Sunday, November 27, 2005

Nick Herbert finds Ray Jensen's error in his FTL Signal Thought Experiment

On Nov 27, 2005, at 3:13 PM, nick herbert wrote:
Hi Ray--

Your ingenious FTL scheme was forwarded to me by Jack Sarfatti.

Having constructed dozens of such schemes while writing my FTL book (none
of which ever worked) I am familiar with most of the pitfalls a would-be
EPR FTL signaller will encounter.
In your case the problem occurs with your Eq 4 where you give the
for detection of photons at the two interferometer arms. What
you want is the probabilities (amplitudes squared) for each of the two
types of pure-state photons that impinge on the interferometer.

Since these distributions are caused by separate photons (a single photon
interfers with itself) one must add probabilities--not amplitudes as you
have done. When you do this, the sin squared plus cos squared identity
wipes out all fringe variation and the two cases (0 and 1 input) give
exactly the same result at the output.

Ah yes! Now I recall. It's been 15 years since I thought about that. Nick, I think, is correct.

What did you expect? That FTL signalling would be easy?

Mother Nature isn't easy. She wants to be coaxed.

But thanks for trying.

warm regards
Nick Herbert


On Nov 27, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The key is his fig 2 & eq. 3. At the moment, without thinking about it very much, I cannot refute what he claims about eq. 3. Does anyone see the error there? If there is no way to tell which path photon 2 takes then there should be local interference according to Feynman. And it seems there is no way to tell what state photon 1 was in on the left. So why won't it work? Any opinions?

On Nov 27, 2005, at 1:30 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


Probably this paper is wrong, but I have not yet had time to read it carefully. Any opinions? The author is aware of Stapp's et-al objection.

Begin forwarded message:

Date: November 27, 2005 1:14:36 PM PST

Subject: Re: Your STAIF paper

enclosed is a copy per your request. Thank you for your
interest. Sincerely,

Ray Jensen


No comments: