• 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

  17 minutes ago · Edited · Like
• 

  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

• 

  Steve Schultz Well, that's no fun. Guess that means I won't be need to register the radio station letters KFTL...

  4 hours ago · "}">Like · 1
• 

  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

  3 hours ago · "}">Like
• 

  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

  3 hours ago · "}">Like
• 

  Keith Kenemer disappointing, but not unexpected...

  about an hour ago · "}">Like
• 

  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

  22 minutes ago · "}">Like
• 

  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

  4 minutes ago · "}">Like
• 

  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. 

   Jack Sarfatti

   30 minutes ago near San Francisco

   NICK'S REVIEW OF THE KALAMIDAS AFFAIR (JUNE 5, 2013)
   "Recently CCNY physics graduate Demetrios Kalamidas proposed a clever
   faster-than-light signaling scheme [DK1] which survived peer review and
   was recently published in Journal of the Optical Society of America. Kalamidas's FTL scheme has generated much discussion and controversy which I will attempt to summarize in this brief review."

   5Like · · Share

   • Joe Ganser, Keith Kenemer, Uwe Langer and 2 others like this.
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti Nick Herbert continues: "I wish to emphasize that I am not a member of the quantum-optics community nor am I proficient in boson algebra. I am however familiar with devising and refuting FTL communication schemes [1]. I would appreciate comments, corrections and additions to this review.
     Kalamidas's scheme is based on a path-uncertain pair of photons shared by
     Alice and Bob. Whenever Bob's photon path is certain, then so is Alice's, and
     no path interference can occur at Alice's detectors. But if Bob erases which-path information at his detectors, so the argument goes, Alice's which-path information is also (instantly!) erased and interference ensues at Alice's detectors.
     By turning his quantum eraser on and off, Bob can send an FTL signal
     to Alice in the form of patterns of interference or no-interference.
     The beauty of Kalamidas's scheme resides in his original method of which-path
     erasure. When Bob's path info is certain, one path contain a single photon
     and the other path is empty, symbolized by |10> or |01>."

     25 minutes ago · Like
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti "Kalamidas proposes to erase which-path info by mixing into each path a kind of light whose photon number is uncertain. The source of this number-uncertain light is a coherent state |A> which is mixed with Bob's photons via a weakly reflecting beam splitter ( r --> 0) where A is adjusted so that a "weak
     coherent state" |rA> = |0> + rA |1> blends with whatever is in Bob's path. [2] This scheme leads to 5 possible outputs |01>, |01>, |11>, |02> and |20>. For four of these outputs, the path Bob's photon took is not erased, but whenever Bob's counters read |11>, which path the photon took is uncertain and erasure ensues. Using this scheme, Kalamidas can demonstrate apparent FTL signaling from Bob to Alice."

     19 minutes ago · Edited · Like
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti "Once I heard of this scheme, I publicized it on my blog [NH1] and hastened to refute it. I was able to invent a simpler path-erasure scheme using "Gray light" |U> instead of a coherent state (where |U> = x|0> + y|1>) which was easy to refute[NH2]. But I could not refute Kalamidas's original scheme.
     Instead of refuting DK's scheme, I actually enhanced it by showing that if he
     strengthened his "weak coherent state" by expanding it to higher powers of
     (rA), the intensity of his FTL signal would actually increase [NH3]. At about
     this same time I wrote the theme song for an opera celebrating DK's quixotic
     quest [NH4] and issued a second blog post [NH5] publicly challenging the
     physics community to refute DK's audacious scheme. The first physicist to take up the challenge was John Howell at the University of Rochester who produced a general refutation of FTL schemes using photon- mixing of the Kalamidas type [JH1]. John's proof used Displaced Fock States (DFS) as Bob's counter outputs and suggested moreover that Kalamidas had erred by using Photon-added Coherent States (PACS) instead of DFS.
     "Everyone knows" that DFS are the correct output states for this kind of experiment, Howell insisted. This has been shown both theoretically and by experiment, for instance here [L&B] and here [W/MS/al]. Kalamidas could not see where his derivation was flawed, but it was clear that his states were of the PACS type. So if DFS was correct, he was prepared to reluctantly admit defeat. However Martin Suda from Austrian Institute of Technology came to the rescue with a simple proof, that at this particular stage of the beam-splitter algebra, both PACS and DFS were correct states [MS1], an astonishing result I call "the Martin Suda Paradox".

