• ack Sarfatti Jack Sarfatti On Feb 6, 2013, at 3:49 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
  
  Again a very persuasive argument.
  
  You are correct that the |0>|1> term is small.
  But it is multiplied by a different |0>|1> term (to form the product state |0>|1>|0>|1>.
  The coefficients of this different |0>|1> term are surprisingly large.
  
  JS: Ah so, Holmes.
  
  NH: As to your ability to make alphaxr as large as you please. Do you think you can do this
  and 1) preserve normalization of the input coherent state? 2) preserve the truncation condition?
  
  JS: This issue of the normalization of the input coherent state is non-trivial. In the literature the authors on entangled coherent Glauber state put in what looks like an observer-dependent normalization forcing the Born probability rule to be obeyed. This can always be done ad_hoc, but it is not part of the rules of orthodox quantum theory where unitary time evolution guarantees invariance of the initial normalization choice that should not depend on what future choice is made by the measuring apparatus (for strong Von-Neumann projections).
  
  For example, for a trapped ion internal qubit +,- entangled with its coherent phonon center of mass motion z. z'+ instead of the unitary invariant choice
  
  | > = (1/2)^1/2[|z>|+> + |z'>|->]
  
  The Born rule trace over the non-orthogonal Glauber states gives the seemingly inconsistent result
  
  P(+) = P(-) = (1/2)[1 + |<z|z'>|^2]
  
  P(+) + P(-) > 1
  
  which I say is a breakdown of the Born probability rule in the sense of Antony Valentini's papers.
  
  The dynamics of Glauber state ground state Higgs-Goldstone-Anderson condensates with ODLRO (Penrose-Onsager) is inherently nonlinear and non-unitary governed by Landau-Ginzburg c-number equations coupled to q-number random noise. The bare part of the noise dynamics sans coupling to the condensate is of course orthodox quantum mechanical.
  
  Now what the published paper's authors do is to use an ad-hoc
  
  | > ' = | > = (1/2[1 + |<z|z'>|^2])^1/2[|z>|+> + |z'>|->]
  
  giving the usual no-signaling
  
  P(+) = P(-) = 1/2
  
  NH: And by the way, just what is the wavefunction for the input coherent state before the beam splitter?
  You are never specific about what has to go into the beamsplitter to achieve the performance you describe.

  3 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Jack Sarfatti On Feb 6, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:
  
  Hi to all,
  
  Concerning my scheme, as it appears in the paper, lets do a certain type of logical analysis of the purported result:
  Let's say that the source S has produced 1000 pairs of entangled photons in some unit time interval. This means that we have 1000 left-going photons (in either a1 or b1) AND 1000 right-going photons (in either a2 or b2).
  
  Let's say we have chosen 'r' to be so small that only 1 out of every 1000 right-going photons is actually reflected into modes a3' and b3'. So, 999 right-going photons have been transmitted into modes a2' and b2'.
  
  In my eq.6, we observe that the 'quantum erasure' part is proportional to 'ra'. Let's say we choose 'ra' such that '|ra|squared', which gives the probability of this outcome, is 10 percent.
  
  This means that roughly 100 right-going photons have caused 'quantum erasure', for their 100 left-going partners, by mixing with the coherent states in a2' and b2'.
  
  Thus, "fringes" on the left will be formed that show a variation of up to 100 photons, as phase 'phi' is varied, between the two outputs of beam splitter BS0.
  
  Now, for this total batch of 1000 right-going photons, ONLY ONE PHOTON, roughly, has made it into a3' or b3' and mixed with the coherent states over there.
  
  So, even if that ONE PHOTON contributes to "anti-fringes" on the left, it could only produce a variation of, roughly, up to 1 photon, as 'phi is varied, between the two outputs of BS0....and that is nowhere near canceling the "fringe" effect, but can, at most, cause a minute reduction in the "fringe" visibility.
  
  JS: This seems to be a plausible rational intuitively understandable informal argument. Very nice. However, words alone without the math can be deceiving.
  
  DK: Please note that we can choose 'r' to be as small as we desire, i.e. we can arrange so that one out of every billion right-going photons can be reflected into a3' and b3' WHILE STILL MAINTAINING the '|ra|squared'=10percent value (by just cranking up the initial coherent state amplitude accordingly).
  
  I wrote this logical interpretation of my proposal in order to show that Nick's analysis goes wrong somewhere in predicting equal amplitudes for the "fringe" and "anti-fringe" terms.
  Demetrios
  
  JS: I do hope Demetrios will prove correct of course. Even Nick Herbert desires that. Is young Demetrios the new Arthur? Has he pulled the Sword from The Stone?

• 

  Jack Sarfatti Yes, Nick most likely the two terms cancel as you say at the end. The problem with all the attempts to derive entanglement signal nonlocality within orthodox quantum theory, is the neglect of relevant terms, which in the end as you show, cancel the result. I wrote at the beginning of this that such may happen here.
  
  Note, that this does not affect attempts as entanglement signal nonlocality using a more general nonlinear post-quantum theory as in Steven Weinberg's, Henry Stapp's and Antony Valentini's models.
  
  On Feb 6, 2013, at 4:32 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
  
  Demetrios--
  
  I have been calculating my own version of your KISS proposal
  using the state |U> = x|0> + y|1> instead of a coherent state with alpha amplitude
  as input to the beam splitter which you use. Using this state allows me to avoid
  approximations. But yours is a robust proposal and should be immune to approximations.
  
  Indeed I get the same result as you, making the approximation rx ---> 0 to eliminate a small |0>|1> term
  as do you. I calculate the amplitude of the quantum erasure term |1>|0>|1>|0> to be -trxy.
  
  Hence my result for the probability of the FTL effect is 1/2 |etrxy|^2
  which is comparable to your 1/2|etralpha|^2.
  
  So far so good. The KISS and KISS(U) calculations give compatible results. FTL signaling seems secure.
  
  ------------
  
  Next I decided to include the small term we both threw away. This means calculating the amplitude for
  the detector response |0>|1>|0>|1>.
  
  Imagine my surprise when I discovered that this (also a quantum erasure term by the way) amplitude is also trxy
  with a plus sign!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  One might think that this term will exactly cancel your former quantum erasure term and refute your KISS proposal.
  
  But I do not think that's the way it works. According to the Feynman rules you add amplitudes for indistinguishable paths,
  and add probabilities for distinguishable paths. Since the |1>|0>|1>|0> result is distinguishable from the |0>|1>|0>|1> result,
  it seems that the proper thing to do here is add probabilities rather than amplitudes. So not only do these two processes
  not cancel but THEY DOUBLE THE SIZE OF YOUR FTL EFFECT.
  
