Standard texbooks on quantum mechanicstell you that observable quantities are represented byHermitian operators, that their possible values are theeigenvalues of these operators, and that the probabilityof detecting eigenvalue a, corresponding to eigenvector|a> |<a|psi>|2, where |psi> is the (pure) state of thequantum system that is observed. With a bit more sophisticationto include mixed states, the probability canbe written in a general way <a|rho|a> …This is nice and neat, but it does not describe whathappens in real life. Quantum phenomena do not occurin Hilbert space; they occur in a laboratory. If you visit areal laboratory, you will never find Hermitian operatorsthere. All you can see are emitters (lasers, ion guns, synchrotrons,and the like) and appropriate detectors. Inthe latter, the time required for the irreversible act ofamplification (the formation of a microscopic bubble ina bubble chamber, or the initial stage of an electric discharge)is extremely brief, typically of the order of anatomic radius divided by the velocity of light. Once irreversibilityhas set in, the rest of the amplification processis essentially classical. It is noteworthy that the time andspace needed for initiating the irreversible processes areincomparably smaller than the macroscopic resolutionof the detecting equipment.The experimenter controls the emission process andobserves detection events. The theorist’s problem is topredict the probability of response of this or that detector,for a given emission procedure. It often happensthat the preparation is unknown to the experimenter,and then the theory can be used for discriminating betweendifferent preparation hypotheses, once the detectionoutcomes are known.<Screen Shot 2013-09-04 at 8.57.50 AM.png>Many physicists, perhaps a majority, have an intuitive,realistic worldview and consider a quantum state as aphysical entity. Its value may not be known, but in principlethe quantum state of a physical system would bewell defined. However, there is no experimental evidencewhatsoever to support this naive belief. On thecontrary, if this view is taken seriously, it may lead tobizarre consequences, called ‘‘quantum paradoxes.’’These so-called paradoxes originate solely from an incorrectinterpretation of quantum theory, which is thoroughlypragmatic and, when correctly used, never yieldstwo contradictory answers to a well-posed question. It isonly the misuse of quantum concepts, guided by a pseudorealisticphilosophy, that leads to paradoxical results.[My comment #2: Here is the basic conflict between epistemological vs ontological views of quantum reality.]In this review we shall adhere to the view that r isonly a mathematical expression which encodes informationabout the potential results of our experimental interventions.The latter are commonly called‘‘measurements’’—an unfortunate terminology, whichgives the impression that there exists in the real worldsome unknown property that we are measuring. Eventhe very existence of particles depends on the context ofour experiments. In a classic article, Mott (1929) wrote‘‘Until the final interpretation is made, no mentionshould be made of the a ray being a particle at all.’’Drell (1978a, 1978b) provocatively asked ‘‘When is aparticle?’’ In particular, observers whose world lines areaccelerated record different numbers of particles, as willbe explained in Sec. V.D (Unruh, 1976; Wald, 1994).1The theory of relativity did not cause as much misunderstandingand controversy as quantum theory, because peoplewere careful to avoid using the same nomenclature as in nonrelativisticphysics. For example, elementary textbooks onrelativity theory distinguish ‘‘rest mass’’ from ‘‘relativisticmass’’ (hard-core relativists call them simply ‘‘mass’’ and ‘‘energy’’).2The ‘‘irreversible act of amplification’’ is part of quantumfolklore, but it is not essential to physics. Amplification isneeded solely to facilitate the work of the experimenter.3Positive operators are those having the property that^curuc&>0 for any state c. These operators are always Hermitian.94 A. Peres and D. R. Terno: Quantum information and relativity theoryRev. Mod.On Sep 4, 2013, at 8:48 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@icloud.com> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com>Subject: Quantum information and relativity theoryDate: September 4, 2013 8:33:48 AM PDTTo: nick herbert <quanta@mail.cruzio.com>