     14 minutes ago · Edited · Like
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti Nick continued: "Coincidently, GianCarlo Ghirardi had just published a review of past FTL signaling schemes [GCG1] and was drawn into the debate. Together with Raffaele Romano, Ghirardi produced a general refutation [G&R] based on "unitary operations." If the operations that Kalamidas performed on his photons were all unitary, then G & R showed that no FTL signaling would ensue.
     Then one of Kalamidas's former teachers and author of several lucid texts on
     quantum-optics, Christopher Gerry, composed a general refutation [CG/etal]
     based on PACS, the same states Kalamidas had used in his scheme. John
     Howell, at about the same time, published a slightly different refutation [JH2]
     also based on PACS.

     8 minutes ago · Like
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti "One might imagine that, confronted with so many general refutations from all sides, that Kalamidas would cave in and admit defeat. But a funny thing happened on the way to the refutation.
     Despite all the general proofs that his scheme was impossible, no one had
     been able to find a mistake in Kalamidas's math nor his physics. It was true
     that his scheme involved an APPROXIMATION but approximations are used
     all the time in physics. DK's "weak coherent state", for instance, is a veritable
     workhorse of quantum optics, is quite well-understood and appears in numerous experiments where it causes no paradoxical behavior. Kalamidas could cite considerable precedent for using this approximation. One of the reviewers quite rightly pointed out that if the general proofs (which contain no approximations) said that DK's FTL scheme could not work, then that certainly spelled doom for all approximate schemes such as the one DK was proposing. To which DK boldly replied: since you are so certain--because of your general proofs--that I am wrong, then it should be "easy pickins" for you to discover my mistake. But no one has yet met this Kalamidas challenge."

     4 minutes ago · Edited · Like
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti "There are two issues here 1. the PACS vs DFS issue and 2. the EXACT vs
     APPROXIMATION issue.
     General refutations using both the PACS and DFS formulations have been
     derived but the PACS APPROXIMATION scheme has not been refuted. It
     remains a mystery why this refutation has not occurred.
     To top things off, Martin Suda formulated a Kalamidas-like scheme using
     DFS APPROXIMATION instead of PACS [MS2]. Suda's new scheme, even
     though approximate, was easily refuted--all the FTL signaling terms obligingly
     summed to zero. However, Martin's nice refutation was spoiled by the
     presence of an ugly non-physical |00> term which no one could justify or
     explain.
     What is the meaning of this impasse? Why can't Kalamidas's simple approximation be refuted when the unapproximated schemes are easily destroyed.
     Martin faintly suspects it has to do with the way the vacuum states |0> are
     treated in approximation schemes. I've always been confused whenever vacuum
     states appear in calculations mixed with "real states". Maybe Kalamidas's
     stubbornly unrefuted FTL scheme (which is certainly wrong, make no
     mistake) has something new and subtle to teach us about boson algebra."
     Nick Herbert (quanta@cruzio.com) June 5, 2013

