Text Size

Stardrive

Tag » Nick Herbert
  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!

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 ®

"in a manner that produces "weak interference" without resorting to coincidence signals."
Yes Nick, but is it true? - is the 64 trillion dollar question. ;-)
On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:51 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> 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, $ 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

JS: Nick you continually miss the key points here.
Of course presponse & RV are not orthodox physics experiments.
However, Helmut Schmidt's retro-PK experiments were and Henry Stapp published a paper in Phys Rev A about them for which they would have hung him if they could - You know who I mean.

The RetroPsychoKinesis Project
www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/
Retropsychokinesis experiments are now on-line. ... Channeling evidence for a PKeffect to independent observers by H. Schmidt, ... Henry Stapp's controversial 1994 modification of quantum mechanics which accomodates RPK-phenomena. Stapp acted as an independent observer on some of Helmut Schmidt's more ...
Observation of a PK effect under highly controlled conditions
www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/observ.html
by H SCHMIDT - Cited by 35 - Related articles
By HELMUT SCHMIDT ... The discovery of PK effects on prerecorded random events (Schmidt, 1976) did not .... of the subject in the test session has a retroactive effect on the moment the random events were generated (Schmidt, 1975, 1978). ..... Henry Stapp is a theoretical physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.


Physical reality is bigger than orthodox physics experiments done so far.

On Aharonov's claims. I say his retrocausal INFORMAL LANGUAGE (Bohm) interpretation is TRUE, but Godel-undecidable within the algorithmic RULES of the orthodox quantum physics GAME.

Get out of your box. Think more like a homicide detective - presponse, remote viewing are CLUES.

On Dec 21, 2012, at 12:32 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

NH: You may choose to muddy the waters, Jack.
by citing other non-physics experiments.
But restricting the topic to Aharonov's claims.
Even smart people make mistakes.
Smart people learn from their mistakes.
Dumb people never do.

Jack:  Have you learned from yours? ;-) Nick u also miss my logical point here as well as the significance of the presponse data. The presponse data + your friend Russell Targ's published evidence on CIA vetted precognitive remote viewing proves that real retrocausality is the fundamental fact of nature even though it is covered up encrypted as it were (passion at a distance) in the orthodox quantum limit. Now you can simply deny the validity of the presponse data and say that Radin, Bierman, Bem, Targ, May et-al are bad scientists and that their data is bogus. Indeed that's what James Randi et-al will say if pushed to the wall.
We then have a religious paradigm war like the Shias and the Wahabbis ;-)
Of course, the real proof in the pudding will be conscious AI nano-chips based on Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality" but no one will try to make them if they believe what you believe - a bias against the very notion.

On Dec 21, 2012, at 11:50 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

NH: On the interpretation of weak delayed-choice measurements as retro-causal: given three choices: necessary, sufficient or mistaken, Nick Herbert votes
(along with Kastner) for "mistaken".

On Dec 21, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:


REK: If the fancy new experiments don't require it, then it shouldn't be claimed that they have demonstrated it. And remember that the fancy new experiments have no different ontological status than any other  qm experiment. There is no new physics here and certainly nothing
meriting an invoking of  'back from the future' as pertaining only to those experiments, as the popular press keeps suggesting. This is all hype and nothing more.

RK
________________________________________
From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 2:20 AM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Retrocausality is a sufficient but not a necessary explanation in orthodox quantum theory

Jack: They do not require, it i.e. retrocausality is not necessary, it is sufficient. Invoking retrocausality does not contradict any orthodox quantum experiments. Retrocausality is a true Godel undecidable proposition within the too limited rules of the orthodox quantum theory game.


On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

REK: Jack, you'll need to say which argument you're talking about. If it's the claim in the abstract from the arxiv preprint I mentioned (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6224), yes, all the results
are nicely predicted by ordinary qm and do not require 2-state formalism as 'the only 'reasonable resolution' as claimed by Aharonov et al in that abstract. In fact the alleged 'contradictions' that they claim need 'resolution' are spurious; under a standard qm analysis, which I've already provided, there are no special problems or contradictions that need 'resolving' by recourse to a different formulation.

Jack: As I said. Yakir & Co only have an argument of sufficiency of the retrocausal interpretation in which psi* is a post-selected advanced destiny influence and psi is the pre-selected retarded history influence colliding as it were in the intermediate weak measurement. Since orthodox quantum theory is degenerate in this regard, i.e. admits a meta-Hilbert space of Godel undecidable Bohmian "informal languages" or interpretations, e.g.