The late Asher Peres http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asher_Peres interpretation is the antithesis of the late David Bohm's ontological interpretation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm holding to a purely subjective epistemological Bohrian interpretation of the quantum BIT potential Q.He claims that Antony Valentini's signal non locality beyond orthodox quantum theory would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS, VOLUME 76, JANUARY 2004Quantum information and relativity theoryAsher PeresDepartment of Physics, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, 32000 Haifa, IsraelDaniel R. TernoPerimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2J 2W9(Published 6 January 2004)This article discusses the intimate relationship between quantum mechanics, information theory, andrelativity theory. Taken together these are the foundations of present-day theoretical physics, andtheir interrelationship is an essential part of the theory. The acquisition of information from aquantum system by an observer occurs at the interface of classical and quantum physics. The authorsreview the essential tools needed to describe this interface, i.e., Kraus matrices andpositive-operator-valued measures. They then discuss how special relativity imposes severerestrictions on the transfer of information between distant systems and the implications of the fact thatquantum entropy is not a Lorentz-covariant concept. This leads to a discussion of how it comes aboutthat Lorentz transformations of reduced density matrices for entangled systems may not becompletely positive maps. Quantum field theory is, of course, necessary for a consistent description ofinteractions. Its structure implies a fundamental tradeoff between detector reliability andlocalizability. Moreover, general relativity produces new and counterintuitive effects, particularlywhen black holes (or, more generally, event horizons) are involved. In this more general context theauthors discuss how most of the current concepts in quantum information theory may require areassessment.CONTENTSI. Three Inseparable Theories 93A. Relativity and information 93B. Quantum mechanics and information 94C. Relativity and quantum theory 95D. The meaning of probability 95E. The role of topology 96F. The essence of quantum information 96II. The Acquisition of Information 97A. The ambivalent quantum observer 97B. The measuring process 98C. Decoherence 99D. Kraus matrices and positive-operator-valuedmeasures (POVM’s) 99E. The no-communication theorem 100III. The Relativistic Measuring Process 102A. General properties 102B. The role of relativity 103C. Quantum nonlocality? 104D. Classical analogies 105IV. Quantum Entropy and Special Relativity 105A. Reduced density matrices 105B. Massive particles 105C. Photons 107D. Entanglement 109E. Communication channels 110V. The Role of Quantum Field Theory 110A. General theorems 110B. Particles and localization 111C. Entanglement in quantum field theory 112D. Accelerated detectors 113VI. Beyond Special Relativity 114A. Entanglement revisited 115B. The thermodynamics of black holes 116C. Open problems 118Acknowledgments and Apologies 118Appendix A: Relativistic State Transformations 119Appendix B: Black-Hole Radiation 119References 120I. THREE INSEPARABLE THEORIESQuantum theory and relativity theory emerged at thebeginning of the twentieth century to give answers tounexplained issues in physics: the blackbody spectrum,the structure of atoms and nuclei, the electrodynamics ofmoving bodies. Many years later, information theorywas developed by Claude Shannon (1948) for analyzingthe efficiency of communication methods. How do theseseemingly disparate disciplines relate to each other? Inthis review, we shall show that they are inseparablylinked.A. Relativity and informationCommon presentations of relativity theory employfictitious observers who send and receive signals. These‘‘observers’’ should not be thought of as human beings,but rather as ordinary physical emitters and detectors.Their role is to label and locate events in spacetime. Thespeed of transmission of these signals is bounded byc—the velocity of light—because information needs amaterial carrier, and the latter must obey the laws ofphysics. Information is physical (Landauer, 1991).[My comment #1: Indeed information is physical. Contrary to Peres, in Bohm's theory Q is also physical but not material (be able), consequently one can have entanglement negentropy transfer without be able material propagation of a classical signal. I think Peres makes a fundamental error here.]However, the mere existence of an upper bound onthe speed of propagation of physical effects does not dojustice to the fundamentally new concepts that were introducedby Albert Einstein (one could as well imaginecommunications limited by the speed of sound, or thatof the postal service). Einstein showed that simultaneityhad no absolute meaning, and that distant events mighthave different time orderings when referred to observersin relative motion. Relativistic kinematics is all aboutinformation transfer between observers in relative motion.Classical information theory involves concepts such asthe rates of emission and detection of signals, and thenoise power spectrum. These variables have well definedrelativistic transformation properties, independentof the actual physical implementation of the communicationsystem.
