Nick Herbert on Ray Jensen's FTL signal idea - why it does not work.

On Nov 28, 2005, at 4:09 PM, nick herbert wrote:

Jack, the coincidence circuit in Dopfer's experiment works like it does in the

Aspect/Grangier (AG; see attach.) experiments with 2 polarizers: it matches

which photon corresponds to which. Nothing more.

So, Dopfer uses the circuit to match photons. In addition to weeding out

noise, the circuit coordinates data collection: some of the photons have

siblings measured in the focal plane, others in the imaging plane. You

need to separate the two types of data out, in particular if you are switching the

quantum eraser (QE) randomly between focal and imaging planes.

Now OTOH, suppose you are on the receiving end, with the double slit, and you

receive 1000 photons from correlated pairs. There is no coincidence circuit.

I am the "sender" with QE. Beforehand, I informed you, "either the 1000

photons will all have their siblings measured in the focal plane, or they will all

have been measured in the imaging plane." Can you determine which plane I measured

their siblings?

The answer is of course, so long as there is not too much noise.

Did you mean here

The answer is of course YES, so long as there is not too much noise. ?

You will either see an interference pattern from the data or you will not, allowing you

to answer the question. So assuming my reasoning is correct here, you can

indeed send new information. Just set up regular intervals for both

sender and receiver, and have sender keep the QE either in the focal plane or in the

imaging plane (but not both) between these intervals.

Nick, above I asserted that the coincidence circuit is only for correlating

photons. For the sake of argument, suppose you needed some other information

in order to construct the interference pattern behind the double slit. Now

look at what happens when the QE is in the focal plane (fig 4 in Z.). You get

an interference pattern from the data collected by the QE, but there is no

double slit! Anyway, how is this interference pattern constructed? Is it

necessary to get information from the other side here also? If so, (and it

should be the case due to symmetry) then both sides are dependent on one

other; then the argument becomes circular. So conclusion: there is no other

information necessary for construction of the interference pattern.

Ray

Hi Ray--

I'm sorry that I don't have time to discuss the details of the Dopfer

experiment. I'll have to content myself with critiquing your original

article where I think you erred by adding amplitudes instead of

intensities.

In any scheme that purports to use EPR to send signals FTL, not only must

you propose a scheme but also show how your scheme evades the various

impossibility proofs (Eberhard's for instance.). It seems to me that any

scheme (such as yours) that uses passive elements cannot in principle evade

these proofs. Ya gotta get weird.

That's why I invoke MACRO-QUANTUM ODLRO with a NEW NONLINEAR NONUNITARY LOCAL Landau-Ginzburg eq to get signal nonlocality in violation of micro-quantum theory's assumptions of linearity & unitarity.

For instance, I imagined (in my FLASH proposal) that I had discovered a 3rd

and novel kind of measurement, adding to von Neumann's classic measurements

of the 1st and 2nd kind which leave the measured system in the measured

state (Type 1) or in some other state (Type 2). I proposed to clone the

measured state--a process which seemed on the surface to evade the general

anti-FTL proofs but it turns out that perfect quantum cloning is forbidden

by linearity. The best quantum cloner (developed by Mandel and others) has

a signal to noise ratio of 5 good copies to 1 bad copy but this is exactly

insufficient to signal FTL.

warm regards

Nick Herbert

## Monday, November 28, 2005

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## No comments:

Post a Comment