1) Copenhagen epistemological

2) Bohm ontological

3) Parallel Worlds (Tegmark Level 3)

4) Cramer Transactional

5) London-Wigner consciousness reduction --> Penrose Orch OR

etc.

Only strong signal nonlocality in Antony Valentini's sense can settle the issue.

Libet --> Radin --> Bierman --> Bem

I claim is clear evidence for the breakdown of orthodox quantum theory in living matter.

Quantum theory is only limiting case of a more general post-quantum theory as special relativity was for general relativity.

REK: So they are taking something that is perfectly sensible under standard qm and making it seem strange and obscure to create an apparent need for their formulation. There are no special problems with these experimental phenomena under a standard qm analysis. It all boils down to steering of quantum systems (by way of weak measurements) into tilted error states more likely to give certain 'strong' outcomes. So of course the strong outcomes are more likely to have come from the weakly measured states which lean toward those outcomes. It's just the shoe factory analogy: If Alice is known to have a high rate of defective shoe production on Saturdays (because she partied too hard the night before), if Bob gets a Saturday shipment, he's going to find that more of those shoes are defective. That doesn't indicate that Bob's identification of a particular defective shoe forces that shoe to retroactively have been (probably) made on a Saturday the week before. It just means that it's more likely to have been made on a Saturday. This is all ordinary statistical inference,
no different conceptually from my inferring that in the past you interacted with your computer because I got an email from you. My getting that email did not retroactively influence you to have done something in the past. Neither do any of the fancy experiments referred to recently in the popular press require a 'back from the future' explanation.

Jack: They do not require, it i.e. retrocausality is not necessary, it is sufficient. Invoking retrocausality does not contradict any orthodox quantum experiments. Retrocausality is a true Godel undecidable proposition within the too limited rules of the orthodox quantum theory game.

REK: Rather than the 'back from the future' explanation being more 'elegant' or 'simpler' as 2-state vector proponents claim, it is tendentious and misleading since it's based on taking results perfectly consistent with standard qm and trying to argue that they require something beyond standard qm. They don't. Remember the shoe factory. Now if someone gets reliable statistically significant deviation from the Born Rule, that's a completely different matter: in that case, both standard qm and the 2-state formulation fail.

Jack: I think the history-destiny picture naturally generalizes to include signal nonlocality - that's what John Cramer claims in his back from the future experiment and in Chapter 16 of Frontiers of Propulsion Science.

________________________________________
From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 1:16 AM
To: Kafatos, Menas

Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

That's what I have been saying. However Ruth seems to think her argument refutes Yakir's
It doesn't Difference in logic between a sufficient explanation and a necessary one.


Sent from my iPad mini

On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:07 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:

I agree with Ruth, they are not by themselves.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:33 AM, "Ruth Elinor Kastner" <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

Ok Jack -- the only thing I question is holding up these experiments in the popular press as evidence of retrocausality -- they aren't.

RK
________________________________________
From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:25 PM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 20, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

The presponse data is a separate issue from what's going on in the experiments referred to by CL.


Jack:  Agreed The retrocausal phenomenon is moot in orthodox qm
Yakir agrees with that
The presponse data is a violation of it
So orthodox qm is not interesting for retrocausality
What Yakir shows is that there is no contradiction
It's like lifting a degeneracy in the meta Hilbert space of parallel qm interpretations

REK: I don't rule out that humans might be able to get around QM statistics and that there may be other physics out there, but my point is just that
_these experiments do not contain that new physics_. These experiments are perfectly consistent with standard QM without explicit retrocausality.
Therefore, of course they are also consistent with TI as an interpretation of standard QM. Yes in TI there are advanced states but these are sub-empirical; i.e.
their existence cannot be revealed/confirmed by experiment- -- at least not by these experiments. On the other hand, Valentini's work predicts deviations from standard QM (i.e. Born Rule).

Jack: That's my point.

REK: Only if there is deviation from the Born Rule is there truly
new quantum physics in this sense. In terms of the Transactional Interpretation, deviation from the Born Rule would mean that there might be some way to directly influence _which_ transaction is actualized from a set of possible ones.


