You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog More on David Kaiser's Fig 9.1 entanglement signal device I proposed in 1978

On Jun 29, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

*Jack: I remember discussing this with John Cramer a few years ago. I found a reference (by Shih et al as I recall) saying that you cannot get an interference pattern without coincidence of the two photons -- this what Cramer refers to not seeing in the Dopfer thesis. Without coincidence you just get noise. I think this is the reason it might be impossible to get signalling. If one is able to improve the resolution of the down-conversion process so that you can see the interference pattern independently, then my understanding is that you lose the EPR correlation. Apologies if someone has already mentioned this and I missed it.*

Ruth

Yes, that is the standard argument I am very familiar with. However, now Cramer recently claims he can get the interference pattern without the coincidence circuit because of advances in EPR sources. According to a document that Russell Targ sent me, Cramer now claims that, with the proper source of EPR pairs switching off the coincidence circuit is only a 15% reduction in receiver fringe visibility if the Heisenberg microscope is switched off at the transmitter. This clearly violates Stapp's et-al's general proof to the contrary within OQT.

I claim I have carried out Stapp's linear unitary partial trace of the EPR pair reduced density matrix proof in this particular situation in David Kaiser's Fig 9.1 of The Hippies Who Saved Physics:

And that the implicit assumption in his general partial trace of the EPR pair density matrix proof in the situation of Fig 9.1 is my

(A1|A2) = 0

i.e. orthogonality of the slit states on the transmitter side. So that is the issue here.

(There is a glitch in the Joomla program that screws up the equations. I am trying to fix it.)

Where is the precise error in my algebraic analysis of Kaiser's Fig 9.1 above?

________________________________________

From: Jack Sarfatti [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]

Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:11 PM

To: art wagner

Subject: Re: Quantum Mechanics 1: The No-FTL signalling theorem

The paper looks good. However my algebra is very simple. The issue is whether it contains an obvious contradiction with OQT? Even a smart undergrad physics major should be able to point out the error if indeed there is one.

I claim (A1|A2) = 0

Is necessary to get no signal in that instance for Kaiser's Fig 9.1. So far neither Henry nor any other quantum mechanic has actually addressed the relevant point.

On Jun 29, 2011, at 12:58 PM, art wagner > wrote:

*Could the viewpoint espoused by this paper on the nature of the wavefunction be of any use here? [I do realize you're using bra-ket forms] *- http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1001/1001.5085.pdf

________________________________

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:44:58 -0700

From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Subject: Re: Quantum Mechanics 1: The No-FTL signalling theorem

Henry

I certainly agree that changing the statistical rules of OQT will allow signal nonlocality as in Antony Valentini's papers that are clearly sufficient, but is it necessary? John Cramer has recently suggest it is not necessary.

At this point I am playing Devil's Advocate. I expect my algebra has an error, but I have not been able to get you to really address that particular alleged counter example to your general proof. My model is essentially similar to John Cramer's variation on the Dopfur experiment.

I wrote several lines of algebra. Which ones do you disagree with as a description of Kaiser's Fig 9.1.

:-)

________________________________

From: Henry P. Stapp >;

To: JACK SARFATTI >;

Subject: Quantum Mechanics 1: The No-FTL signalling theorem

Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2011 5:18:04 PM*Since you seem to be contemplating producing faster-than-light signalling by merely choosing unusual experiments conditions, but not changing the basic statistical rules of orthodox QM, and seem to have doubts the correctness of the No-FTL-Signalling Theorem, it might be instructive to look again at the usual derivation. The basic interpretive rule of OQM is that the probability that a measurement associated with a projection operator P will give the positive outcome "Yes" is*

