" is a common approximation made in quantum
optics. And dozens of experiments have been correctly described using
this approximation. So it should be a simple matter to show if one
uses Kalamidas's approximation, that FTL terms vanish to the
appropriate level of approximation. If this did not happen we would
not be able to trust the results of approximation schemes not
involving FTL claims.

Gerry's criticism is that Kalamidas's scheme is simply WRONG--that he
has thrown away terms DK regards as small.
But in fact they are large. Therefore the scheme is flawed from the
outset.

If Gerry is correct, then it seems appropriate to ask: Is there a
CORRECT WAY of formulating the Kalamidas scheme using the "weak
coherent state" approximation, where it can be explicitly shown that
this correct scheme utterly fails?

It seems to me that there are still some loose ends in this Kalamidas
affair, if not a thorn in the side, at least an unscratched itch.

It seems to me that closure might be obtained. And the Kalamidas
affair properly put to rest if everyone can agree that 1. DK has
improperly treated his approximations; 2. Using the CORRECT
APPROXIMATION SCHEME, the scheme abjectly fails just as the exact
calculation says it must.

Why should it be so difficult to construct a correct description of
the Kalamidas proposal, with CORRECT APPROXIMATIONS, and show that it
fails to work as claimed?

AS seen from the Ghirardi review, there are really not that many
serious FTL proposals in existence. And each one teaches us
something-- mostly about some simple mistakes one should not make when thinking
about quantum systems. Since these proposals are so few, it is really
not a waste of time to consider them in great detail, so we can learn
to avoid the mistakes that sloppy thinking about QM brings about.

When Ghirardi considers the Kalamidas scheme in his review, I would
consider it less than adequate if he did not include the following
information:

1. Kalamidas's scheme is WRONG because he treats approximations
incorrectly.
2. When we treat the approximations correctly, the scheme fails, just
as the general proofs say it must.

Gerry has provided the first part of this information. What is
seriously lacking here is some smart person providing the second
part.

Nick Herbert


On Jun 12, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Suda Martin wrote:

Dear all,

Yes, if one calculates precisely the Kalamidas - expression given in
the attachment of the email of CG one obtains exactly

alpha^{*}(tr^{*}+rt^{*})=0

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

Cheers,
Martin

________________________________________
Von: CHRISTOPHER GERRY [CHRISTOPHER.GERRY@lehman.cuny.edu]

Betreff: Re: More on the |0>|0> term

I probably shouldn't jump in on this again, but...

I can assure you that there's no thorn in the side of the quantum
optics community concerning the scheme of Kalamidas. There are only
people doing bad calculations. Despite claims to the contrary, our
paper, as with Ghirardi's, does specifically deal with the Kalamidas
proposal. It is quite clearly the case that EXACT calculations in
the Kalamidas proposal shows that the claimed effect disappears. To
suggest that it's there in the approximate result obtained by series
expansion, and therefore must be a real effect, is simply
preposterous. All it means is that the approximation is wrong; in
this case being due to the dropping important terms.

The whole business about the |00> and whatever (the beam splitter
transformations and all that) is not the issue. I'm astonished at
how the debate on this continues. The real problem, and I cannot
emphasize it enough, is this: Kalamidas cannot do quantum optical
calculations, even simple ones and therefore nothing he does should
be taken seriously. As I've said before, his calculation of our Eq.
(9), which I have attached here, is embarrassingly wrong. It's
obvious from the expression of the expectation value in the upper
left that there has to be two terms in the result both containing
the product of r and t. But Kalamidas throws away one of the terms
which is of the same order of magnitude as the one he retains. Or
maybe he thinks that term is zero via the quantum mechanical
calculation of its expectation value, which it most certainly is
not.  His limits have been taken inconsistently.  So, he not only
does not know how to do the quantum mechanical calculations, he
doesn't even know how or when the limits should be taken. There's
absolutely no point in debating the meaning of the results incorrect
calculations. Of course, by incorrectly doing these things he gets
the result he wants, and then thinks it's the duty of those of us
who can do these calculations to spend time showing him why his
calculations are wrong, which he then dismisses anyway.
My point in again bringing this specific calculation of his is not
to say anything about his proposal per se, but to demonstrate the
abject incompetence of Kalamidas in trying to do even the most
elementary calculations.  And if anyone still wonders why I'm angry
about the whole affair, well, what should I feel if some guy unable
to do simple calculations tries to tell established quantum optics
researchers, like me and Mark Hillery, that our paper showing where
he's wrong dismisses ours as being "irrelevant?" He doesn't even
seem to know that what he said was an insult.