Jack: Cramer say that in ch 16
I prove it using entangled Glauber states

________________________________________
From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:59 PM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

Right I still have not had time to respond properly in depth
But your critique noted
Crucial test is presponse evidence u ignore
Also Russ Targ's CIA RV SRI report
John Cramer disagrees w you in ch 16 of exotic propulsion book
I mean your not addressing issue that qm is limit of more general theory with entanglement signaling.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

I've seen a discussion elsewhere about these kinds of experiments. As soon as you detect a single particle (say Alice's), a one-particle Alice state is necessarily detected
and actualized on Alice's side, even if nobody 'looked' at it (i.e. even if there is still epistemic uncertainty about what state was actualized) and that
collapses the pair (both Alice's and Bob's particles) in that particular run into a particular state . Then the subsequent measurements you perform on Bob's particle
will reflect the statistics of the state that was created via the detection of Alice's particle.

In the experiments involving a superposition of the interferometer mirror in a 'which-slit' and 'both slits' configuration, detection of Alice's particle projects that combined system of Alice + Bob + IFM mirror into a particular state, and then detection of the mirror in a particular state further projects Bob's particle into a particular state corresponding to the mirror's detection, so of course Bob's particle is later detected with statistics reflecting those earlier detections.

No explicit retrocausality is necessarily present in these kinds of experiments.
The claims are usually overstated based on a conflation of any given individual run with the statistical analysis of sets of runs.

RK
________________________________________
From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
To: Levit, Creon (ARC-P)
Cc: Kim Burrafato; Ruth Elinor Kastner; Fred Wolf; Daniel Sheehan; Nick Herbert; Saul Paul Sirag; Menas Kafatos
Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

I know about this and I think kim already has it posted on Stardrive

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:26 AM, "Levit, Creon (ARC-P)" <creon.levit@nasa.gov> wrote:

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html#nRlv





Thanks. :-)

So if mental information is stored as qubits in a giant quantum wave function (Higgs-Goldstone macro quantum coherent Glauber state order parameter of a spontaneous broken symmetry ground state of quasiparticles in brain as in Vitiello's theory for example), entangled macro-quantum coherent Glauber states etc. - but with Valentini's signal nonlocality beyond orthodox quantum theory, then we have what we have been looking for since CIA SRI 1970's - remote viewing et-al in sight.
A
At Stanford Research Institute

by H. E. Puthoff, Ph.D.
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin
4030 Braker Lane W., #300
Austin, Texas 78759-5329

Abstract - In July 1995 the CIA declassified, and approved for release, documents revealing its sponsorship in the 1970s of a program at Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, CA, to determine whether such phenomena as remote viewing "might have any utility for intelligence collection" [1]. Thus began disclosure to the public of a two-decade-plus involvement of the intelligence community in the investigation of so-called parapsychological or psi phenomena. Presented here by the program's Founder and first Director (1972 - 1985) is the early history of the program, including discussion of some of the first, now declassified, results that drove early interest.
 
http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

From Publishers Weekly
Building on the insights in his Quantum Reality , Herbert proposes that mind, instead of being localized in our brains, is a phenomenon as deeply imbedded in nature as light or electricity. Three basic features of the universe predicted by quantum mechanics--randomness, the interconnectedness of all phenomena, and thinglessness (quantum objects do not possess attributes of their own)--were rejected by Albert Einstein, but to Herbert, a Stanford-trained physicist, each of these features of matter is a manifestation of a corresponding basic trait of mind: free will, deep psychic connectedness, and ambiguity. A skillful popularizer, Herbert scrutinizes recent brain research, reviews highly conjectural quantum models of mind, and outlines his own theory of "quantum animism" in which mind permeates the world and interacts with matter at the quantum level, which, if true, might help explain paranormal phenomena. Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.