1) . I intuited the connection between the Einstein-Rosen (ER) wormhole and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) quantum entanglement back in 1973 when I was with Abdus Salam at the International Centre of Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy. This idea was published in the wacky book “Space-Time and Beyond” (Dutton, 1975) described by MIT physics historian David Kaiser in his book “How the Hippies Saved Physics.” Lenny Susskind, who I worked with at Cornell 1963-4, rediscovered this ER = EPR connection in the black hole “firewall” paradox. Lenny envisions a multi-mouthed wormhole network connecting the Hawking radiation particles their entangled twins behind the evaporating event horizon. “each escaping particle remains connected to the black hole through a wormhole” Dennis Overbye, Einstein and the Black Hole, New York Times August 13, 2013. The no-signaling theorem corresponds to the wormhole pinching off before a light speed limited signal can pass through one mouth to the other. Now we know that traversable wormhole stargates are possible using amplified anti-gravity dark energy. This corresponds to signal-nonlocality in post-quantum theory violating orthodox quantum theory.
1) Localizing global symmetries requires the addition of compensating gauge connections in a fiber bundle picture of the universe. Indeed, the original global symmetry group is a smaller subgroup of the local symmetry group. The gauge connections define parallel transport of tensor/spinor fields. They correspond to the interactions between the several kinds of charges of the above symmetries. I shall go into more details of this elsewhere. Indeed localizing the above spacetime symmetries corresponds to generalizations of Einstein’s General Relativity as a local gauge theory.[i] For example, localizing the space and time global translational symmetries means that the Lie group transformations at different events (places and times) in the universe are independent of each other. If one believes in the classical special relativity postulate of locality that there are no faster-than-light actions at a distance, then the transformations must certainly be independent of each other between pairs of spacelike separated events that cannot be connected by a light signal. However, the local gauge principle is much stronger, because it applies to pairs of events that can be connected not only by a light signal, but also by slower-than-light timelike signals. This poses a paradox when we add quantum entanglement. Aspect’s experiment and others since then, show that faster-than-light influences do in fact exist in the conditional probabilities (aka correlations) connecting observed eigenvalues of quantum observable operators independently chosen by Alice and Bob when spacelike separated. I shall return to this in more detail elsewhere. However, the no entanglement-signaling postulate is thought by many mainstream theoretical physicists to define orthodox quantum theory. It’s believed that its violation would also violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Note that the entanglement signal need not be faster-than-light over a spacelike separation between sender and receiver. It could be lightlike or timelike separated as well. Indeed it can even be retrocausal with the message sent back-from-the-future. John Archibald Wheeler’s “delayed choice experiment” is actually consistent with orthodox quantum theory’s no-signaling premise. The point is, that one cannot decode the message encoded in the pattern of entanglement until one has a classical signal key that only propagates forward in time. What one sees before the classical key arrives and a correlation analysis is computed is only local random white noise. However, data on precognitive remote viewing as well as brain presponse data suggests that no-entanglement signaling is only true for dead matter. Nobel Prize physicist, Brian Josephson first published on this. I have also suggested it using Bohm’s ontological interpretation (Lecture 8 of Michael Towler’s Cambridge University Lectures on Bohm’s Pilot Wave). Antony Valentini has further developed this idea in several papers. Post-quantum “signal nonlocality” dispenses with the need to wait for the light-speed limited retarded signal key propagating from past to future. Local non-random noise will be seen in violation of the S-Matrix unitarity “conservation of information” postulate of G. ‘t Hooft, L. Susskind et-al. Indeed the distinguishable non-orthogonality of entangled Glauber macro-quantum coherent states seems to be the way to get signal nonlocality. This gets us to the “Black Hole War” between Susskind and Hawking about information loss down evaporating black holes. It seems that Hawking caved in too fast to Susskind back in Dublin in 2004. I intuited the connection between the Einstein-Rosen (ER) wormhole and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) quantum entanglement back in 1973 when I was with Abdus Salam at the International Centre of Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy. This idea was published in the wacky book “Space-Time and Beyond” (Dutton, 1975) described by MIT physics historian David Kaiser in his book “How the Hippies Saved Physics.” Lenny Susskind, who I worked with at Cornell 1963-4, rediscovered this ER = EPR connection in the black hole “firewall” paradox.
