Text Size

Stardrive


  • 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
  • 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
  1. 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."
  1. 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 Brin
    • Nick Herbert
    • Uri Geller
    • Nicole Tedesco
    • Kim Burrafato
  2. Photos
    See All
    Most of the FUN people on Christmas Eve!
    Hi Jack and Joe!
  1. Working on review of Jim Woodward's new Star Ship book (Springer-Verlag)
    Like · · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

      He's saying that inertia is a real Newtonian force, not a fictitious force.

      If you don't disagree, then why disagree?

      My point here is that in Newtonian terms it isn't an "impressed" force, although it can appear that way in a rotating frame.

      I answered: Jim in his book clearly says

      "m" = inertia

      With that definition "inertia" is NOT a FORCE!

      REAL 4-Force on a test particle = Covariant derivative of 4-Momentum of that test particle with respect to that test particle's PROPER TIME

      The CONNECTION PART on the RHS contains ALL FICTITIOUS INERTIAL PSEUDO-FORCES from the proper accelerations on the DETECTOR NOT the test particle!

      NOW - IN THE VERY SPECIAL CASE OF THE REST FRAME OF THE NOW OFF-GEODESIC TEST PARTICLE a piece of the connection survives and cancels against the Real Force ON THE TEST PARTICLE. IN THIS SPECIAL CASE IT IS THE DETECTOR ITSELF THAT IS ALSO THE CONSTRAINT CAUSING THE REAL FORCE ON THE TEST PARTICLE, AND THE SURVIVING PIECE OF THE CONNECTION IS NOW THE REAL INERTIAL REACTION FORCE BACK ON THE DETECTOR/CONSTRAINT! THUS NEWTON'S THIRD LAW IS OBEYED LOCALLY, BUT THE QUANTUM THEORY EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF BOTH THE REAL FORCE ON THE TEST PARTICLE FROM THE DETECTOR, WHICH NOW IS ALSO THE CONSTRAINT, AND THE INERTIAL REACTION FORCE BACK ON THE CONSTRAINT FROM THE TEST PARTICLE IS ELECTROMAGNETIC-WEAK-STRONG + PAULI EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE LOCAL CONTACT NEAR FIELD FORCES - NOT ANYTHING IN CLASSICAL GR OR MACH'S PRINCIPLE IS NEEDED OR CAN EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF "m" - that is a quantum effect! "m" is a free parameter in classical physics.

      SEE WHAT LANCZOS WROTE BELOW EQ (5)

      (REAL FORCE ON TEST PARTICLE OF INERTIA m)i - (m/g44){^4^4i} = 0 IN THE LNIF REST FRAME OF THE CONSTRAINED TEST PARTICLE
    • Jack Sarfatti PS
      On Feb 1, 2013, at 4:58 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

      (REAL FORCE ON TEST PARTICLE OF INERTIA m)i - (m/g44){^4^4i} = 0 IN THE LNIF REST FRAME OF THE CONSTRAINED TEST PARTICLE

      NOTE THE REAL HORIZON SINGULARITY

      g44 = 0 where the curvature is finite

      here, putting in the quantum gravity Planck cutoff

      the Unruh temperature on the horizon is hc/LpkB

      but far away that temperature redshifts down to hc(LpA^1/2)^1/2kB

      i.e. the Planck scale for Hawking blackbody radiation asymptotically redshifts down to the GEOMETRIC MEAN of the Planck scale with scale of the horizon A^1/2 where A is the AREA-ENTROPY of the g44 = 0 horizon.

      in cosmology this horizon is observer dependent - the observer always see the above GEOMETRIC MEAN.

      In the case of our universe, the COSMOLOGICAL GEOMETRIC MEAN is (10^-33 10^28)^1/2 cm ~ 10^-2 cm.

      That Hawking temperature using Stefan-Boltzmann law T^4 gives the observed dark energy density hc/Lp^2A

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 ®

indian porn sexnxxx.cc xvideos Amateur Porn video porno amatoriali filmeporno.top lupoporno film porno gratuit porno mature xnxx film porno gratuit
bisexuel gay porno gay porno देसी सेक्स एचडी पॉर्न ऊपर ऊपर से चुदाई Големи цици