On Nov 27, 2005, at 3:13 PM, nick herbert wrote:
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
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.
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