*The basic interpretive rule of OQM is that the probability that a measurement associated with a projection operator P will give thepositive outcome "Yes" is(P)= Trace P rho/Trace rhoand that this "Yes" response to the probing action will reduce theprior state rho to (P rho P)/trace P rho P.The probability of the negative response "No" is(P') = Trace P' rho/ Trace rho, with P'= (I-P).Thus the probability of "Yes" plus the probability of "No" is(Trace P rho/Trace rho)+ (Trace (I-P) rho/Trace rho)=Trace (P + I - P)/Trace rho= 1.If Q is a projection operator whose support is spacelikeseparated from the support of P, so that QP=PQ,then the probability of "Yes" for Q and "Yes" for P is(QP) = Trace QP rho/Trace rhoand the probability for "Yes" for Q and "No" for P is(QP') = Trace Q(I-P) rho/ Trace rho.Hence the probability of Yes for Q if the outcome of the mearurementof P is unknown is(QP) + (QP')which is just(Q):This does not depend upon which measurement P was performed in thefaraway region: different choices of P produce no effect on theprobability of the outcome of the measurement in the regionassociated with Q.I do not see how this result can be rationally challenged,given the standard rules of OQT.Given any finite set of kets {|A1), |A2), ... , |AN)}orthogonal or not, any non zero ket|X) = c1|A1) + c2|A2) + ... CN|AN),with complex coefficients Ci,gives a projection operatorP= |X)(X|/(X|X)(PP= P)*

I do not see how anyone can rationally challenge these conclusions, given the rules of OQT. They imply that, given the rules of OQT, the probabilities of outcomes on either side of Sarfatti's (or anyone's) experiment cannot depend on which experiment is performed in the faraway other region: a sender cannot, by his free choosings of which measurement P to perform in L, send a message to a colleague that is observing the outcome of a measurement of Q in a region R that is spacelike separated from L: no matter what Q is measured in L, the outcome

predicted by OQT will be independent of which P the "sender" chooses.

Thus sending a FTL signal requires no mere clever choices of complex

measurements P and Q: it requires also a violation of the laws of OQT.

I have no doubt that this very simple, but extremely important, fact was known to the founders of quantum theory.