     about a minute ago · Like
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti REFERENCES
     [1] Nick Herbert "Faster Than Light: Superluminal Loopholes in
     Physics" NAL (1989)<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/
     0452263174?ie=UTF8&tag=nikkherbert-20>
     - 4 -
     [2] A coherent state is conventionally written |alpha>, where "alpha"
     is a complex number. For typographical convenience, I write a
     coherent state as |A> where A is understood to be the upper-case
     Greek "alpha".
     [DK1] Demetrios Kalamidas "A Proposal for a Feasible Quantum-
     Optical Experiment to Test the Validity of the No-signaling
     Theorem" <http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1110.4629>--Kalamidas's
     original proposal in the physics arXiv.
     [NH1] Nick Herbert "The Kalamida Experiment (blog)" <http:/
     /quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-kalamidasexperiment.
     html>--Publicizing (#1) DK's FTL communication
     scheme; Confirmation of APPROX DK FTL Scheme
     [NH2] Nick Herbert "The Kalamidas Experiment (pdf)" <http:/
     /quantumtantra.com/KalamidasFINAL.pdf>--Refutation of FULL
     Gray-light version of DK FTL Scheme. (In these references "FULL"
     means NO APPROXIMATIONS)
     [NH3] Nick Herbert "Maximizing the Kalamidas Effect (pdf)" <http:/
     /quantumtantra.com/Kalamidas1.pdf>--Expanding & Confirming
     DK APPROX FTL Scheme to higher powers of rA.
     [NH4] Nick Herbert "Demetrios! The Opera (blog)" <http:/
     /quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2013/02/demetrios-opera.html>--
     Demetrios! The Opera.
     [NH5] Nick Herbert (blog) "FTL Signaling Made Easy" <http:/
     /quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2013/05/ftl-signaling-madeeasy.
     html>--Publicizing (#2) APPROX DK FTL Signaling Scheme.
     [JH1] John Howell "Refutation of the Kalamidas's Signaling" (private
     communication) //Refutation of FULL DFS version of DK FTL Scheme
     - 5 -
     [W/MS/al] A. Windhager, Martin Suda et al "Quantum Interference
     between a Single-photon Fock State and a Coherent State" <http:/
     /arxiv.org/pdf/1009.1844.pdf> -- derivation of DFS output of a
     beamsplitter with input |A, 1>
     [L&B] AI Lvovski & SA Babichev "Synthesis and Tomographic
     Characterization of the Displaced Fock State" <http://lanl.arxiv.org/
     abs/quant-ph/0202163>--production and measurement of DFS at
     beam splitter output.
     [GCG1] GianCarlo Ghirardi "Entanglement, Non-locality,
     Superluminal Signaling and Cloning" <http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/
     1305.2305v1.pdf>--Refutation of several historical FTL signaling
     schemes
     [G&R] GianCarlo Ghirardi & Raffaelle Romano "On a quite recent
     proposal of faster than light communication" (private
     communication)--General Refutation of all Full Unitary Systems.
     [CGetal] Christopher Gerry, VV, Ugur Güney & Mark Hillery
     "Comment on a superluminal signaling scheme" (private
     communication)--Refutation of FULL PACS version of DK FTL
     Scheme
     [MS1] "MARTIN SUDA PARADOX" (private communication)--"Martin
     Suda Paradox": Symmetry of PACS and DFS at BS output.
     [MS2] Martin Suda "Interferometry at the 50/50 BS" (private
     communication)--refutation of APPROX DFS version of DK FTL
     Scheme
     [JH2} John Howell "Full Calculation No Approximation" (private
     communication)//refutation of FULL PACS version of DK FTL
     Scheme.

1. • Status
   • Photo
   • Place
   • Life Event

    

   What's on your mind?

1. • Status
   • Photo
   • Place
   • Life Event

    

   What's on your mind?
2. 

   Jack Sarfatti

   about an hour ago near San Francisco

   Kalamidas Affair

   Like · · Share

   • 

     Jack Sarfatti On Jun 2, 2013, at 7:22 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
     
     Yes it's always the case that if the time evolution is unitary signal interference terms cancel out. That is essence of the no-signal argument.
     
     It's what defeated my 1978 attempt using two interferometers on each end of the pair source that David Kaiser describes in How the Hippies Saved Physics that was in first edition of Gary Zukav's Dancing Wu Li Masters. Stapp gave one of the first no-signal proofs in response to my attempt.
     
     I. However, one of the tacit assumptions is that all observables must be Hermitian operators with real eigenvalues and a complete orthogonal basis.
     