  At least that's the way I see it right now.
  
  Seems like my attempt to refute your proposal is traveling in the opposite direction.
  
  Thanks for the fun.
  
  Nick
  
  Part 2
  The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that this calculation refutes KISS.
  
  The amplitude for |1>|0>|1>|0> is "-trxy"and for |0>|1>|0>|1> is "+trxy".
  
  If you coincidence-trigger on the detector result |1>|0>|1>|0> you get fringes.
  
  If you coincidence-trigger on the detector result |0>|1>|0>|1> you get anti-fringes.
  
  If you do not coincidence-trigger you get an equal mixture of fringe and anti-fringe.
  
  QED: No FTL signaling.

  a few seconds ago · "}">Like

Jack Sarfatti This is hot. If the effect works it's the basis for a new Intel, Microsoft & Apple combined for those smart venture capitalists, physicists & engineers who get into it. This is as close as we have ever come since I started the ball rolling at Brandeis in 1960-61 & then in mid-70's see MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser's "How the Hippies Save Physics". I first saw this as a dim possibility in 1960 at Brandeis grad school and got into an intellectual fight about it with Sylvan Schweber and Stanley Deser. Then the flawed thought experiment published in the early editions of Gary Zukav's Dancing Wu Li Masters in 1979 - pictured in Hippies book tried to do what DK may now have actually done. That is, control the fringe visibility at one end of an entangled system from the other end without the need of a coincidence counter correlator after the fact. Of course, like Nick Herbert's FLASH at the same time late 70's, it was too naive to work and the nonlinear optics technology was not yet developed enough. We were far ahead of the curve as to the conceptual possibility of nonlocal retrocausal entanglement signaling starting 53 years ago at Brandeis when I was a National Defense Fellow Title IV graduate student.

Jack Sarfatti

about an hour ago near San Francisco
On Feb 5, 2013, at 12:28 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Thanks Nick. Keep up the good work. I hope to catch up with you on this soon. This may be a historic event of the first magnitude if the Fat Lady really sings this time and shatters the crystal goblet. On the Dark Side this may open Pandora's Box into a P.K. Dick Robert Anton Wilson reality with controllable delayed choice precognition technology. ;-)

On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:38 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Demetrios--

Looking over your wonderful paper I have detected one
inconsistency but it is not fatal to your argument.

On page 3 you drop two r terms because "alpha", the complex
amplitude of the coherent state can be arbitrarily large in
magnitude.

But on page 4 you reduce the magnitude of "alpha" so that
at most one photon is reflected. So now alpha cannot be
arbitrarily large in magnitude.

But this is just minor quibble in an otherwise superb argument.

This move does not affect your conclusion--which seems
to directly follow from application of the Feynman Rule: For distinguishable
outcomes, add probabilities; for indistinguishable outcomes, add amplitudes.

To help my own understanding of how your scheme works,
I have simplified your KISS proposal by replacing your coherent states with
the much simpler state |U> = x|0> + y|1>. I call this variation of your proposal KISS(U)

When this state |U> is mixed with the entangled states at the beamsplitters,
the same conclusion ensues: there are two |1>|1> results on Bob's side of the source
that cannot be distinguished -- and hence must be amplitude added.

The state |U> would be more difficult to prepare in the lab than a weak coherent state
but anything goes in a thought experiment. The main advantage of using state |U>
instead of coherent states is that the argument is simplified to its essence and needs
no approximations. Also the KISS(U) version shows that your argument is independent
of special properties possessed by coherent states such as overcompleteness and non-
orthogonality. The state |U> is both complete and orthogonal -- and works just as well
to prove your preposterous conclusion. --- that there is at least one way of making photon
measurements that violates the No-Signaling Theorem.

Thanks for injecting some fresh excitement into the FTL signaling conversation.

warm regards
Nick Herbert
Like · · Share
David Fernando López Torres, Keith Kenemer and 2 others like this.
View 1 more comment

Jack Sarfatti On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:

Nope, no refutation I can think of so far....and I've tried hard.
Demetrios
...See More
33 minutes ago · Like

Joe Ganser Jack do you know a lot of people at CUNY? I take ph.d classes there.
26 minutes ago · Like

Joe Ganser I'm interested in who may do these sorts of topics in NYC
25 minutes ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Daniel Greenberger!
9 minutes ago · Like · 1

a few seconds ago · Like

On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:

Nope, no refutation I can think of so far....and I've tried hard.
Demetrios

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 13:09:28 -0800
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Thanks, Demetrios. I understand now that alpha can be large
while alpha x r is made small. Also I notice that your FTL signaling scheme seems to work both ways. In your illustration the photons on the left side (Alice) are  combined at a 50/50 beam splitter so they cannot be used for which-way information. However if the 50/50 beamsplitter is removed, which-way info is present and the two versions of |1>|1> on the right-hand side (Bob) are now  distinguishable
and must be added incoherently, which presumably will give a  different answer and observably different behavior by Bob's  right-side detectors. So your scheme seems consistent -- FTL signals can be sent in either  direction.
This is looking pretty scary.
Do you happen to have a refutation up your sleeve
or are you just as baffled by this as the rest of us?
Nick

Therefore, Nick it is premature for you to claim that the full machinery of the Glauber coherent states, i.e. distinguishable over-complete non-orthogonality is not necessary for KISS to work. Let's not rush to judgement and proceed with caution. This technology, if it were to work is as momentous as the discovery of fire, the wheel, movable type, calculus, the steam engine, electricity, relativity, nuclear fission & fusion, Turing machine & Von Neumann's programmable computer concept, DNA, transistor, internet ...

On Feb 5, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:

Hi Nick,

 And thanks much for your careful examination of my scheme....however, there appears to be a misunderstanding.
 Let me explain:

"On page 3 you drop two r terms because "alpha", the complex amplitude of the coherent state can be arbitrarily large in magnitude."

I drop the two terms in eq.5b because they are proportional to 'r'....and 'r' approaches zero. However, the INITIAL INPUT amplitude, 'alpha', of each coherent state can be as large as we desire in order to get whatever SMALL BUT NONVANISHING AND SIGNIFICANT product 'r*alpha', which is related to the terms I retain.

In other words, for whatever 'r*alpha' we want, lets say 'r*alpha'=0.2, 'r' can be as close to zero as we want since we can always input a coherent state with large enough initial 'alpha' to give us the 0.2 amplitude that we want.

So, terms proportional to 'r' are vanishing, while terms proportional to 'r*alpha' are small but significant and observable.
You state:

"But on page 4 you reduce the magnitude of "alpha" so that at most one photon is reflected. So now alpha cannot be arbitrarily large in magnitude."