And finally, the continued claim that the specific proposal of
Kalamidas has not been addressed must simply stop. It has been
repeatedly. I suspect this claim is being made because people don't
like the results of the correct calculations. That's not the problem
of those of us can carry through quantum optical calculations.

CG


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: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:12:19 -0700
From: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: More on the |0>|0> term
To: "Demetrios Kalamidas" <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>


yer right, demetrios--
the |00> term on the right is always accompanied in Suda's
calculation by a real photon on the left.

But this is entirely non-physical.
No real or virtual quantum event corresponds to this term.

Especially with the high amplitude required for
Suda-interference-destruction.

So your specific approximate FTL scheme despite many general
refutations still remains a puzzlement.

A thorn in the side
of the quantum optics community.

if any think otherwise
let them put on the table
one unambiguous refutation
OF YOUR SPECIFIC PROPOSAL--
not of their own
nor of somebody else's
totally different FTL signaling scheme,

Nick


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


Nick,

 The EP and CSs do derive from the same laser pulse: part of the
pulse pumps the nonlinear crystal and the other part is split off
accordingly to create the CSs.
 However, you are still misssing the point: If no EP pair is
created, then you will certainly get '00' on the right
sometimes.... BUT there will be no left photon in existence. The
problem with the Suda term is that when it appears, it appears
only accompanied by a left photon in a superposition state: ie it
always appears as (10+e01)(00+11).
 Think of it this way: Suppose you just have an EP source that
creates pairs, with one photon going left and the other right.
Imagine that on the right there is a highly trasnparent BS with
say
|r|^2=0.001. That means that only one out of every thousand right
photons from the EP are reflected, and 999 are transmitted. So,
this means that for every 1000 counts ON THE LEFT, there will be
999 counts tranmitted on the right. Now introduce, at the other
input of that same BS, a CS so that it has a tiny reflected
portion of amplitude |ralpha>. Allegedly then, there will arise
cases where no photon is found in the transmitted channel with
probability equal to |ralpha|^2. Since alpha is arbitrary, we can
choose |
ralpha|=0.1. This means that the probabilty of getting no
photon in
the transmitted channel will be |ralpha|^2=0.01.....Which now
means that, for every 1000 EP pairs created, we will get 1000
counts on the left, but only 900 counts in the transmitted channel
on the right! Whereas, without the CS in the other channel, there
would be
999 counts on the right for that same 1000 counts on the left.
Demetrios


On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:44:42 -0700
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Demetrios--
I don't know how the entangled pair (EP) and CSs are generated.
I supposed all three are created with a single PULSE in a non-
linear  crystal.
Now one can imagine that this pulse fails to create an EP but
does  create a CS
Then some of Bob's detectors will fire but no ES is formed.
So this kind of process could lead to lots of |0>|0> terms.
However what we need are not "lots of |0>|0> terms" but a precise
amplitude (rA) of |0>|0> term.
Given our freedom (in the thought experiment world) to
arbitrarily  select
the efficiency of the non-linear crystal, it is hard to see why
the  elusive |0>|0>
term would have exactly the right magnitude and phase to cancel
out  the interference.
Your original FTL scheme still continues to puzzle me.
Nick
On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:
Nick,

 The 'entire experimental arrangement' is indeed where the
problem  (mystery) arises:
 When both CSs are generated it is easy to understand that '00'
will arise, simply because each CS has a non-zero vacuum term.
 However, the entire arrangement means inclusion of the
entangled  photon pair:
 Any time that pair is generated, you are guaranteed to get a
photon on the right, regardless of whether the CSs are there.
 So, when entangled pair and CSs are present, there must be at
least one photon at the right. In fact, when only one photon
emerges at the right WE KNOW both CSs were empty.

