Jack Sarfatti
Sunday via Twitter

Jack Sarfatti agreed
his effective Hamiltonian for 4port passive devices (beam splitters, interferometers) and for active devices like parametric down converters for making EPR pairs is useful  note formal analogy with BCS superconductivity effective Hamiltonian a1a2 + a1*a2* except in light bosons, in BCS fermions.
ps the new Valentini paper claiming that Bohm's Q dynamics violates observation  but de Broglie's dynamics still OK is important.
of course instability of Born rule collapsing nosignaling glass ceiling is what I am after  actually so is Valentini
Life is that in my opinion.
http://www.clemson.edu/glimpse/?p=1177
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1576
On Jun 10, 2013, at 10:12 AM, nick herbert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > wrote:
Thanks, Jack.
A review of quantum optics
of astonishlng depth and breadth.
Who is Ulf Leonhardt?
Decendent of the Vikings
who ran the place in the old days?
On Jun 9, 2013, at 2:08 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
<QuantumOpticsReview0305007v2.pdf> 
Jack Sarfatti It seems that special relativity won't save "Bohm dynamics" in Valentini's sense either.
Valentini etal write:
"This is in sharp contrast with de Broglie's dynamics, where efficient relaxation to equilibrium implies that one should expect to see equilibrium at later times (except, possibly, for very longwavelength modes in the early universe (Valentini 2007, 2008b, 2010; Colin and Valentini 2013)). It is then reasonable to conclude that, while de Broglie's dynamics is a viable physical
theory, Bohm's dynamics is not. ...
It might be suggested that Bohm's dynamics is only an approximation, and that corrections from a deeper theory will (in reasonable circumstances) drive the phasespace distribution to equilibrium. Such a suggestion was in fact made by Bohm (1952a, p. 179). While this may turn out to be the case, the fact remains that Bohm's dynamics as it stands is unstable and therefore (we
claim) untenable.
In our view Bohm's 1952 Newtonian reformulation of de Broglie's 1927 pilot wave dynamics was a mistake, and we ought to regard de Broglie's original
formulation as the correct one. Such a preference is no longer merely a matter
of taste: we have presented concrete physical reasons for preferring de Broglie's dynamics over Bohm's."
"The above results provide strong evidence that there is no tendency to relax to
quantum equilibrium in Bohm's dynamics, and that the quantum equilibrium
state is in fact unstable. It is then reasonable to conclude that if the universe
started in a nonequilibrium state { and if the universe were governed by Bohm's
dynamics { then we would not see quantum equilibrium today. The Born rule
for particle positions would fail, momenta would take nonquantummechanical values, and there would be no bound states such as atoms or nuclei. ... the same instability appears if one applies Bohm's dynamics to highenergy field theory. ... Similar results would be obtained for the electromagnetic field, for example, resulting in unboundedly large electric and magnetic field strengths even in the vacuum. This is grossly at variance with observation"
On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:48 AM, Basil Hiley wrote:
"Colin and Valentini are not addressing Bohmian noncommutative dynamics that I wrote about in arXiv 1303.6057
They are considering what Bohm and I called the stochastic interpretation of QM. [see our paper "Nonlocality and Locality in the Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Phys. Reports 172, 93122, (1989).] That was based on the earlier work of Bohm "Proof that Probability Density Approaches Ψ2 in Causal Interpretation of the Quantum Theory", Phys. Rev., 89, no. 2, 458406, (1953) and the work in Bohm and Vigier, Model of the Causal Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of a Fluid with Irregular Fluctuations, Phys. Rev. 96, no. 1, 208216, (1954). These approaches add a new stochastic 'subquantum' field to 1952 model in order to explain the quantum probability P=Ψ^2 as an equilibrium condition in this stochastic background. It should be noted that de Broglie supported these approaches and conclusions in his book "Nonlinear Wave Mechanics: a Causal Interpretation", Elsevier, Amsterdam, ch XIII, (1960). All these authors including de Broglie, concluded that under the right assumptions the distribution approaches quantum distribution. Bohm and I gave a brief summary of the essentials that lead to that conclusion. I have not had time to study why Colin and Valentini arrive at a contrary conclusion.
One of the conclusions of our Phys. Reports paper was that because the stochastic model adds the possibility of new features arising beyond those given by the standard QM approach. For example, in sufficiently fast processes, results different from those given by the equilibrium Ψ could result and that further investigation could potentially be useful in giving rise to new physics. We failed to find any new physics that agreed with experiment and therefore abandoned the stochastic approach.
I find it very surprising that Colin and Valentini set up de Broglie v Bohm in view of what de Broglie himself wrote in his book "Nonlinear Wave Mechanics". Just read the book!
Basil."
On 10 Jun 2013, at 17:32, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
11 hours ago via Twitter
quantum heretic  research and creative discovery  Clemson University http://t.co/6695ZinRX9
quantum heretic
clemson.edu
In the warm winter sunshine, a distinguished man stands on the curb outside a local bank, wearing a casual jacket, his dark, curly hair stranded with silver
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1576
[1306.1576] Instability of quantum equilibrium in Bohm's dynamics
arxiv.org