The magnitude of 'alpha' is for the INITIAL coherent states coming from a3 and b3, BEFORE they are split at BSa and BSb. It is this 'alpha' that is pre-adjusted, according to how small 'r' is, to give us an appropriately small reflected magnitude, i.e. 'r*alpha'=0.2, so that the "....weak coherent state containing at most one photon...." condition is reasonably valid.

Demetrios


On Feb 5, 2013, at 12:28 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Thanks Nick. Keep up the good work. I hope to catch up with you on this soon. This may be a historic event of the first magnitude if the Fat Lady really sings this time and shatters the crystal goblet. On the Dark Side this may open Pandora's Box into a P.K. Dick Robert Anton Wilson reality with controllable delayed choice precognition technology. ;-)

On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:38 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Demetrios--

Looking over your wonderful paper I have detected one
inconsistency but it is not fatal to your argument.

On page 3 you drop two r terms because "alpha", the complex
amplitude of the coherent state can be arbitrarily large in
magnitude.

But on page 4 you reduce the magnitude of "alpha" so that
at most one photon is reflected. So now alpha cannot be
arbitrarily large in magnitude.

But this is just minor quibble in an otherwise superb argument.

This move does not affect your conclusion--which seems
to directly follow from application of the Feynman Rule: For distinguishable
outcomes, add probabilities; for indistinguishable outcomes, add amplitudes.

To help my own understanding of how your scheme works,
I have simplified your KISS proposal by replacing your coherent states with
the much simpler state |U> = x|0> + y|1>. I call this variation of your proposal KISS(U)

When this state |U> is mixed with the entangled states at the beamsplitters,
the same conclusion ensues: there are two |1>|1> results on Bob's side of the source
that cannot be distinguished -- and hence must be amplitude added.

The state |U> would be more difficult to prepare in the lab than a weak coherent state
but anything goes in a thought experiment. The main advantage of using state |U>
instead of coherent states is that the argument is simplified to its essence and needs
no approximations. Also the KISS(U) version shows that your argument is independent
of special properties possessed by coherent states such as overcompleteness and non-
orthogonality. The state |U> is both complete and orthogonal -- and works just as well
to prove your preposterous conclusion. --- that there is at least one way of making photon
measurements that violates the No-Signaling Theorem.

Thanks for injecting some fresh excitement into the FTL signaling conversation.

warm regards
Nick Herbert

• 
  On Feb 3, 2013, at 12:42 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
  
  Fred, I think you are making an error here. The vacuum |0> is as good a state as |1> in Fock space for a given mode-radiation oscillator. DK's eq. 1 is a FOUR PHOTON state - two REAL PHOTONS & TWO VIRTUAL PHOTONS
  
  Note also that Glauber coherent states use |0> in an fundamental way.
  
  quantum optics interferometer experiments use the |0> states e.g. papers by Carlton Caves
  
  http://info.phys.unm.edu/~caves/
  
  http://info.phys.unm.edu/~caves/research.html
  
  http://info.phys.unm.edu/~caves/talks/talks.html
  
  
  Search Results
  [PDF] Quantum-limited measurements: One physicist's crooked path from ...
  www.phys.virginia.edu/Announcements/Seminars/.../S1466.pd...
  File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
  physicist's crooked path from quantum optics to quantum information. I. Introduction. II. Squeezed states and optical interferometry. III. ... Carlton M. Caves ...
  [PDF] Quantum metrology - University of New Mexico
  info.phys.unm.edu/~caves/talks/qmetrologylectures.pdf
  File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
  Carlton M. Caves. Center for Quantum ... Ramsey interferometry, cat states, and spin squeezing. Carlton M. ... Weinstein, and N. Mavalvala, Nature Physics 4, ...
  
  
  
  On Feb 3, 2013, at 12:26 PM, fred alan wolf <fawolf@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
  
      Nick and Demetrios, basic quantum physics tells me that eq. 1 of
  KISS is a 4-photon state. That is my point. Let the Hamiltonian go. Ergo, to
  claim it as 2-photon state cannot be correct. Eq. 1 says something about
  phases as well.  If I write a quantum wave function as a sum over i of
  |ai>|bi>|ci>|di> then there must be 4 objects, not two, regardless of how
  large is i.  Even if |ai> is a sum of possibilities such as (|A1>+|A2>) and
  similarly for the bi, ci and di states, I still can't get this to reduce to
  a sum over two particle states.  Nicht wahr?     So I am confused how you both seem to see this as OK as far as
  quantum physics is concerned.
  
      Jack, do you or do you not see my point?   
  Best Wishes,
  
  Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D.  aka Dr. Quantum ®

   

  Jack Sarfatti Hi all,
  
  I'll quickly respond to Fred's question. The state in eq.1 is perfectly legitimate and has been experimentally realized already.
  In this scheme it is tacitly assumed that the source S is a down-conversion source, since this is by far the main way in which entangled photon pairs are created. These sources need a pump to stimulate the nonlinear medium (i.e. down-conversion crystal).
  Usually about one in every million pump photons are split into an entangled pair, each photon of which comes out at a specific angle and energy. The way to create two photons in modes a1a2 is to have the pump come from the bottom and pass upward; the way to create two photons in modes b1b2 is the BACK-REFLECT the same pump downward through the crystal again.
  So,each run of the experiment is ONE DOUBLE-PASS of the pump through the crystal....most of the times you get nothing and, to very good approximation, the rest of the time you get one pair created (either in a1a2 or b1b2)....Of course there is also the far smaller amplitude of creating two pairs (one in a1a2 and one in b1b2, or two in a1a2, or two in b1b2)....according to the expansion of the Hamiltonian....but these are negligible terms and do not affect the outcomes in all these entanglement experiments.
  Demetrios

  5 minutes ago · "}">Like
• 

  Jack Sarfatti On Feb 3, 2013, at 11:48 AM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
  
  I agree with Nick.
  
  On Feb 3, 2013, at 11:25 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
  
  No need for Hamiltonians, Fred.
  The KISS proposal is as simple as LEGOs.
  Every part of it is something
  THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEMONSTRATED IN A LAB.
  
  Kalamidas has put these existing Legos together
  in an imaginative way that seems to permit
  superluminal signaling.
  
  But probably does not.
  
  If you, Fred, are waiting for a Hamiltonian formulation
  of this experiment you will be waiting for a long time
  and will have essentially disconnected yourself
  from the KISS adventure.
  
  Nick Herbert
  KISS = Kalamidas's Instant Signaling Scheme
  ---- end of Nick's message above, I wrote:
  OK there are two separate issues here.
  