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:34:30 -0700
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Demetrios--
Sarfatti sent around a nice review of quantum optics
by Ulf Leonhardt that discusses the structure of path-uncertain
photons.
Here is an excerpt:
The interference experiments with single photons mentioned in
Sec.  4.3 have been
performed with photon pairs generated in spontaneous
parametric   downconversion
[127]. Here the quantum state (6.28) of light is essentially
|01> |02> + ζ |11>|12 >. (6.29)
In such experiments only those experimental runs count where
photons  are counted,
the time when the detectors are not firing is ignored, which
reduces  the quantum
state to the photon pair
|11> |12> .
Postselection disentangles the two-mode squeezed
vacuum.
We argued in Sec. 4.3 that the interference of the photon pair
|11> |12> at a 50:50 beam splitter generates the entangled
state   (4.24). Without postselection,
however, this state is the disentangled product of two single-
mode  squeezed vacua,
as we see from the factorization (6.6) of the S matrix. The
notion  of  entanglement
is to some extent relative.
this excerpt suggests a possible origin for Suda's |0>|0> term.
In  the above process, it's just
the inefficiency of the down converter that generates a |0>|0>
term.  That won't do the trick.
But in your more complicated situation--containing two properly
timed  coherent states--
when Bohr's "entire experimental arrangement" is considered,
the
| 0>| 0> term may
arise naturally with the proper amplitude and phase. It would
correspond to events when
the coherent states were successfully generated but there were
no   events in either upper or lower path.
If this conjecture can be shown to hold true, then the
original   Kalamidas proposal would
be refuted by Suda's calculation.
The trick would be to examine--in a thought experiment way--
exactly  how those two |A> beams
are created--looking for entanglement  with |0>|0> states in
the  part  of the experiment considered in your proposal.
Nick
ref: Ulf Leonhardt's wonderful review of quantum optics,
starting   with reflections from a window pane and concluding
with
Hawking radiation.



  • Jack Sarfatti "We present an exactly-solvable model for the suppression of quantum noise at large scales on expanding space. The suppression arises naturally in the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave formulation of quantum theory, according to which the Born probability rul...See More
  • Jack Sarfatti here is another one: Their last sentence

    "If all this is a dead end, there remains analog systems, like the ones studied in quantum information and condensed matter."

    is the most important - Frank Wilczek's anyons in 2D with fractional quantum statistics like quantum Hall effect, topological computers with sub-quantum non-equilibrium signal nonlocality?

    On Jun 12, 2013, at 8:06 AM, art wagner <wagnerart@hotmail.com> wrote:

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1306.0967.pdf
Kalamides entanglement signal design refuted decisively
  • Steve Schultz Well, that's no fun. Guess that means I won't be need to register the radio station letters KFTL...
  • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 12, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Suda Martin wrote:

    Dear all,

    Yes, if one calculates precisely the Kalamidas - expression given in the attachment of the email of CG one obtains exactly
    ...See More
  • Jack Sarfatti Von: CHRISTOPHER GERRY
    Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2013 16:18
    An: nick herbert; Demetrios Kalamidas
    Cc: John Howell; Suda Martin; ghirardi Giancarlo; Ruth Elinor Kastner; JACK SARFATTI
    Betreff: Re: More on the |0>|0> term


    I probably shouldn't jump in on this again, but...

    I can assure you that there's no thorn in the side of the quantum optics community concerning the scheme of Kalamidas. There are only people doing bad calculations. Despite claims to the contrary, our paper, as with Ghirardi's, does specifically deal with the Kalamidas proposal. It is quite clearly the case that EXACT calculations in the Kalamidas proposal shows that the claimed effect disappears. To suggest that it's there in the approximate result obtained by series expansion, and therefore must be a real effect, is simply preposterous. All it means is that the approximation is wrong; in this case being due to the dropping important terms.

