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