     II. Another assumption is that the normalization once chosen should not depend on the free will of the experimenter.
     
     Both & II are violated by Glauber states. The linear unitary dynamics is also violated when the coherent state is Higgs-Goldstone vacuum/groundstate expectation value order parameter of a non-Hermitian boson second quantized field operator where the c number local nonlinear nonunitary Landau-Ginzburg equation in ordinary space replaces the linear unitary Schrodinger equation in configuration (or Wigner phase space more generally) as the dominant dynamic. P. W. Anderson called this "More is different."
     
     For example in my toy model NORMALIZED so as to rid us of that damn spooky telepathic psychokinetic voodoo magick without magic
     
     |A,B> = [2(1 + |<w|z>|^2)]^-1/2[|0>|z> + |1>|w>]
     
     <0|1> = 0 for Alice A
     
     <w|z> =/= 0 for Bob B
     
     Take
     
     Trace over B {|0><0| |A,B><A,B|} = 1/2 etc.
     
     probability is conserved and Alice receives no signal from Bob in accord with Abner Shimony's "passion at a distance".
     
     However, probability is not conserved on Bob's side!
     
     Do the calculation if you don't believe me.
     
     Two more options
     
     i. use 1/2^1/2 normalization, then we get an entanglement signal for Alice with violation of probability conservation for Alice, though not for Bob
     
     ii Final Rube Goldberg option (suspect)
     
     use different normalizations depending on who does the strong von Neumann measurement Alice or Bob.
     
     Now this is a violation of orthodox quantum theory ladies and gentlemen.
     
     Sent from my iPhone in San Francisco, Russian Hill
     
     ====================================================================

     about an hour ago · Edited · Like · 1
   • 

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

OK, here is a simple case - not same as Kalamidas mind you - that seems to be outside the rules of orthodox quantum theory.

Alice the receiver has an ordinary orthodox quantum bit with base states |0> & |1> for a given orientation of her apparatus which never changes in the experiment. Bob the sender has two distinguishable non-orthogonal Glauber coherent eigenstates |z> and |w> of the non-Hermitian observable boson destruction operator a, where z and w are complex numbers. Right at this point we have violated one of the axioms of orthodox quantum theory in a factual way since Glauber states are facts.

Suppose we have the entangled state

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

then using the orthodox Born probability rule in density matrix formulation gives

p(0) = p(1) = (1/2)[1 + |<z|w>|^2]

p(0) + p(1) = 1 +  |<z|w>|^2 > 1

the entanglement signal at Alice's receiver is  |<z|w>|^2 violating conservation of Born's rule for probability - because the observable is not hermitian and actually a closer examination shows a non-unitary time evolution. This is a larger theory that reduces to orthodox quantum theory in the appropriate limit.

note



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_states


Now, we can squirm out of this by a-priori ad-hoc forcing of the non-universal normalization

|A,B>' =  [1 +  |<z|w>|^2]^-1/2|A,B>

giving

p'(0) = p'(1) = 1/2 with no signaling Note, that Bob does not need to use that normalization at all because of Alice's <0|1> = 0.

That's why I use "non-universal" above.

However, it's not clear the Nature works this way without more testing.

On Jun 1, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Ghirardi Giancarlo <ghirardi@ictp.it> wrote:


Il giorno 01/giu/2013, alle ore 18:38, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> ha scritto:


Ghirardi: I do not agree at all on this. The actual situation is that there has never been a clear cut indication that in Kalamidas serf-up something (probabilities, outcomes or whatever you want) actually changes something at left as a consequence of preparing one or the other state at right, so that it can be used to send faster than light signals. It is his duty and not ours to prove that the effect exist. I believe to have argued against its existence and I have also checked that for the most natural observables at left no difference occurs when you choose one or the other of the two initial states. The game is back to Kalamidas. And, sincerely, I am a little bit disturbed by all this enormous mess and many inadequate and unjustified statements that have been put forward during the debate. I am not keen to follow the matter any more.