From Kirkus Reviews
A physicist's daring investigation of mind and its relation to matter. According to Herbert (Quantum Reality, 1985, etc.), the famous ``Turing test''--in which a computer is considered to be conscious if it can talk like a human being--``misses the point.'' The true measure of consciousness is ``inner experience,'' which robots and computers just don't have. But what is inner experience--and how does it arise? In this wide- ranging study, Herbert looks at consciousness from ``inside'' (our felt experience of sensations, emotions, memory, etc.) and ``outside'' (how scientists perceive the brain). Two basic models arise: monism (matter and mind are one) and dualism (matter and mind are separate). Although Herbert never baldly states his position, he enthuses at length over a new twist on dualism that he calls ``quantum mind.'' Drawing on subatomic physics, he finds the mind to possess free will and ``connectedness'' with other minds. A fistful of odd experiments back up his argument, ranging from the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment--which seems to demonstrate the reality of nonlocal connections--to his own invention of a ``metaphase typewriter'' driven by quantum events, through which ``discarnate beings'' can send messages to the human sphere. Future experiments, Herbert suggests, might include telepathy machines and spirit communicators--all logical, if startling, extensions of the basic premise that mind is as fundamental and free as matter. Leading edge or lunatic fringe? Opinions will differ, but Herbert proves to be a reliable guide on this journey through the looking glass. -- Copyright ©1993, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
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)

On Nov 15, 2012, at 10:39 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/507531/first-teleportation-from-one-macroscopic-object-to-another/

Clever Chinese

Can Nick Herbert's FLASH for faster-than-light & back-from-the-future entanglement signaling be made to work after all?
Like · · Share
Jack Sarfatti Altho the FLASH proposal was refuted, it stimulated much discussion about the intrinsic limits of quantum amplifiers: we know now that noiseless quantum amplifiers cannot exist because if they did we would be able to build time machines. In a small way FLASH led to the discovery of a new and unsuspected natural law: NO PERFECT AMPLIFIERS.

http://www2.cruzio.com/~quanta/flash.html

Compare with:
First Noiseless Single Photon Amplifier

ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2012) — Research physicists have demonstrated the first device capable of amplifying the information in a single particle of light without adding noise

The research collaboration, involving Griffith University, The University of Queensland and University of Science and Technology of China, was able to amplify the noisy quantum state of a single photon subjected to loss, without adding noise in the process; in fact, their amplification reduced the noise in the quantum state

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121112101050.htm

see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem
www2.cruzio.com
4
  1.  
  2. Nick Herbert's paradox - my solution
    "We argue that the following three statements cannot all be true: (i) Hawking radiation is in a pure state, (ii) the information carried by the radiation is emitted
    from the region near the horizon, wit
    h low energy effective field theory valid beyond some microscopic distance from the horizon, and (iii) the infalling observer encounters
    nothing unusual at the horizon. Perhaps the most conservative resolution is that the infalling observer burns up at the horizon. Alternatives would seem to require
    novel dynamics that nevertheless cause notable violations of semiclassical physics at macroscopic distances from the horizon."
    Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?
    Ahmed Almheiri,1* Donald Marolf,2*y Joseph Polchinski,3y and James Sully4*
    *Department of Physics
    University of California
    Santa Barbara, CA 93106
    We are outside objective black hole horizons whose Penrose diagram (no rotation) is
    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxP-Xhgy7E25XJkzfz3Ul4VIpd7vI5NKE1HcbO17rdYHDy04oZSA
    In contrast we are inside our subjective past and future cosmological horizons that form the causal diamond.
    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPgIpJhNz73AUqqa7ZZlSLiUrP6Fwm_n4IZ6FCszbNcO7Wa0T3
    Hawking & Gibbons show that Bekenstein-Unruh thermodynamics applies in both cases. So does Tamara Davis's PhD (2004 Univ New South Wales).
    http://stardrive.org/stardrive/images/stories/DavisFig1-1Hologram.jpg
    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTFxuJ0grFfMeEZ0OVXAyX6h6GTkrc9XROJJo2D2P5Aag1G2PmK
    However, in terms of Black Hole Complementarity the two situations are qualitatively different.
    (iii) must be true for our cosmological future event horizon because the latter is subjective relative to us in an undivided whole (Cramer transaction)
    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRkG8IoWQXTsqqQYJWg8Qna0sY8BTHwoMD3BLTiHdwVa1LKRaJsMA
    (iii) is essentially the Einstein Equivalence Principle
    (iii) however need not be true for the LIF geodesic in-falling observer to an objective black hole horizon.
    I think (ii) must be true in both cases.

From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Subject: [ExoticPhysics] Nick throws in the towel ;-)
Date: October 20, 2012 6:30:07 PM GMT+01:00
To: Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
Reply-To: "Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics" <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>

Whew that was close. :-)
Nice try Nick.
Good science.