    The whole business about the |00> and whatever (the beam splitter transformations and all that) is not the issue. I'm astonished at how the debate on this continues. The real problem, and I cannot emphasize it enough, is this: Kalamidas cannot do quantum optical calculations, even simple ones and therefore nothing he does should be taken seriously. As I've said before, his calculation of our Eq. (9), which I have attached here, is embarrassingly wrong. It's obvious from the expression of the expectation value in the upper left that there has to be two terms in the result both containing the product of r and t. But Kalamidas throws away one of the terms which is of the same order of magnitude as the one he retains. Or maybe he thinks that term is zero via the quantum mechanical calculation of its expectation value, which it most certainly is not. His limits have been taken inconsistently. So, he not only does not know how to do the quantum mechanical calculations, he doesn't even know how or when the limits should be taken. There's absolutely no point in debating the meaning of the results incorrect calculations. Of course, by incorrectly doing these things he gets the result he wants, and then thinks it's the duty of those of us who can do these calculations to spend time showing him why his calculations are wrong, which he then dismisses anyway. My point in again bringing this specific calculation of his is not to say anything about his proposal per se, but to demonstrate the abject incompetence of Kalamidas in trying to do even the most elementary calculations. And if anyone still wonders why I'm angry about the whole affair, well, what should I feel if some guy unable to do simple calculations tries to tell established quantum optics researchers, like me and Mark Hillery, that our paper showing where he's wrong dismisses ours as being "irrelevant?" He doesn't even seem to know that what he said was an insult.

    And finally, the continued claim that the specific proposal of Kalamidas has not been addressed must simply stop. It has been repeatedly. I suspect this claim is being made because people don't like the results of the correct calculations. That's not the problem of those of us can carry through quantum optical calculations.

    CG
  • Keith Kenemer disappointing, but not unexpected...
  • Jack Sarfatti Yes, but here is latest from Nick Herbert - Custer's Last Stand
    On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:28 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

    All--

    Excuse me for being confused.
    Gerry refutes Kalamidas by showing that an omitted term is large.
    Suda refutes Kalamidas by showing that the same term is identically zero.
    What am I missing here?

    I wish to say that I accept the general proofs. Kalamidas's scheme will not work as claimed.
    That is the bottom line. So if the general proofs say FTL will fail for full calculation, then it will certainly fail for approximations.

    The "weak coherent state" is a common approximation made in quantum optics. And dozens of experiments have been correctly described using this approximation. So it should be a simple matter to show if one uses
    Kalamidas's approximation, that FTL terms vanish to the appropriate level of approximation. If this did not happen we would not be able to trust the results of approximation schemes not involving FTL claims.

    Gerry's criticism is that Kalamidas's scheme is simply WRONG--that he has thrown away terms DK regards as small. But in fact they are large. Therefore the scheme is flawed from the outset.

    If Gerry is correct, then it seems appropriate to ask: Is there a CORRECT WAY of formulating the Kalamidas scheme using the "weak coherent state" approximation, where it can be explicitly shown that this correct scheme utterly fails?

    It seems to me that there are still some loose ends in this Kalamidas affair, if not a thorn in the side, at least an unscratched itch.

    It seems to me that closure might be obtained. And the Kalamidas affair properly put to rest if everyone can agree that
    1. DK has improperly treated his approximations; 2. Using the CORRECT APPROXIMATION SCHEME, the scheme abjectly fails just as the exact calculation says it must.

    Why should it be so difficult to construct a correct description of the Kalamidas proposal, with CORRECT APPROXIMATIONS, and show that it fails to work as claimed?

    AS seen from the Ghirardi review, there are really not that many serious FTL proposals in existence. And each one teaches us something-- mostly about some simple mistakes one should not make when thinking about quantum systems. Since these proposals are so few, it is really not a waste of time to consider them in great detail, so we can learn to avoid the mistakes that sloppy thinking about QM brings about.

    When Ghirardi considers the Kalamidas scheme in his review, I would consider it less than adequate if he did not include the following information:

    1. Kalamidas's scheme is WRONG because he treats approximations incorrectly.
    2. When we treat the approximations correctly, the scheme fails, just as the general proofs say it must.

    Gerry has provided the first part of this information. What is seriously lacking here is some smart person providing the second part.