On Jun 1, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Suda Martin <Martin.Suda.fl@ait.ac.at> wrote:

Dear all,
thanks to everybody for emails, papers, contributions to discussion and comments. I enjoyed very much the highly interesting dialogues. I can fully agree to the arguments of CG and GG, of course.
Only a comment with respect to the question of the approximation:
As regards the approximation done in the calculation of DK, I would like to point out again - and I sent a pdf called Interf_BS_50_50_Suda.pdf two days ago -  that because of such an approach the normalization of the output wave function behind the 50/50 BS has been changed to (1+2|alpha|^2+|alpha|^4), see Eq.(7), instead of being exactly 1. The probabilities for the potential "interference part" (see Eq.(6)) are (|p_10|^2+|p_01|^2)/4=2|alpha|^2 and the other parts give all together  2(|q_10|^2+|q_01|^2)/4=1+|alpha|^4. One keeps therefore precisely the modified normalization of Eq.(7). One can clearly see that the "interference part" and the other parts are outcomes from an incorrect normalization.
Nice regards,
Martin

Begin forwarded message:

From: CHRISTOPHER GERRY <CHRISTOPHER.GERRY@lehman.cuny.edu>
Subject: Re: The Kalamidas affair
Date: June 1, 2013 9:46:37 AM PDT
To: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Cc: Ghirardi Giancarlo <ghirardi@ictp.it>, Demetrios Kalamidas <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>, John Howell <howell@pas.rochester.edu>, Suda Martin <martin.suda.fl@ait.ac.at>, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com>, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>, "Romano rromano@iastate.edu [MATH]" <rromano@iastate.edu>

Nick and everyone,

The specific failings of the Kalamidas proposal have, in fact, been pointed out in the papers you mentioned and elsewhere. I don't understand why anyone continues to say otherwise. To say that they have not been addressed does not make it so, and comes off merely an act of denial. This has been an interesting episode, but I think it's time to stop beating a dead horse. Chris

On Jun 1, 2013, at 9:13 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Kalamidas fans--

NH: I believe that everyone is in agreement that general considerations prove that the Kalamidas proposal must fail.

JS: Yes

In both Ghirardi's and Gerry's papers, they emphasize these general considerations and decline to engage in the specifics of Kalamidas's calculations. Whether one wishes to engage the specifics or not is a matter of taste. But Kalamidas is asking us to engage in specifics. As he puts it: Since you know that I am wrong, it should be "easy pickins" to
point out exactly where I am mistaken.

Gerry comes closest to meeting Kalamidas's challenge to move out of the safety of generalities and deal with specifics.

In the conclusion of Gerry's paper he states "Clearly, if the exact calculation shows no interference, but the approximate calculation does, there is something wrong with the approximate calculation. Looking at Eq 6, one notes that while some terms to order rA have been kept in going from 6a to 6c, the terms labeled "vanishing" in Eq 6b are also of this order and have been discarded. Thus the approximate calculation in {1} is inconsistent and wrong."

Gerry engages in specifics. He is meeting Kalamidas on his own terms. But he neglects to specify exactly which terms of order rA Kalamidas has mistakenly labeled as "vanishing". When Gerry displays these wrongly-neglected terms (perhaps in an informal note), he would have definitively "slain the beast in his own lair" and we can all get on with the non-Kalamidas aspects of our lives.

JS: Agreed, thanks Nick :-)

Nick

PS: There is still the fascinating Martin Suda Paradox which was discovered in the context of the Kalamidas refutation, but that is a separate issue altogether.

JS: What is that Nick? Please give details.

Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>
Subject: [ExoticPhysics] Fwd: The Kalamidas affair
Date: June 1, 2013 7:45:42 AM PDT
To: Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
Reply-To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>

Sent from my iPad


Subject: Re: The Kalamidas affair

yes I agree with this
any attempt at signaling within axioms of orthodox quantum theory will fail e.g. Adrian Kent's papers
however, antony valentini, myself and others (Stapp, Weinberg, Josephson) have all independently proposed several extensions giving a more general non-orthodox post quantum theory containing orthodox quantum theory as a limiting case. In particular, the non-hermitian boson destruction operator is a macroscopic observable with Glauber coherent eigenstates that are non-orthogonal distinguishable violating orthodox quantum theory. Furthermore, they obey a non-unitary dynamics given by the c-number landau-ginzburg equation for spontaneous broken symmetry ground/vacuum state emergent local order parameters. These order parameters entangle with others and also with orthodox qubits, so we have a new larger theory here analogous to general relativity in relation to special relativity.

