Text Size

Stardrive

May 10
Hi Jack,

Nicole Tedesco mentioned you in a comment.

Nicole wrote: "Dan Rogers is correct: interstellar space should be seen as an isolation zone, not a highway. Jack Sarfatti is correct in that it will require technology even more bold than Icarus/Daedalus to make interstellar travel real.

I don't have Jack's kind of background and his panoply of contacts so I can't personally vouch for the veracity of first contact claims (I'll leave that in Jack's capable hands for continuing the gumshoe process there). However, he is correct--if interstellar travel is possible it will likely be using advanced technologies that would be a "big deal". The use of these technologies would make a "big splash" of some kind. An aspect I find interesting of Jack's work is the fact that he gets beyond SETI and asks the questions,

* If alien life is advanced, what kinds of science might they have mastered?

* What would be the technological signatures of associated advanced technologies?
- For instance, any alien life is using an Icarus/Daedalus approach, they would leave behind detectable fusion flashes in the path of their travels
- If warp drives were possible, what would be the characteristic signatures of its use?
- If wormhole travel were possible, what would be the characteristic signatures of its use?

* From a SETI approach, WHY ARE WE NOT LOOKING FOR THE SIGNATURES OF ADVANCED CIVILIZATIONS?"

On May 10, 2011, at 10:32 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Jack,

John found out about Dopfer's dissertation from a paper by Raymond Jensen that I sent him several years ago.  I think what he's saying is that the purpose of the coincidence counting circuit in the experiment proposed (and done by Dopfer) is to allow you to discriminate entangled photons from those that are not entangled.  So, it would seem, if you could produce a source that generates only entangled photons (or one with a sufficiently high proportion of entangled photons), the coincidence counting circuit would not be necessary to separate entangled photons from the "noise" of unentangled photons.  In those circumstances it would seem that retrocausal signaling should be possible.  This, I think, was Srikanth's view too.  Given my iconoclast tendencies, I'm rooting for John.  :-)  If it works, it would substantiate his transactional interpretation.

Regards,

Jim


Subject: Anton Zeilinger's Rev Mod Phys paper on the Dopfer experiment: John Cramer's & Yakir Aharonov's back from the future physics? (Dr. Quantum)

In the early 1979 editions of the best-seller Dancing Wu Li Masters, later removed by Gary Zukav, I had double slits for both photons 1 and 2 with a Heisenberg microscope encoder/modulator at the sender to create and destroy fringes at the receiver similar to the scheme below. Of course I did not have the coincidence circuit and the standard unitarity-linearity no-signaling theorem says that there will be no local fringes observed without the coincidence post-selecting the sub-ensemble as Zeilinger shows in Fig 3 below. However, now John Cramer argues that the smearing-out effect of not post-selecting coincident photons 1 & 2 is only a 15% noise effect so that local fringes should be seen when the Heisenberg microscope encoder is switched off (i.e., Heisenberg detector in the focal plane of the lens in Fig 3) - at least for that particular parametric down-conversion pair source is concerned. However, I think actual experiments with double slits have been done without seeing local fringes when the coincidence circuit is switched off, but perhaps without that particular allegedly 85% efficient source?

The coincidence issue is automatic in the nano-scale solid state device envisioned in Lawry Chickering's 1982 letter to Richard de Lauer UnderSecty DOD Research & Engineering. That is, it is a non-issue because we automatically have pre-post selected sub-ensembles in Aharonov's sense.

Basically I suggested back then 30 years ago nanoscale systems like quantum dots today that would be clearly labeled like marbles in boxes.

We have N = N'n pairs of entangled quantum dots (ai,bi) i = 1 to N arranged in N' bins each of n pairs. "n" is large enough (a few dozen) to show the statistical difference in the patterns.

The N bi go on the Nuclear Submarine (Receiver), the N ai stay at Naval Command (Sender).

My point was that since the entangled individual pairs are mesoscopic and individualized and obviously protected against decoherence the sender can decide to do incompatible measurements P or Q where [P,Q] =/= 0 that will collapse the states of the n matched twins in each bin at the receiver either into a "coherent" or an "incoherent" pattern functionally analogous to the Dopfur experiment though quite different in implementation of course.

http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/AAAS_20060621.ppt.

 
References:

Nonlocality:

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780 (1935).

 
The Dopfer Experiment:

B. Dopfer, PhD Thesis, Univ. Innsbruck (1998); A. Zeilinger, Rev. Mod. Physics, 71, S288-S297 (1999).

No evidence yet for torsion or conformal local gauge group gravity currents from this NASA probe.
Local gauging of symmetry groups of quantum fields induce source currents. The spacetime symmetries are universal - this is a deep way of understanding the strong equivalence principle with minimal coupling (SEP). Einstein's 1916 General Relativity is a simple gauge theory of the 4-parameter translation group generated by the total energy-momentum of the classical and quantum fields in the unambiguous flat case prior to local gauging. Local gauging is the direct result of classical signal locality, i.e. no controllable signals faster than the speed of light in classical vacuum (zero dark energy density). This can be generalized to the de Sitter (dS) group.

WHAT’S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 6 May 2011   Washington, DC

1.  GRAVITY PROBE B: EXPERIMENT CONFIRMS THAT SCIENCE IS OPEN.
It took 52 years and $750 Million, but the Stanford-based analysis group
and NASA announced on Wednesday that the data from GP-B does indeed confirm
two key predictions of Albert Einstein's 1916 general theory of
relativity:  the geodetic effect of space-time warping around a massive
object, which we perceive as gravity, and the frame-dragging effect caused
by mass-energy currents, called gravitomagnetism in beautiful analogy with
Maxwellian electromagnetism.   The findings were published online in
Physical Review Letters.  Of what value is it?  Above all it confirms that
science is open.  The success and credibility of science are anchored in
the willingness of scientists to expose ideas and results to independent
testing and replication. Had they gotten a different result, textbooks
covering the subject would be rewritten.  More than 100 PhD candidates
worked on some aspect of the gravity probe B experiment.  They are of the
measure of its value to society.