  Question 1: Fred if DK's wave function
  
  Could be made, then do you agree with DK's logic for the rest of the paper.
  
  I think the above wave function is perfectly legitimate in principle although whether one can make it in the lab is another question.
  
  (1) is perfectly sensible in quantum field theory in Fock space.
  
  There are four radiation oscillators with two real photons and two zero point photons distributed among them. The vacuum states |0> are legitimate states.
  
  Question 2. Accepting (1) is DK's logic etc. correct? I think Nick Herbert is working on that question.
  
  I personally am still thinking about the whole thing looking at Mandel as well and trying to understand the whole thing better.
  
  My previous work on the Glauber state distinguishable non-orthogonality loop hole in the no-signaling belief is generally compatible with the spirit of what DK is proposing. I mean
  
  On Feb 3, 2013, at 9:53 AM, fred alan wolf wrote:
  
  Guys and girls,
  
  I don't believe this will work simply because to my knowledge there is no foundation based on quantum physics which supports this initial supposedly 2-particle quantum wave function. What Hamiltonian does it solve? You can always invent quantum wave functions (which are not connected to reality) but to claim this one (which apparently uses 4 photons not 2) has solved the ftl problem is simply bad physics as I see it. If I am wrong here, will somebody explain how this quantum wave function is a two body quantum wave function? Can you show me the Hamiltonian it is solution for?
  
  Best Wishes,
  
  Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D. aka Dr. Quantum

  a few sec

5. Thanks Nick. What would Santa do without you in his workshop? ;-)
   Looks good. Remember I have been stressing the relevance of Glauber coherent states.
   They are obviously distinguishably non-orthogonal & over-complete.
   
   
   On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:48 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
   
   Demetrios--
   
   Congratulations again on your clever FTL-signaling scheme.
   
   I am busy constructing (on my white board) your thought experiment
   using my own notation.
   
   First: I hope you do not mind the acronym I have chosen for this project = KISS
   
   KISS = Kalamidas's Instant Signaling Scheme.
   
   Second: It has become conventional to imagine these signals sent between Alice and Bob.
   So everything on left side should be labeled "A" and on the right side "B".
   
   Since A and B photons are delivered into two (entangled) modes, I have chosen to label these modes U and D (for Up and Down). In this labeling convention the basic entangled state vector |ES> becomes
   
   |ES> = |1>(AU)|0>(AD)|1>(BU) |0>(BD)  + |0>(AU)|1>(AD)|0>(BU)|1>(BD)
   
   or (dropping the subscripts)
   
   |ES> = |1>|0>|1>|0> + |0>|1>|0>|1>
   
   which is essentially your (unnormalized) EQ 1.
   
   Also it is conventional for beam-splitter modes to be labeled 1, 2, 3, 4
   where 1 and 2 are inputs and 3 and 4 are outputs.
   
   So for my thought experiment I will label the 4 modes of Bob's two beam splitters U and D
   as |U1>, |U2>, |U3>, |U4> and |D1>, |D2>, |D3> and |D4> with a similar convention for the 50/50 beamsplitter encountered by Alice's photons.
   
   I like your clever use of coherent states to muddle the which-way question. But instead of inputting coherent states at  Bob's beamsplitters U and D, I will be inputting the coherent XYZ states |BU> and |BD>
   
   where |BU> = x|0> + y|1> + z|2>
   
   and |BD> has a similar definition.
   
   These are truncated coherent states sufficient to produce the ambiguities you claim will lead to coincidence-less, Bob-controllable interference in Alice's 50/50 beamsplitter and are easier to calculate than the infinite sums of real coherent states.
   
   Thanks for the opportunity to return to the algebra of few photons on an asymmetric beam splitter. And for the chance to reformulate your clever KISS experiment in terms that make sense to me.
   
   I am always looking for (high quality) work to do.
   
   And your KISS proposal is both of high quality and within my modest abilities for calculating quantum outcomes.
   
   warm regards
   Nick Herbert
   http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com
   

    

   If this paper proves correct in the lab, it vindicates my struggle since 1960 or so that MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser has recorded for history in his book "How the Hippies Saved Physics." This will be a science-technology revolution worth billions if not trillions of dollars for visionary venture capitalists.
   "Proposal for a feasible quantum-optical experiment to test the validity of the no-signaling theorem
   Demetrios A. Kalamidas
   4 Raith USA, 2805 Veterans Memorial Hwy, Ronkonkoma, New York 11779, USA (dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu)
   Received November 29, 2012; accepted January 17, 2013;
   posted January 24, 2013 (Doc. ID 180742)
   Motivated by a proposal from [Phys. Scr. T76, 57 (1998)] for superluminal signaling and inspired by an experiment
   from [Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 318 (1991)] showing interference effects within multiparticle entanglement without
   coincidence detection, we propose a feasible quantum-optical experiment that purports to manifest the capacity
   for superluminal transfer of information between distant parties." © 2013 Optical Society of America
   OCIS codes: 270.4180, 270.5290, 270.5565, 270.5585.

    

   "Numerous experiments to date, mainly in the quantum-optical domain, seem to strongly support the notion of an inherent nonlocality pertaining to certain multiparticle quantum mechanical processes. However, with apparently equal support, this time from a theoretical perspective, it is held that these nonlocal “influences” cannot be exploited to produce superluminal transfer of information between distant parties. The theoretical objection to superluminal communication, via quantum mechanical multiparticle entanglement, is essentially encapsulated by the “no-signaling theorem” [1]. So, it is within this context that we present a scheme whose mathematical description leads to a result that directly contradicts the no-signaling theorem and manifests, using only the standard quantum mechanical formalism, the capacity for superluminal transmission of information."

5. If this paper proves correct in the lab, it vindicates my struggle since 1960 or so that MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser has recorded for history in his book "How the Hippies Saved Physics." This will be a science-technology revolution worth billions if not trillions of dollars for visionary venture capitalists.
   "Proposal for a feasible quantum-optical experiment to test the validity of the no-signaling theorem
   Demetrios A. Kalamidas
   4 Raith USA, 2805 Veterans Memorial Hwy, Ronkonkoma, New York 11779, USA (dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu)
   Received November 29, 2012; accepted January 17, 2013;
   posted January 24, 2013 (Doc. ID 180742)
   Motivated by a proposal from [Phys. Scr. T76, 57 (1998)] for superluminal signaling and inspired by an experiment
   from [Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 318 (1991)] showing interference effects within multiparticle entanglement without
   coincidence detection, we propose a feasible quantum-optical experiment that purports to manifest the capacity
   for superluminal transfer of information between distant parties." © 2013 Optical Society of America
   OCIS codes: 270.4180, 270.5290, 270.5565, 270.5585.