Furthermore, there is no violation with the group structure of relativity because  intervals are frame invariant and what matters is the interval between actual irreversible detections. What is violated is the retarded casuality axiom appended to relativity that is adhoc like Euclid's fifth axiom. Again the analogy to non-Euclidean geometry is appropriate.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:40 AM, CHRISTOPHER GERRY <CHRISTOPHER.GERRY@lehman.cuny.edu> wrote:

Everyone,

I'm in total agreement with Prof. Ghirardi's assessment. The beam splitter transformations are not the essential point here, as even if the are done correctly, the claimed effect goes away. We addressed the beam splitter issue in our comment to demonstrate that sloppy calculations in general are contained in the Kalamidas paper. We then assumed that the one case of his t and r of parameters that would satisfy the reciprocity relations actually held, thus ensuring that his transformations did not violate unitarity (for that one case!) and from there showed via an exact calculation that the effect disappears. As I said, it will disappear even with totally correct, unitary beam splitter transformations, just as stated by Prof. Ghirardi. Chris



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


---- Original message ----
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 14:57:07 +0200
From: Ghirardi Giancarlo <ghirardi@ictp.it>  Subject: The Kalamidas affair  To: CHRISTOPHER GERRY <christopher.gerry@lehman.cuny.edu>, Demetrios Kalamidas <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>, John Howell <howell@pas.rochester.edu>, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>, Suda Martin <martin.suda.fl@ait.ac.at>, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com>, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>, "Romano rromano@iastate.edu [MATH]" <rromano@iastate.edu>

Dear all,
  attached herewith you will find a letter (even though it looks like a paper for technical reasons) that I have decided to forward to you to make clear the conceptual status of the situation. I hope of having been clear and I wait for comments.

With my best regards


GianCarlo


________________
remarks.pdf (83k bytes)
________________


_______________________________________________
ExoticPhysics mailing list
ExoticPhysics@mail.softcafe.net
http://mail.softcafe.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exoticphysics

• 

  Jack Sarfatti Begin forwarded message:
  
  From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
  Subject: [ExoticPhysics] Spacelike (FTL) Entanglement Signals with Trapped Ions? "magic wand" Apple's killer app. ; -)
  Date: February 11, 2013 8:22:02 PM PST
  To: Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
  Reply-To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
  
  Indeed, unless I am mistaken, this ultimately solid state system can be packaged into an Apple I phone to take photographs of the future seen in the past.
  
  "6.5. Quantum Teleportation Mechanical States
  Analogous to continuous-variable teleportation of optical states [220], one can teleport the quantum state of one mechanical oscillator to the other, if two entangled squeezed
  beams are used to drive them, each of their positions are measured | and with results fed back to the other one (as shown in Fig. 18).
  
  http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1302.1924.pdf
  
  Imagine we can do Fig 18 with phonons rather than photons in some long crystal rod.
  
  Each mechanical oscillator A & B is a trapped ion with internal qubits 1,0 eigenvalues at the two ends of the crystal rod ("magick wand" ;-))
  
  The coherent phonon Glauber states are z & z' for the center of mass motions of the ions.
  
  The initial state is
  
  |A,B>i =(1/2)^1/2[|1>A|z>A + |0>A|z'>A + |1>B|z>B + |0>B|z'>B]
  
  after the entanglement swapping via teleportation of the Glauber coherent phonon states the prepared final state is
  
  |A,B>f = (1/2)^1/2[|1>A|z>B + |0>A|z'>B + |1>B|z>A + |0>B|z'>A]
  
  Use the Born rule in density matrix trace formalism to get e.g.
  
  P(1)A = (1/2)(1 + | B<z|z'>B |^2)
  
  This violates the parameter independence no-signal arguments of orthodox quantum theory because the Glauber coherent states are macroscopically distinguishable and non-orthogonal.
  
  The Born probability rule breaks down in Antony Valentini's sense for Glauber states when they are entangled with other states.
  
