You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog Blog (Full Text Display) Tag Steven Weinberg

Tag » Steven Weinberg

Jun
14

Tagged in: Steven Weinberg, Jack Sarfatti, Henry Stapp, Demetrios A. Kalamidas, Brian Josephson, Bernard Carr, Antony Valentini

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.

Jun
01

Tagged in: Steven Weinberg, signal nonlocality, Henry Stapp, Giancarlo Ghirardi, entanglement signals, Demetrios A. Kalamidas, Brian Josephson, Antony Valentini

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