    Nick Herbert
  • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:07 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

    Lest anyone be confused. I am not defending Kalamidas's gedankenexperiment. Neither is Nick Herbert.
    I agree, that in contrast to Antony Valentini's strategy, any proposal for stand-alone entanglement signaling that does not violate an axiom of orthodox quantum theory will fail. Furthermore, one must show why such a violation is found in Nature. It's not clear whether John Cramer's experiment is supposed to violate quantum theory or not?
    Going for a blast into the real past - seattlepi.com

    www.seattlepi.com/.../Going-for-a-blast-into-the-real-past-1219...
    by Tom Paulson - in 171 Google+ circles
    Nov 14, 2006 – Going for a blast into the real past ... The reflection of UW physicist John Cramer can be seen as he prepares an experiment with lasers. Cramer ...
    Going for a blast into the real past - Worldnews.com
    article.wn.com/view/2013/05/20/Going_for_a_blast_into_the_real_past/
    May 20, 2013 – ... splitting photons actually works, says University of Washington physicist John Cramer, the next step will ... >Going for a blast into the real past ...
    Going for a blast into the real past (quantum retrocausality ...
    www.democraticunderground.com › Discuss
    Nov 15, 2006 - 11 posts - 10 authors
    Going for a blast into the real past. If his experiment with splitting photons actually works, says University of Washington physicist John Cramer, ...
    An Experimental Test of Signaling using Quantum Nonlocality
    faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/NLS/NL_signal.htm
    John G. Cramer. Reports: UW CENPA ... "Going for a blast into the real past", Tom Paulson, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 15, 2006 · "Science hopes to ...
    John Cramer's Retrocausality Experiment
    sci.physics.narkive.com › sci physics
    Nov 17, 2006 – "Going for a blast into the real past. If the experiment works, ...University of Washington physicist John Cramer, the next step will be to test for ...
    Retrocausality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality
    Furthermore, the ability to affect the past suggests that causes could be negated by their own ... The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory, proposed by John Archibald Wheeler and .... "Going for a blast in the real past". ... "Five Decades of Physics" http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~lisa/CramerSympo
    Begin forwarded message:

    From: ghirardi
    Date: June 12, 2013 1:33:38 PM PDT
    To: CHRISTOPHER GERRY

    To reinforce the appropriate remarks by Christopher, I want to stress that suggesting that my, as well as Gerry's contributions do not deal with Kalamidas' proposal is an unacceptable position to take. Both of us have PROVED that precisely Kalamidas' proposal does not work and is affected by basic errors that either derive from a mistaken use of general quantum rules or from resorting to unjustified and wrong approximations. That's the story.

    GianCarlo Ghirardi

    P.S. I believe that the debate which is going on, if it becomes known to a larger community of physicists, is seriously damaging the investigations on foundational issues since it puts into clear evidence that part of the people involved is not even capable of using correctly the basic principles of quantum mechanics.

    GianCarlo Ghirardi
    Emeritus
    University of Trieste
    Italy
  • Jack Sarfatti For the record I agree with Chris Gerry below: "On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:03 PM, CHRISTOPHER GERRY <christopher.gerry@lehman.cuny.edu> wrote:

    We are both right: the two terms cancel each other out! That the whole expectation value is zero is actually exactly what's in our paper's Eq. 9. This happens because the reciprocity relations must hold. That Kalamidas thought (or maybe even still thinks) his calculation is correct, is at the heart of the matter, that is, that he is either unable to do the calculations or that he can do them but chooses not too because they don't get him where he wants to go.

    The Kalamidas scheme will not work not work on the basis of general principles as we showed in the first part of our paper (see also Ghirardi's paper).

    And again, the notion that an alleged approximate calculation (I say "alleged" because as with everything else there are correct and incorrect approximate calculations) based on a weak signal coherent state somehow trumps an exact computation valid for any value of the coherent state parameter, is, well, just insane. If you want to see where things go wrong just take more terms in the series expansions. Add up enough terms and, viola, no effect! One can't get much more specific than that.

    Christopher C. Gerry
    Professor of Physics
    Lehman College
    The City University of New York
    718-960-8444
    christopher.gerry@lehman.cuny.edu"
  1.  
  2. A crisis for Bohm's version of quantum theory
    Like · · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti re: http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1306.1576.pdf

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

      Will coupling to a gauge field help?

      p = gradS - (e/c)A ?

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

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

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

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

    Life is that in my opinion.

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

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1576

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

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

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

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

    Valentini et-al write:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Basil."

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

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

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

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

    Jack,

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

    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

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

    Hi Dan,

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

    Here goes:

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

    agreed

    Well known examples include

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

    right

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

    right

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

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

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

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

    right

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

    right

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

    right
  • Jack Sarfatti In his 1991 paper Deutsch said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Links:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ___________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

    correct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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