   Like · · Share

   • David Southwell, Josh Everett and Christopher Greenchild like this.
   • 

     Write a comment...
6. • 
     David Brin
   • 
     Nick Herbert
   • 
     Uri Geller
   • 
     Nicole Tedesco
   • 
     Kim Burrafato
7. Photos

   See All
8. 

On Feb 1, 2013, at 8:10 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Demetrios--

I'm already assembling a thought experiment in my head.
The nicest thing about thought experiments is that
all the sources and detectors are ideal
and work perfectly every time.

If we can't find a flaw using thought experiments
then physicists in every optics lab on Earth
will stampede
to be the first to observe
the Kalamidas Effect.

And reap the rewards.

Nick


On Feb 1, 2013, at 7:30 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:

Nick, you state:
"Although all of the parts of this experiment are
possible the whole experiment itself would be quite difficult."
  It would indeed be a technically challenging experiment, on the order of complexity of Zeilinger's recent Canary Islands teleportation stuff, IF the required distance to achieve the superluminality condition is sought for....
HOWEVER, if this bizarre effect is observed in just a table-top version, on the order of one meter, it will be extremely strong evidence that the same effect will be seen even if we stretch out the left and right wings to 10s or 100s of miles....there is no change in the nature of the set-up by doing this.
   The superluminality condition in my set-up is achieved when the distance is large enough for an observer, on the left, to statistically distinguish a "1" from a "0" before a classical and luminal signal gets there (and that is just a function of the efficiency of my scheme and technology).
Demetrios



On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 19:02:04 -0800
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Well it isn't going to work.
But we may learn something
by seeing where it fails.
Although all of the parts of this experiment are possible
the whole experiment itself would be quite difficult.
Thought experiments are easier and cheaper
and don't need any hardware
except the human mind
and some paper and pencils.
So real experiment is premature.
On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:55 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Nose to the grindstone Nick!
I await your penetrating analysis.
If this worked it would be a Brave New World. ;-)
I have been preoccupied with Jim Woodward's Star Ship book and have  only been giving this partial attention.

On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:44 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Demetrios--

Clever. And of course--if it works -- there exist an optimum  product alpha x r that maximizes the Kalamidas Effect.
I can't offhand refute it but now that I understand what you're doing
I will certainly try.

Thanks, Jack, for sending me this clever FTL scheme.

Nick



On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:00 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:

Hi Nick,

  Yes....you got the main point of what I'm trying to do.
In Mandel's experiment, the "two halves" in which an idler photon  can exist are collapsed into a single path such that the origin  of the idler is "in principle" impossible to determine....we  don't even need any detectors in that idler path to destructively  register a photon.
  I am doing an analogous action by "blurring" each of the two  halves (modes a2 and b2),in which a right-going photon can exist,  with an indefinite photon number so that again, albeit in a less  efficient and more noisy way, we cannot SOMETIMES tell, even in  principle, if that right-going photon existed in mode a2 or in  mode b2.
  The "sometimes" part is, namely, the outcome |1>a2'|1>b2'  since it could be that: the photon in a2' came from the entangled  pair while the photon in b2' came from a weak coherent state !OR!  the photon in a2' came from a weak coherent state while the  photon in b2' came from the entangled pair.
  We DO NOT NEED ANY DETECTORS on the right wing of the experiment, as in Mandel's set-up. In my scenario, the possible  outcomes in modes a2' and b2' (in terms of photon number) are:  01,10,11,02,20,12,21 which are all "in principle"  distinguishable, with the only caveat being that the outcome "11"  has the special effect of erasing the path information of a left- going photon (which in turn leads to a small amount of  interference on the left).
Demetrios



On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:56:00 -0800
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Demetrios--
I am trying to understand your device.
You seem to be trying to erase the "which path" info
without combining the two possible paths.
How are you doing this?
For clarity I assume your detectors are perfect
and measure the Number of Photons in
each two-photon entangled event.
In any ordinary experiment that number (or either side a or b)  must  be One.
And where that One Photon ends up can indicate
Which Path or Which Interference Pattern depending on design.
Both of these designs involve coincidence detection.
If I understand your proposal
you attempt to erase the which-path info
by adding (via a biased beam splitter)
a coherent state to each possibility channel.
Since coherent states possess an indefinite photon number
the number of photons that appear at the detectors is also  indefinite
and the observer cannot decide
which path the photon took
no matter what the reading of the detectors.
Is this how your device works?
Nick
On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:51 PM, nick herbert wrote:
Each single photon of the pair is produced in a SUPERPOSITION
of a and b directions. Observation of "which path" can collapse  the
superposition into either a or b but (in conventional experiments)
these collapses (in the absence of coincidence signals) appear
to occur at random.

Destroying the path information by conventional means
(say, combining a and b in a beam splitter) does not
produce interference by itself but can do so if coincidence
signals are introduced.

DAK claims that by adding coherent states to the separated
halves of the superposition, that he can destroy "which path"
information in a manner that produces "weak interference"
without resorting to coincidence signals.


On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:

Hi guys,
....and thanks for the interest in my idea....and SORRY! Fred  for  not getting back to you, I've been traveling all last  week and  this week for my job....I'm responding from an MIT  computer right  now (as I'm working).

Let me try to quickly clarify some points:
  The source S produces only SINGLE PAIRS of photons, with a   photon pair created in modes a1a2 !OR! b1b2.
   In Mandel's experiment, it is the overlap of the two idler  modes causes erasure of the 'which-way' info for a  signal photon.  I wanted to find an 'unfolded' version of this  concept so that  space-like separation could be achieved.
  The method that, I purport, does the job of erasing the  'which- way' info for a left-going photon (that could be in  EITHER mode a1  OR in mode b1) is that the corresponding modes, a2 and b2, are  'mixed' with weak coherent states (each  having at most one photon)  such that, sometimes, we'll get  one photon in each of the two  output modes, a2' and b2', and  this makes it impossible to tell  where each of these two  photons came from.  If the math is valid,  this procedure  leads to a small amount of 'pure state' on the left wing of  the experiment....as opposed to the completely mixed state   that would arise if the coherent states were absent and only  the  two-photon state from S was present.
  I'll try to keep up with any further comments, questions,  and  discussions.
Demetrios