Category: MyBlog

Written by Jack Sarfatti

Published on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 16:05

't Hooft 100 Year Star Ship Abner Shimony accelerometers action-reaction principle Aephraim Sternberg Alan Turing Albert Einstein Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer American Institute of Physics Andrija Puharich Anthony Valentin Anton Zeilinger Antony Valentini anyon Apple Computer Artificial Intelligence Asher Peres Back From The Future Basil Hiley Bell's theorem Ben Affleck Ben Libet Bernard Carr Bill Clinton black body radiation Black Hole black hole firewall black hole information paradox black holes Bohm brain waves Brian Josephson Broadwell Cambridge University Carnot Heat Engine Central Intelligence Agency CIA Clive Prince closed time like curves coherent quantum state Consciousness conservation laws Cosmic Landscape Cosmological Constant cosmology CTC cyber-bullying Dancing Wu Li Masters Dark Energy Dark Matter DARPA Daryl Bem David Bohm David Deutsch David Gross David Kaiser David Neyland David Tong de Sitter horizon Dean Radin Deepak Chopra delayed choice Demetrios A. Kalamidas Demetrios Kalamidas Dennis Sciama Destiny Matrix Dick Bierman Doppler radars E8 group Einstein's curved spacetime gravity Einstein's happiest thought electromagnetism Eli Cartan EMP Nuclear Attack entanglement signals ER=EPR Eric Davis Ernst Mach ET Eternal Chaotic Inflation evaporating black holes Facebook Faster-Than-Light Signals? fictitious force firewall paradox flying saucers FQXi Frank Tipler Frank Wilczek Fred Alan Wolf Free Will G.'t Hooft Garrett Moddel Gary Zukav gauge theory general relativity Geometrodynamics Gerard 't Hooft Giancarlo Ghirardi God Goldstone theorem gravimagnetism gravity Gravity - the movie gravity gradiometers gravity tetrads Gravity Waves Gregory Corso gyroscopes hacking quantum cryptographs Hagen Kleinert Hal Puthoff Hawking radiation Heisenberg Henry Stapp Herbert Gold Higgs boson Higgs field hologram universe Horizon How the Hippies Saved Physics I.J. Good ICBMs Igor Novikov inertial forces inertial navigation Inquisition Internet Iphone Iran Isaac Newton Israel Jack Sarfatti Jacques Vallee James F. Woodward James Woodward JASON Dept of Defense Jeffrey Bub Jesse Ventura Jim Woodward John Archibald Wheeler John Baez John Cramer John S. Bell Ken Peacock Kip Thorne Kornel Lanczos La Boheme Laputa Large Hadron Collider Lenny Susskind Leonard Susskind Levi-Civita connection LHC CERN libel Louis de Broglie Lubos Motl LUX Lynn Picknett M-Theory Mach's Principle Mae Jemison Making Starships and Star Gates Martin Rees Mathematical Mind MATRIX Matter-AntiMatter Asymmetry Max Tegmark Menas Kafatos Michael Persinger Michael Towler microtubules Milky way MIT MOSSAD multiverse NASA Nick Bostrum Nick Herbert Nobel Prize nonlocality Obama organized-stalking Origin of Inertia P. A. M. Dirac P.K.Dick P.W. Anderson Paranormal parapsychology Paul Werbos Perimeter Institute Petraeus Physical Review Letters Physics Today Post-Quantum Physics pre-Big Bang precognition presponse PSI WARS Psychic Repression qualia Quantum Chromodynamics quantum computers quantum entanglement quantum field theory quantum gravity Quantum Information Theory Quantum Theory RAF Spitfires Ray Chiao Red Chinese Remote Viewing retrocausality Reviews of Modern Physics Richard Feynman Richard P. Feynman Rindler effect Robert Anton Wilson Robert Bigelow Roger Penrose rotating black holes Roy Glauber Rupert Sheldrake Russell Targ Ruth Elinor Kastner S-Matrix Sagnac effect Sam Ting Sanford Underground Research Facility Sarfatti Lectures in Physics Scientific American Second Law of Thermodynamics Seth Lloyd signal nonlocality Skinwalker Ranch social networks space drive space-time crystal SPECTRA - UFO COMPUTER spontaneous broken symmetry SRI Remote Viewing Experiments Stanford Physics Stanford Research Institute Star Gate Star Ship Star Trek Q Stargate Starship Stephen Hawking Steven Weinberg stretched membrane string theory strong force gluons Stuart Hameroff superconducting meta-material supersymmetry symmetries telepathy Templeton The Guardian Thought Police time crystal time travel topological computers Topological Computing torsion UFO Unitarity unitary S-Matrix false? Unruh effect Uri Geller VALIS virtual particle Virtual Reality Warp Drive weak force Wheeler-Feynman WIMP WMAP WMD world crystal lattice wormhole Yakir Aharonov Yuri Milner

- November 2015(1)
- January 2015(1)
- December 2014(1)
- August 2014(2)
- July 2014(2)
- June 2014(2)
- May 2014(1)
- April 2014(6)
- March 2014(6)
- February 2014(1)
- January 2014(3)
- December 2013(5)
- November 2013(8)
- October 2013(13)
- September 2013(8)
- August 2013(12)
- July 2013(3)
- June 2013(32)
- May 2013(3)
- April 2013(6)
- March 2013(6)
- February 2013(15)
- January 2013(5)
- December 2012(15)
- November 2012(15)
- October 2012(18)
- September 2012(12)
- August 2012(15)
- July 2012(30)
- June 2012(13)
- May 2012(18)
- April 2012(12)
- March 2012(28)
- February 2012(15)
- January 2012(25)
- December 2011(29)
- November 2011(30)
- October 2011(39)
- September 2011(22)
- August 2011(41)
- July 2011(42)
- June 2011(24)
- May 2011(13)
- April 2011(13)
- March 2011(15)
- February 2011(17)
- January 2011(31)
- December 2010(19)
- November 2010(22)
- October 2010(31)
- September 2010(41)
- August 2010(30)
- July 2010(27)
- June 2010(12)
- May 2010(20)
- April 2010(19)
- March 2010(27)
- February 2010(34)