[i] Localizing the four space and time translations corresponds to Einstein’s general coordinate transformations that are now gauge transformations defining an equivalence class of physically identical representations of the same curvature tensor field. However, the compensating gauge connection there corresponds to torsion fields not curvature fields. The curvature field corresponds to localizing the three space-space rotations and the three space-time Lorentz boost rotations together. Einstein’s General Relativity in final form (1916) has zero torsion with non-zero curvature. However, T.W.B. Kibble from Imperial College, London in 1961 showed how to get the Einstein-Cartan torsion + curvature extension of Einstein’s 1916 curvature-only model by localizing the full 10-parameter Poincare symmetry Lie group of Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity. The natural geometric objects to use are the four Cartan tetrads that correspond to Local Inertial Frame (LIF) detector/observers that are not rotating about their Centers of Mass (COM) that are on weightless zero g-force timelike geodesics. Zero torsion is then imposed as an ad-hoc constraint to regain Einstein’s 1916 model as a limiting case. The ten parameter Poincare Lie group is subgroup of the fifteen parameter conformal group that adds four constant proper acceleration hyperbolic Wolfgang Rindler horizon boosts and one dilation scale transformation that corresponds to Herman Weyl’s original failed attempt to unify gravity with electromagnetism. The spinor Dirac square roots of the conformal group correspond to Roger Penrose’s “twistors.”
It's clear that DK's scheme won't work - nor will any scheme that is based on unitary linear orthodox quantum theory using orthogonal base states.
However, concerning Valentini's, Josephson, Weinberg, Stapp & my different & independent from from DK's approaches: while the trace operation to get expectation values of observables on quantum density matrices is invariant under unitary transformations of the base states which preserve orthogonality, that is not true for the transformation from an orthogonal Fock basis to the non-orthogonal Glauber coherent state basis, which is clearly a non-unitary transformation that is OUTSIDE the domain of validity of orthodox quantum theory. I think many Pundits have missed this point?
Hawking's former assistant Bernard Carr spells this out clearly in Can Psychical Research Bridge the Gulf Between Matter and Mind?" Bernard Carr Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol 59 Part 221 June 2008
Begin forwarded message:
From: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: AW: AW: More on the |0>|0> term
Date: June 14, 2013 11:14:57 AM PDT
To: Suda Martin <Martin.Suda.fl@ait.ac.at>
Thank you, Martin.
I finally get it.
My confusion lay in the attribution of the short calculation below.
I thought this calculation (which leads to rA) was due to Gerry.
Instead it is a calculation done by Gerry but attributed to DK.
It was not a calculation that DK ever carried out but
arose from Gerry taking Gerry's FULL CALCULATION,
applying the Kalamidas approximation
and getting an incorrect result.
The correct result is Zero
on which you and Gerry agree.
So if Kalamidas would have carried out the calculation this way
he would have gotten an incorrect answer.
I hope I have now understood the situation correctly.
But Kalamidas did not carry out the calculation that Gerry displays.
DK did not start out with the FULL CALCULATION and then approximate.
DK starts with an approximation and then calculates.
DK starts with an approximation and carries out a series of steps which all seem to be valid
but whose conclusion is preposterous. Furthermore the approximation (weak coherent states)
is an approximation used in dozens of laboratories by serious quantum opticians without
as far as I am aware leading to preposterous or impossible conclusions.
Therefore it seems to me that the calculation below is another nail in the Kalamidas coffin, BUT
THE BEAST IS STILL ALIVE.
1. No one yet has started with Kalamidas's (approximate) assumptions, and discovered a mistake in his chain of logic.
2. No one yet has started with Kalamidas's (approximate) assumptions, followed a correct chain of logic and shown that FTL signaling does not happen.
Martin Suda came the closest to carrying out problem #2. He started with the Kalamidas (approximation) assumptions and decisively proved that all FTL terms are zero. But Martin's proof contains an unphysical |0>|0> term that mars his triumph.
I am certain that the Kalamidas claim is wrong. The FULL CALCULATION refutations of Ghirardi, Howell and Gerry are pretty substantial coffin nails. But unless I am blind there seems still something missing from a clean and definitive refutation of the Kalamidas claim. See problems #1 and #2 above.
I do not think that Nick is being stubborn or petty in continuing to bring these problems to your attentions. I should think it would be a matter of professional pride to be able to bring this matter to a clean and unambiguous conclusion by refuting Kalamidas on his own terms.
Thank you all for participating in this adventure whatever your opinions.
Nick Herbert
On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:29 AM, Suda Martin wrote:
Nick,
Thank you for comments!
I would still like to explain my short considerations below a bit more precisely, anyway. I feel there was perhaps something unclear as regards my email (12th June), because you wrote "you were confused".