On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:03:37 -0800
JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
PS
OK the two coherent state inputs replace Mandel's idler photons.  So when you include a3 & b3 with the original pair  from S you  have 4-photon states in the Hilbert space two of  them are Glauber  states and the original pair are Fock states.
Begin forwarded message:
On Jan 30, 2013, at 12:56 PM, JACK SARFATTI   <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
Wait a second, he has 4 photons s1, i1, s2, i2 - at least in  the  Mandel experiment
However, you & Fred are right, Kalamidas's picture is  confusing  it seems to show only two photons, but he cites  Mandel, so does  he actually have 4 photons - two signal &  two idler like Mandel?  On Jan 30, 2013, at 12:41 PM, nick  herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>  wrote:
Fred Wolf is right. Like the original EPR this is a TWO- PARTICLE experiment -- one particle going to the left and  one  particle going to the right in each elemental  emission. If  DAK's argument depends on seeing this as a 4- particle  experiment, then DAK is certainly WRONG.
Nick Herbert
On Jan 29, 2013, at 10:22 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Thanks Fred.
I hadn't thought to check out his starting point Eq. 1 I only  looked at Eq. 6. These experiments are tricky. I  have not yet  understood the details. Hopefully Nick &  others will chime in.  Begin forwarded message:
From: "fred alan wolf" <fawolf@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: RE: PPS Demetrios A. Kalamidas's new claim for superluminal entanglement communication looks obvious at second sight
Date: January 28, 2013 11:11:31 PM PST
To: "'JACK SARFATTI'" <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
            Of course it is wrong for some serious and perhaps not so obvious reason.  He has confused a four  photon  state with an entanglement of two entangled (two)  particle  states. He approached me and I explained why it  was wrong.  Here is my explanation sent to him to which he has not  responded:
“Thanks for the paper.  Following Zeilinger’s paper   (attached) I am having some trouble understanding your  eq. 1.  If I understand it correctly you are using a  path  entanglement scheme similar to the one illustrated in  Zeilinger’s attached paper (p S290).  Therefore I  think you  should have  a1 entangled with b2 and a2  entangled with b1.  We would get e.g., (|a1>|b2>+ |b1>| a2>)/Ö2. Given that |a1> =  (|0>+exp(iphi)|1>)/Ö2, and  similarly for a2, b1, and b2, I  fail to see how you get your eq. 1, which seems to be some  kind of mixed four  photon state.”     Best Wishes,
Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D.  aka Dr. Quantum ®

Jack Sarfatti

a few seconds ago near San Francisco

"in a manner that produces "weak interference" without resorting to coincidence signals."
Yes Nick, but is it true? - is the 64 trillion dollar question. ;-)
On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:51 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Each single photon of the pair is produced in a SUPERPOSITION
of a and b directions. Observation of "which path" can collapse the
superposition into either a or b but (in conventional experiments)
these collapses (in the absence of coincidence signals) appear
to occur at random.
Destroying the path information by conventional means
(say, combining a and b in a beam splitter) does not
produce interference by itself but can do so if coincidence
signals are introduced.
DAK claims that by adding coherent states to the separated
halves of the superposition, that he can destroy "which path"
information in a manner that produces "weak interference"
without resorting to coincidence signals.
On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:30 PM, $ wrote:
Hi guys,
....and thanks for the interest in my idea....and SORRY! Fred for not getting back to you, I've been traveling all last week and this week for my job....I'm responding from an MIT computer right now (as I'm working).
Let me try to quickly clarify some points:
The source S produces only SINGLE PAIRS of photons, with a photon pair created in modes a1a2 !OR! b1b2.
In Mandel's experiment, it is the overlap of the two idler modes causes erasure of the 'which-way' info for a signal photon. I wanted to find an 'unfolded' version of this concept so that space-like separation could be achieved.
The method that, I purport, does the job of erasing the 'which-way' info for a left-going photon (that could be in EITHER mode a1 OR in mode b1) is that the corresponding modes, a2 and b2, are 'mixed' with weak coherent states (each having at most one photon) such that, sometimes, we'll get one photon in each of the two output modes, a2' and b2', and this makes it impossible to tell where each of these two photons came from. If the math is valid, this procedure leads to a small amount of 'pure state' on the left wing of the experiment....as opposed to the completely mixed state that would arise if the coherent states were absent and only the two-photon state from S was present.
I'll try to keep up with any further comments, questions, and discussions.
Demetrios
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:03:37 -0800
JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
PS
OK the two coherent state inputs replace Mandel's idler photons. So when you include a3 & b3 with the original pair from S you have 4-photon states in the Hilbert space two of them are Glauber states and the original pair are Fock states.
Begin forwarded message:
On Jan 30, 2013, at 12:56 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
Wait a second, he has 4 photons s1, i1, s2, i2 - at least in the Mandel experiment
However, you & Fred are right, Kalamidas's picture is confusing it seems to show only two photons, but he cites Mandel, so does he actually have 4 photons - two signal & two idler like Mandel?

On Jan 30, 2013, at 12:41 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Fred Wolf is right. Like the original EPR this is a TWO-PARTICLE experiment -- one particle going to the left and one particle going to the right in each elemental emission. If DAK's argument depends on seeing this as a 4-particle experiment, then DAK is certainly WRONG.
Nick Herbert

On Jan 29, 2013, at 10:22 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Thanks Fred.
I hadn't thought to check out his starting point Eq. 1 I only looked at Eq. 6. These experiments are tricky. I have not yet understood the details. Hopefully Nick & others will chime in. Begin forwarded message:

From: "fred alan wolf" <fawolf@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: RE: PPS Demetrios A. Kalamidas's new claim for superluminal entanglement communication looks obvious at second sight
Date: January 28, 2013 11:11:31 PM PST
To: "'JACK SARFATTI'" <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Of course it is wrong for some serious and perhaps not so obvious reason. He has confused a four photon state with an entanglement of two entangled (two) particle states. He approached me and I explained why it was wrong. Here is my explanation sent to him to which he has not responded:
“Thanks for the paper. Following Zeilinger’s paper (attached) I am having some trouble understanding your eq. 1. If I understand it correctly you are using a path entanglement scheme similar to the one illustrated in Zeilinger’s attached paper (p S290). Therefore I think you should have a1 entangled with b2 and a2 entangled with b1. We would get e.g., (|a1>|b2>+ |b1>|a2>)/Ö2. Given that |a1> = (|0>+exp(iphi)|1>)/Ö2, and similarly for a2, b1, and b2, I fail to see how you get your eq. 1, which seems to be some kind of mixed four photon state.” Best Wishes,
Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D. aka Dr. Quantum

JS: Nick you continually miss the key points here.
Of course presponse & RV are not orthodox physics experiments.
However, Helmut Schmidt's retro-PK experiments were and Henry Stapp published a paper in Phys Rev A about them for which they would have hung him if they could - You know who I mean.