  P(1)A + P(0)A = 1 + | B<z|z'>B |^2
  
  Not only can A & B be spacelike separated, but we can operate the "magick wand" in Wheeler delayed choice mode in which a tiny video camera is at B which transmits images and audio from A's future back to A in the past.
  
  Indeed, this solid state system can be packaged into an Apple I phone to take photographs of the future.
  
  No doubt those ET's in their magnificent flying disks have such crystals?
  
  _______________________________________________
  ExoticPhysics mailing list
  ExoticPhysics@mail.softcafe.net
  http://mail.softcafe.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exoticphysics

  http://t.co/VRrCIsXa

  xxx.lanl.gov

  a few seconds ago · Like · Remove Preview

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

Close

Breaking the Entanglement Communication Barrier

The no entanglement signal arguments of orthodox quantum theory rest on shaky ground. For example John Cramer's Ch. 16 of Frontiers of Propulsion Science. Quantum Information Science depends on no-signaling. The rug is pulled out from underneath it if stand-alone-entanglement signaling is possible after all. Post-quantum computers should be more powerful than orthodox quantum computers. Indeed, they may have natural consciousness - same as we do.

You have 14 minutes

• Edit

• Like
• Comment
• Unfollow
• Flag
• More

1 comment

Jack Sarfatti • There is both outcome dependence & parameter dependence. Orthodox quantum theory's no-signaling arguments assert both are violated. In Stapp's simple proof using the set of four Bell pair states {|Alice, Alice', Bob,Bob'>} Here "Alice" & "Bob" denote actual OUTCOME eigenvalues Stapp also assumes Born's probability rule - an axiom of quantum theory like Euclid's Fifth has signal strength S S(Alice) = Partial Trace over Bob & Bob'{|Alice><Alice| |Alice, Alice'; Bob, Bob'><Alice,Alice';Bob,Bob'|} = 1/2 This result has both parameter and outcome (eigenvalue) independence consistent with Abner Shimony's "passion at a distance". However, the PARAMETER INDEPENDENCE only works when <Bob|Bob'> = 0. For the normalized hybrid entangled state (1/2)^1/2[|1>Alice|z>Bob + |0>Alice|w>|Bob] where z & w are complex numbers each representing amplitude and phase of a coherent Glauber state displaced minimum Gaussian wave packet with Poisson Born statistics in Fock space, where |z| is the square root of the mean boson occupation number The usual "Born" trace rule is then S(1)Alice = (1/2)[1 + |<z|w>|^2Bob] |z> & |w> are MACROSCOPICALLY DISTINGUISHABLE NON-ORTHOGONAL STATES that naturally arise as "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) Higgs-Goldstone local order parameters from spontaneous symmetry breaking in the ground states of complex many-boson systems. Not only that, but the bosons need not be real, they can also be virtual off-mass shell as what we are surrounded by the near electromagnetic fields as distinct from radiation fields. The above state has entanglement signal nonlocality in the form of PARAMETER DEPENDENCE. Bob signals Alice without the need of a classical signal key to decrypt Bob's message. The Born probability rule is VIOLATED. Forcing a parameter-dependent normalization is ad-hoc and is an additional postulate not found in orthodox quantum theory that must be independently tested. e.g. S*(1)Alice = (1/2[1 + |<z|w>|^2Bob])^1/2[|1>Alice|z>Bob + |0>Alice|w>|Bob] = 1/2 Other examples: the electrostatic field of a charge in its rest frame is a coherent Glauber state of zero frequency virtual photons with a continuum of 3D wave vectors k whose density ~ 1/k^2 Similarly, ordinary crystals of daily life are coherent Glauber states of zero frequency phonons with a discrete spectrum of wave vectors k that are harmonics of the inverse lattice spacings of the unit cell. Wilczek's time crystals have a discrete spectrum of finite frequencies in addition - no big deal. The static gravity fields of the Sun and Earth et-al are coherent Glauber states of virtual spin 2 gravitons - possibly also virtual spin 1 and spin 0 of finite range - needs investigation.