I only considered the following:
DK disclosed a calculation (see attachment) which is completely wrong because he made a mathematical limit (see first line, where he omitted the term ra^{+}_{a3}) which is absolutely not justifiable here (just as CG mentioned, see below) because both parts are equally important if you make the expectation value properly. If you take both parts you get exactly zero: alpha^{*}(tr^{*}+rt^{*})=0.
So one does not obtain a quantity like (r alpha)^{*}.
That’s all. There is absolutely no discrepancy between me and CG.
Nice regards,
Martin
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: nick herbert [mailto:quanta@cruzio.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2013 23:33
Betreff: Re: AW: More on the |0>|0> term
"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 Gerry
Actually, Chris, one can get much more specific than that by explicitly displaying the Correct Approximation Scheme (CAS) and showing term by term than Alice's interference vanishes (to the proper order of approximation).
Absent a correct CAS and its refutation these general claims are little more than handwaving.
Produce a CAS.
Refute it.
Is anyone up to this new Kalamidas challenge?
Or does everyone on this list except me
consider deriving a CAS a waste of time?
Nick Herbert
On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:03 PM, CHRISTOPHER GERRY 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
---- Original message ----
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:28:16 -0700
From: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: AW: More on the |0>|0> term
To: Suda Martin
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
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
alpha^{*}(tr^{*}+rt^{*})=0
due to the Stokes-relation of beam splitters. No approximations are
necessary. So, I am astonished about the sloppy calculations of
Demetrios.
Cheers,
Martin
________________________________________
Von: CHRISTOPHER GERRY [CHRISTOPHER.GERRY@lehman.cuny.edu]
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
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: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:12:19 -0700
From: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: More on the |0>|0> term
To: "Demetrios Kalamidas" <dakalamidas@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>
yer right, demetrios--
the |00> term on the right is always accompanied in Suda's
calculation by a real photon on the left.
But this is entirely non-physical.
No real or virtual quantum event corresponds to this term.
Especially with the high amplitude required for
Suda-interference-destruction.
So your specific approximate FTL scheme despite many general
refutations still remains a puzzlement.
A thorn in the side
of the quantum optics community.
if any think otherwise
let them put on the table
one unambiguous refutation
OF YOUR SPECIFIC PROPOSAL--
not of their own
nor of somebody else's
totally different FTL signaling scheme,
Nick
On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:
Nick,
The EP and CSs do derive from the same laser pulse: part of the
pulse pumps the nonlinear crystal and the other part is split off
accordingly to create the CSs.
However, you are still misssing the point: If no EP pair is
created, then you will certainly get '00' on the right
sometimes.... BUT there will be no left photon in existence. The
problem with the Suda term is that when it appears, it appears
only accompanied by a left photon in a superposition state: ie it
always appears as (10+e01)(00+11).
Think of it this way: Suppose you just have an EP source that
creates pairs, with one photon going left and the other right.
Imagine that on the right there is a highly trasnparent BS with
say
|r|^2=0.001. That means that only one out of every thousand right
photons from the EP are reflected, and 999 are transmitted. So,
this means that for every 1000 counts ON THE LEFT, there will be
999 counts tranmitted on the right. Now introduce, at the other
input of that same BS, a CS so that it has a tiny reflected
portion of amplitude |ralpha>. Allegedly then, there will arise
cases where no photon is found in the transmitted channel with
probability equal to |ralpha|^2. Since alpha is arbitrary, we can
choose |
ralpha|=0.1. This means that the probabilty of getting no
photon in
the transmitted channel will be |ralpha|^2=0.01.....Which now
means that, for every 1000 EP pairs created, we will get 1000
counts on the left, but only 900 counts in the transmitted channel
on the right! Whereas, without the CS in the other channel, there
would be
999 counts on the right for that same 1000 counts on the left.
Demetrios
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:44:42 -0700
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Demetrios--
I don't know how the entangled pair (EP) and CSs are generated.
I supposed all three are created with a single PULSE in a non-
linear crystal.
Now one can imagine that this pulse fails to create an EP but
does create a CS
Then some of Bob's detectors will fire but no ES is formed.
So this kind of process could lead to lots of |0>|0> terms.
However what we need are not "lots of |0>|0> terms" but a precise
amplitude (rA) of |0>|0> term.
Given our freedom (in the thought experiment world) to
arbitrarily select
the efficiency of the non-linear crystal, it is hard to see why
the elusive |0>|0>
term would have exactly the right magnitude and phase to cancel
out the interference.