The RetroPsychoKinesis Project
www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/
Retropsychokinesis experiments are now on-line. ... Channeling evidence for a PKeffect to independent observers by H. Schmidt, ... Henry Stapp's controversial 1994 modification of quantum mechanics which accomodates RPK-phenomena. Stapp acted as an independent observer on some of Helmut Schmidt's more ...
Observation of a PK effect under highly controlled conditions
www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/observ.html
by H SCHMIDT - Cited by 35 - Related articles
By HELMUT SCHMIDT ... The discovery of PK effects on prerecorded random events (Schmidt, 1976) did not .... of the subject in the test session has a retroactive effect on the moment the random events were generated (Schmidt, 1975, 1978). ..... Henry Stapp is a theoretical physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.


Physical reality is bigger than orthodox physics experiments done so far.

On Aharonov's claims. I say his retrocausal INFORMAL LANGUAGE (Bohm) interpretation is TRUE, but Godel-undecidable within the algorithmic RULES of the orthodox quantum physics GAME.

Get out of your box. Think more like a homicide detective - presponse, remote viewing are CLUES.

On Dec 21, 2012, at 12:32 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

NH: You may choose to muddy the waters, Jack.
by citing other non-physics experiments.
But restricting the topic to Aharonov's claims.
Even smart people make mistakes.
Smart people learn from their mistakes.
Dumb people never do.

Jack:  Have you learned from yours? ;-) Nick u also miss my logical point here as well as the significance of the presponse data. The presponse data + your friend Russell Targ's published evidence on CIA vetted precognitive remote viewing proves that real retrocausality is the fundamental fact of nature even though it is covered up encrypted as it were (passion at a distance) in the orthodox quantum limit. Now you can simply deny the validity of the presponse data and say that Radin, Bierman, Bem, Targ, May et-al are bad scientists and that their data is bogus. Indeed that's what James Randi et-al will say if pushed to the wall.
We then have a religious paradigm war like the Shias and the Wahabbis ;-)
Of course, the real proof in the pudding will be conscious AI nano-chips based on Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality" but no one will try to make them if they believe what you believe - a bias against the very notion.

On Dec 21, 2012, at 11:50 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

NH: On the interpretation of weak delayed-choice measurements as retro-causal: given three choices: necessary, sufficient or mistaken, Nick Herbert votes
(along with Kastner) for "mistaken".

On Dec 21, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:


REK: If the fancy new experiments don't require it, then it shouldn't be claimed that they have demonstrated it. And remember that the fancy new experiments have no different ontological status than any other  qm experiment. There is no new physics here and certainly nothing
meriting an invoking of  'back from the future' as pertaining only to those experiments, as the popular press keeps suggesting. This is all hype and nothing more.

RK
________________________________________
From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 2:20 AM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Retrocausality is a sufficient but not a necessary explanation in orthodox quantum theory

Jack: They do not require, it i.e. retrocausality is not necessary, it is sufficient. Invoking retrocausality does not contradict any orthodox quantum experiments. Retrocausality is a true Godel undecidable proposition within the too limited rules of the orthodox quantum theory game.


On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

REK: Jack, you'll need to say which argument you're talking about. If it's the claim in the abstract from the arxiv preprint I mentioned (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6224), yes, all the results
are nicely predicted by ordinary qm and do not require 2-state formalism as 'the only 'reasonable resolution' as claimed by Aharonov et al in that abstract. In fact the alleged 'contradictions' that they claim need 'resolution' are spurious; under a standard qm analysis, which I've already provided, there are no special problems or contradictions that need 'resolving' by recourse to a different formulation.

Jack: As I said. Yakir & Co only have an argument of sufficiency of the retrocausal interpretation in which psi* is a post-selected advanced destiny influence and psi is the pre-selected retarded history influence colliding as it were in the intermediate weak measurement. Since orthodox quantum theory is degenerate in this regard, i.e. admits a meta-Hilbert space of Godel undecidable Bohmian "informal languages" or interpretations, e.g.

1) Copenhagen epistemological

2) Bohm ontological

3) Parallel Worlds (Tegmark Level 3)

4) Cramer Transactional

5) London-Wigner consciousness reduction --> Penrose Orch OR

etc.

Only strong signal nonlocality in Antony Valentini's sense can settle the issue.

Libet --> Radin --> Bierman --> Bem

I claim is clear evidence for the breakdown of orthodox quantum theory in living matter.

Quantum theory is only limiting case of a more general post-quantum theory as special relativity was for general relativity.

REK: So they are taking something that is perfectly sensible under standard qm and making it seem strange and obscure to create an apparent need for their formulation. There are no special problems with these experimental phenomena under a standard qm analysis. It all boils down to steering of quantum systems (by way of weak measurements) into tilted error states more likely to give certain 'strong' outcomes. So of course the strong outcomes are more likely to have come from the weakly measured states which lean toward those outcomes. It's just the shoe factory analogy: If Alice is known to have a high rate of defective shoe production on Saturdays (because she partied too hard the night before), if Bob gets a Saturday shipment, he's going to find that more of those shoes are defective. That doesn't indicate that Bob's identification of a particular defective shoe forces that shoe to retroactively have been (probably) made on a Saturday the week before. It just means that it's more likely to have been made on a Saturday. This is all ordinary statistical inference,
no different conceptually from my inferring that in the past you interacted with your computer because I got an email from you. My getting that email did not retroactively influence you to have done something in the past. Neither do any of the fancy experiments referred to recently in the popular press require a 'back from the future' explanation.

Jack: They do not require, it i.e. retrocausality is not necessary, it is sufficient. Invoking retrocausality does not contradict any orthodox quantum experiments. Retrocausality is a true Godel undecidable proposition within the too limited rules of the orthodox quantum theory game.

REK: Rather than the 'back from the future' explanation being more 'elegant' or 'simpler' as 2-state vector proponents claim, it is tendentious and misleading since it's based on taking results perfectly consistent with standard qm and trying to argue that they require something beyond standard qm. They don't. Remember the shoe factory. Now if someone gets reliable statistically significant deviation from the Born Rule, that's a completely different matter: in that case, both standard qm and the 2-state formulation fail.

Jack: I think the history-destiny picture naturally generalizes to include signal nonlocality - that's what John Cramer claims in his back from the future experiment and in Chapter 16 of Frontiers of Propulsion Science.

________________________________________
From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 1:16 AM
To: Kafatos, Menas

Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

That's what I have been saying. However Ruth seems to think her argument refutes Yakir's
It doesn't Difference in logic between a sufficient explanation and a necessary one.