Sent from my iPhone in London

Begin forwarded message:

From: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Date: October 20, 2012, 5:38:44 PM GMT+01:00
To: Dean Radin <dradin@noetic.org>
Cc: "SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>, Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>, jutts@uci.edu, Richard Shoup <rgshoup@rgshoup.com>, Dick Bierman <d.j.bierman@icloud.com>
Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] [Starfleet Command] Violation of orthodox quantum theory in the living brain: presentiment meta-analysis published
Reply-To: "Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics" <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>

Thanks, Dean--

Your graph #7 is just the (idealized) hypothesis I was trying to point out.
I was not aware that you had taken this possibility into account.

I stand corrected.

Your test on page 271 seems to be a more comprehensive way to exclude expectation bias than my N-1 test because it uses all of the data not just a small subset. But it might be interesting to look for the presence (or absence) of the N-1 presponse.

Nick


On Oct 19, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone in London, Kensington Palace Gate area

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dick Bierman <d.j.bierman@icloud.com>
Date: October 19, 2012, 4:30:34 AM GMT+01:00
To: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Cc: "SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>, Dean Radin <dradin@noetic.org>, , Richard Shoup , Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] [Starfleet Command] Violation of orthodox quantum theory in the living brain: presentiment meta-analysis published
Reply-To: "Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics" <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>

Hi Nick,
Let me add to this that at the Parapsychological Association Convention in 2002 (Paris) Jan Dalkvist, Joakim Westerlund and I did already propose and discuss this theoretical alternative explanation for presentiment effects (it is mentioned in: http://archived.parapsych.org/pa_convention_2002_report.html ).  I ran some simulations to explore the potential magnitude of the effect and found that for larger number of trials the effect of a 'strategy' became smaller and smaller. So, apart from the fact that the 'strategies' were not observed in the actual data as Dean Radin already mentioned the effect has also theoretical limits. Dick


On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:06 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, Dean--

Is there a publication somewhere where "expectation bias" is defined for this experiment
and the tests and results excluding it described?

Jack says: Good question.
Nick says: This would be an important publication because as Robin illustrates if people's emotions actually worked this way the results could simulate presentiment without being due to precognition.

Jack: Right.


Nick: Expectation bias says that as the picture number n increases the subject's anxiety about the next picture being disturbing naturally increases so that when that picture actually occurs the physiological measures are unusually high. After the stimulating picture, anxiety drops, only to slowly build up till the next stimulating picture. The result of this kind of emotional behavior would lead to high physiological scores on stimulating pictures without any sort of precognition.

Expectation bias predicts (for instance) not only high physiological scores on stimulating pictures N but also high scores on the neutral picture N -1 that immediately precedes the stimulating picture. I presume your tests for excluding expectation bias showed that scores on the N-1 picture were always close to chance.

Jack: Nick is on target - looking for loopholes just like in the debate over Bell's theorem.

Nick: When teaching kids at my wife's homeschool, I invented the world's simplest card game called "Pacific Octopus".

One card (usually the Ace of Spades) is designated as Pacific Octopus which is a giant, carnivorous monster  whose habit is to suddenly appear in the room and devour the kid or adult that draws the one card in the deck that will summon him.

One only has to play a single game of Pacific Octopus to watch expectation bias in action. The emotion in the room slowly  rises as each neutral card is pulled. Here I usually explain that there is little to worry about because there are so many cards  that the odds of you being devoured are small. This statistical reassurance does little to stem the rising tide of anxiety. Finally  the inevitable happens and someone is eaten by the insatiable sea creature. Then everyone relaxes and the day goes on. For reasons of maximizing dramatic intensity, I never played Pacific Octopus a second time with the same group.
Experience with this simplest of all card games convinced me that expectation bias was a real effect--that it could simulate precognition in the presentiment experiment and that for good science to be done it is important to securely close this loophole preferably for every experimental run.

I would be interested in papers which acknowledge the possibility of this particular kind of bias and show how its absence was measured.

Nick

Jack: Nick does have the knack for making difficult ideas easy to understand for the layman. :-)


On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Dean Radin wrote:

It is mentioned in the article as "expectation bias," which Dick and I (and others) have looked for in the actual data. None of us have found evidence in support of that hypothetical explanation.

best wishes,
Dean


On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
I've looked over this paper meta-analyzing the "presentiment experiment" and am shocked that such a careful analysis completely ignores one very plausible explanation for this seeming retrocausal effect--namely Robin's anticipatory expectation informally expressed at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123256 but as far as I can tell never published. Radin claims to have excluded Robin's hypothesis for some of his experiments but I know of no formal replication of Radin's claim. Robin's Hypothesis is a  reasonable and entirely natural possible explanation for the presentiment effect and as such needs to be rigorously excluded before accepting presentiment as a fact.
The case for human presentiment is only as strong as the efforts made by its proponents to rigorously falsify it. The apparent failure to seriously test (or even consider--as in the MTU article)  Robin's anticipatory expectation hypothesis greatly diminishes my faith in presentiment as a real physical effect.