Your original FTL scheme still continues to puzzle me.
Nick
On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Demetrios Kalamidas wrote:
Nick,
The 'entire experimental arrangement' is indeed where the
problem (mystery) arises:
When both CSs are generated it is easy to understand that '00'
will arise, simply because each CS has a non-zero vacuum term.
However, the entire arrangement means inclusion of the
entangled photon pair:
Any time that pair is generated, you are guaranteed to get a
photon on the right, regardless of whether the CSs are there.
So, when entangled pair and CSs are present, there must be at
least one photon at the right. In fact, when only one photon
emerges at the right WE KNOW both CSs were empty.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:34:30 -0700
nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Demetrios--
Sarfatti sent around a nice review of quantum optics
by Ulf Leonhardt that discusses the structure of path-uncertain
photons.
Here is an excerpt:
The interference experiments with single photons mentioned in
Sec. 4.3 have been
performed with photon pairs generated in spontaneous
parametric downconversion
[127]. Here the quantum state (6.28) of light is essentially
|01> |02> + ζ |11>|12 >. (6.29)
In such experiments only those experimental runs count where
photons are counted,
the time when the detectors are not firing is ignored, which
reduces the quantum
state to the photon pair
|11> |12> .
Postselection disentangles the two-mode squeezed
vacuum.
We argued in Sec. 4.3 that the interference of the photon pair
|11> |12> at a 50:50 beam splitter generates the entangled
state (4.24). Without postselection,
however, this state is the disentangled product of two single-
mode squeezed vacua,
as we see from the factorization (6.6) of the S matrix. The
notion of entanglement
is to some extent relative.
this excerpt suggests a possible origin for Suda's |0>|0> term.
In the above process, it's just
the inefficiency of the down converter that generates a |0>|0>
term. That won't do the trick.
But in your more complicated situation--containing two properly
timed coherent states--
when Bohr's "entire experimental arrangement" is considered,
the
| 0>| 0> term may
arise naturally with the proper amplitude and phase. It would
correspond to events when
the coherent states were successfully generated but there were
no events in either upper or lower path.
If this conjecture can be shown to hold true, then the
original Kalamidas proposal would
be refuted by Suda's calculation.
The trick would be to examine--in a thought experiment way--
exactly how those two |A> beams
are created--looking for entanglement with |0>|0> states in
the part of the experiment considered in your proposal.
Nick
ref: Ulf Leonhardt's wonderful review of quantum optics,
starting with reflections from a window pane and concluding
with
Hawking radiation.
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
On Dec 29, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Paul Murad <ufoguypaul@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is a very pessimistic perspective.
Man by itself is incapable of developing morality and ethics except with God. You mention
death, well if there is a hell, the believe that they exist without god or absence that we can
assume means love for that matter may indeed make hell a very empty disparate place.
The crutch that exists may not be fully a religious point but rather a historical view that is part
of mankind's culture. These things happened, are real and they occurred. Regarding your view about
different religious causing problems, I would have to agree but I do not see any contradiction
in believing in God and the possibility of reincarnation...
To mention Jung-Pauli is child-play... Scientists are only rarely right and on metaphysical subjects,
we do not have the physical evidence to judge truth or falsehood with a clearly defined scientific
investigation.
Paul
Paul M,
1) Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic field data is direct evidence for the Jung-Pauli information field.
2) The Central Intelligence Agency Stanford Research Institute Remote Viewing data is evidence for the Jung-Pauli information field.
3) Reincarnation data is evidence for the Jung-Pauli information field.
on all of the above see in particular Russell Targ's several new books as well as Hal Puthoff's on-line report.
4) There is a solid theoretical physics basis for it
a) David Bohm's Implicate Order = world hologram screen software on both our past and future cosmic horizons - the Alpha Point past particle horizon and the Omega Point future event horizon shown in my modification of Tamara Davis's PhD fig 1.1c
For details see http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html (note also Lecture 8)
The work of MIT physicist Seth Lloyd shows that these two cosmological horizons are computers.
I think they are conscious computers i.e. Hawking's Mind of God - literally
See also the papers of Antony Valentini on signal nonlocality
e.g.
Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
DOI: 10.1007/s12043-002-0117-1
Report number: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
(or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)
Also see the 46 minute raw video of me and Dan Smith discussing this. I look like a frumpy shlepper in it, but the content is good.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=A56hT_51v7I