Sent from my iPad mini

On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:07 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:

I agree with Ruth, they are not by themselves.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:33 AM, "Ruth Elinor Kastner" <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

Ok Jack -- the only thing I question is holding up these experiments in the popular press as evidence of retrocausality -- they aren't.

RK
________________________________________
From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:25 PM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 20, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

The presponse data is a separate issue from what's going on in the experiments referred to by CL.

Jack:  Agreed The retrocausal phenomenon is moot in orthodox qm
Yakir agrees with that
The presponse data is a violation of it
So orthodox qm is not interesting for retrocausality
What Yakir shows is that there is no contradiction
It's like lifting a degeneracy in the meta Hilbert space of parallel qm interpretations

REK: I don't rule out that humans might be able to get around QM statistics and that there may be other physics out there, but my point is just that
_these experiments do not contain that new physics_. These experiments are perfectly consistent with standard QM without explicit retrocausality.
Therefore, of course they are also consistent with TI as an interpretation of standard QM. Yes in TI there are advanced states but these are sub-empirical; i.e.
their existence cannot be revealed/confirmed by experiment- -- at least not by these experiments. On the other hand, Valentini's work predicts deviations from standard QM (i.e. Born Rule).

Jack: That's my point.

REK: Only if there is deviation from the Born Rule is there truly
new quantum physics in this sense. In terms of the Transactional Interpretation, deviation from the Born Rule would mean that there might be some way to directly influence _which_ transaction is actualized from a set of possible ones.

Jack: Cramer say that in ch 16
I prove it using entangled Glauber states

________________________________________
From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:59 PM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

Right I still have not had time to respond properly in depth
But your critique noted
Crucial test is presponse evidence u ignore
Also Russ Targ's CIA RV SRI report
John Cramer disagrees w you in ch 16 of exotic propulsion book
I mean your not addressing issue that qm is limit of more general theory with entanglement signaling.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

I've seen a discussion elsewhere about these kinds of experiments. As soon as you detect a single particle (say Alice's), a one-particle Alice state is necessarily detected
and actualized on Alice's side, even if nobody 'looked' at it (i.e. even if there is still epistemic uncertainty about what state was actualized) and that
collapses the pair (both Alice's and Bob's particles) in that particular run into a particular state . Then the subsequent measurements you perform on Bob's particle
will reflect the statistics of the state that was created via the detection of Alice's particle.

In the experiments involving a superposition of the interferometer mirror in a 'which-slit' and 'both slits' configuration, detection of Alice's particle projects that combined system of Alice + Bob + IFM mirror into a particular state, and then detection of the mirror in a particular state further projects Bob's particle into a particular state corresponding to the mirror's detection, so of course Bob's particle is later detected with statistics reflecting those earlier detections.

No explicit retrocausality is necessarily present in these kinds of experiments.
The claims are usually overstated based on a conflation of any given individual run with the statistical analysis of sets of runs.

RK
________________________________________
From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
To: Levit, Creon (ARC-P)
Cc: Kim Burrafato; Ruth Elinor Kastner; Fred Wolf; Daniel Sheehan; Nick Herbert; Saul Paul Sirag; Menas Kafatos
Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

I know about this and I think kim already has it posted on Stardrive

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:26 AM, "Levit, Creon (ARC-P)" <creon.levit@nasa.gov> wrote:

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html#nRlv

Thanks. :-)

So if mental information is stored as qubits in a giant quantum wave function (Higgs-Goldstone macro quantum coherent Glauber state order parameter of a spontaneous broken symmetry ground state of quasiparticles in brain as in Vitiello's theory for example), entangled macro-quantum coherent Glauber states etc. - but with Valentini's signal nonlocality beyond orthodox quantum theory, then we have what we have been looking for since CIA SRI 1970's - remote viewing et-al in sight.
A
At Stanford Research Institute

by H. E. Puthoff, Ph.D.
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin
4030 Braker Lane W., #300
Austin, Texas 78759-5329

Abstract - In July 1995 the CIA declassified, and approved for release, documents revealing its sponsorship in the 1970s of a program at Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, CA, to determine whether such phenomena as remote viewing "might have any utility for intelligence collection" [1]. Thus began disclosure to the public of a two-decade-plus involvement of the intelligence community in the investigation of so-called parapsychological or psi phenomena. Presented here by the program's Founder and first Director (1972 - 1985) is the early history of the program, including discussion of some of the first, now declassified, results that drove early interest.
 
http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

From Publishers Weekly
Building on the insights in his Quantum Reality , Herbert proposes that mind, instead of being localized in our brains, is a phenomenon as deeply imbedded in nature as light or electricity. Three basic features of the universe predicted by quantum mechanics--randomness, the interconnectedness of all phenomena, and thinglessness (quantum objects do not possess attributes of their own)--were rejected by Albert Einstein, but to Herbert, a Stanford-trained physicist, each of these features of matter is a manifestation of a corresponding basic trait of mind: free will, deep psychic connectedness, and ambiguity. A skillful popularizer, Herbert scrutinizes recent brain research, reviews highly conjectural quantum models of mind, and outlines his own theory of "quantum animism" in which mind permeates the world and interacts with matter at the quantum level, which, if true, might help explain paranormal phenomena. Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Kirkus Reviews
A physicist's daring investigation of mind and its relation to matter. According to Herbert (Quantum Reality, 1985, etc.), the famous ``Turing test''--in which a computer is considered to be conscious if it can talk like a human being--``misses the point.'' The true measure of consciousness is ``inner experience,'' which robots and computers just don't have. But what is inner experience--and how does it arise? In this wide- ranging study, Herbert looks at consciousness from ``inside'' (our felt experience of sensations, emotions, memory, etc.) and ``outside'' (how scientists perceive the brain). Two basic models arise: monism (matter and mind are one) and dualism (matter and mind are separate). Although Herbert never baldly states his position, he enthuses at length over a new twist on dualism that he calls ``quantum mind.'' Drawing on subatomic physics, he finds the mind to possess free will and ``connectedness'' with other minds. A fistful of odd experiments back up his argument, ranging from the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment--which seems to demonstrate the reality of nonlocal connections--to his own invention of a ``metaphase typewriter'' driven by quantum events, through which ``discarnate beings'' can send messages to the human sphere. Future experiments, Herbert suggests, might include telepathy machines and spirit communicators--all logical, if startling, extensions of the basic premise that mind is as fundamental and free as matter. Leading edge or lunatic fringe? Opinions will differ, but Herbert proves to be a reliable guide on this journey through the looking glass. -- Copyright ©1993, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
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)

On Nov 15, 2012, at 10:39 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/507531/first-teleportation-from-one-macroscopic-object-to-another/

Clever Chinese