Nick Herbert
http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com


On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:44 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:


This is, in my opinion, more unequivocal statistics evidence for Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality"  http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049 in strong violation of orthodox quantum theory's several no-entanglement signaling theorems in living matter. This backs up CIA-SRI precognitive remote viewing reports most notably published by Russell Targ. That is, the statistical predictions of orthodox quantum theory are violated in this data in which a non-random signal is detected from a future cause. The past effect and future cause are quantum entangled in time but we do not need a classical signal key to unlock the encrypted message from the future.


Begin forwarded message:

From: Dean Radin <dradin@noetic.org>
Subject: presentiment meta-analysis published
Date: October 18, 2012 1:31:10 AM GMT+01:00
To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/full

Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis

Julia Mossbridge1*, Patrizio Tressoldi2 and Jessica Utts3
1Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
2Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy
3Department of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
This meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 tests an unusual hypothesis: for stimuli of two or more types that are presented in an order designed to be unpredictable and that produce different post-stimulus physiological activity, the direction of pre-stimulus physiological activity reflects the direction of post-stimulus physiological activity, resulting in an unexplained anticipatory effect. The reports we examined used one of two paradigms: (1) randomly ordered presentations of arousing vs. neutral stimuli, or (2) guessing tasks with feedback (correct vs. incorrect). Dependent variables included: electrodermal activity, heart rate, blood volume, pupil dilation, electroencephalographic activity, and blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) activity. To avoid including data hand-picked from multiple different analyses, no post hoc experiments were considered. The results reveal a significant overall effect with a small effect size [fixed effect: overall ES = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.15–0.27, z = 6.9, p < 2.7 × 10−12; random effects: overall (weighted) ES = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.13–0.29, z = 5.3, p < 5.7 × 10−8]. Higher quality experiments produced a quantitatively larger effect size and a greater level of significance than lower quality studies. The number of contrary unpublished reports that would be necessary to reduce the level of significance to chance (p > 0.05) was conservatively calculated to be 87 reports. We explore alternative explanations and examine the potential linkage between this unexplained anticipatory activity and other results demonstrating meaningful pre-stimulus activity preceding behaviorally relevant events. We conclude that to further examine this currently unexplained anticipatory activity, multiple replications arising from different laboratories using the same methods are necessary. The cause of this anticipatory activity, which undoubtedly lies within the realm of natural physical processes (as opposed to supernatural or paranormal ones), remains to be determined.

Wrong on last four words. The basic physics is understood.
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:




best wishes,
Dean


__._,_.___
Reply via web post                           Reply to sender     Reply to group               Start a New Topic    Messages in this topic (1)
RECENT ACTIVITY:
Visit Your Group
These are the logs of the starship NCC-1701-280Z.  Its five-year mission to seek out new minds, new quantum realms.  To boldly explore physics where no physicist  has gone before (in physical, virtual, or quantum worlds)!

Starmind(tm) -- Your daily journal to the industry's brightest stars.  You get infinite knowledge only with Starmind:

All hits.  All Physics. All the time.  And now in parallel and diverging universes.  (Thus proving they don't exist as separate entities --But have we gotten to them yet or not?)

** Patronize any Yahoo! Group Sponsor at your own risk.

- - - - - - Message From Starfleet  - - - (Read below) - - - - - - - - - - -
To change any characteristic of your online membership access, visit via web:
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/SarfattiScienceSeminars

Join in our ongoing discussions and theoretical science writings:
http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/SarfattiScienceSeminars

Dr. Sarfatti may be reached at his e-mail or using Internet site:
http://stardrive.org
http://www.1st-books.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To respond or comment directly to the group's archive, reply via e-mail:

SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups.com
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
.

__,_._,___

_______________________________________________
ExoticPhysics mailing list
ExoticPhysics@mail.softcafe.net
http://mail.softcafe.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exoticphysics