Saturday, July 08, 2006

Back FROM The Future? A Real or Imaginary WMD?

OK here is my morning-after assessment of the situation.

Quantum Reality is complex. ;-)

Woke up this morning with a lucid dream of a technicolor 3D tour of Dante's Inferno underneath The Vatican - seemed very real. :-)

Clarifications on "counter-factual definiteness" and the equation for the complete set of Alice's photon states |y) that washes out any stand-alone local fringes on Bob's side if the CCC is switched off in the usual orthodox quantum theory.

Previously I wrote:
The real idea here is counter-factual definiteness that what might happen even if it doesn't would be definite if it were to happen.

Now what happens is that we need to wait for a large enough statistical sample or "Born ensemble" of photon pairs to register on each side to see what is happening. This is like Lenny Susskind's populated "peppered" cosmic landscape in eternal chaotic inflation on the much larger scale in which our universe has a small enough cosmic dark energy allowing us to come into being and becoming in the sense of the Weak Anthropic Principle AKA WAP.

Therefore, the equation of completeness

Integral |y)(y| = 1

of everything Alice might have done in all the multiple branches or parallel classical worlds add up to what Bob actually sees locally without the CCC. That's the basic implicit subliminal ontological-epistemological Ansatz in the orthodox thinking I think?

Now Alice the "sender" has two choices to measure in the image plane or in the focal plane in the picture. Call the two variables y and y' respectively.

The issue is

Sum|y)(y| = 1 image plane (POSITION MEASUREMENT) YES? NO? (1)

Sum|y')(y'| = 1 focal plane (MOMENTUM MEASUREMENT) YES? NO? (2)

These sums add up all the actual places Alice's photons land in the statistical sample that act as nonlocal entanglement random noise on what Bob sees LOCALLY when the CCC (Coincidence Counting Circuit) is switched off.

Specifically (2) at the focal plane. Standard theory says (2) is still true only the domain of y' at the focal plane has been squeezed compared to the domain of y at the image plane.

Also at issue here is

(-ps|-pd) = 0 YES? NO? image plane (3)

(-ps|-qs) = 0 YES? NO? focal plane (4)

Note that in the case of Alice's image plane ensemble of y measurements, the nonlocally entangled pair state has already collapsed to

(y,x|A,B) = (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)

+ (y|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B) + (y|-qd)(-qd|A)(x|qu)(qu|B)


(y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)

from Alice's filters

-) (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B)

from Bob's filters

This final pair state is completely disentangled with the Bohm random phase factor e^i@ so that we have a random statistical mixture of (x|ps) and (x|qs) on Bob's screen with no local fringes at all!

The issue then is what happens when Alice freely chooses to do a focal plane measurement of the y' variable?

The two-sided Copenhagen "collapse" of the nonlocally entangled photon pair state is now

(y',x|A,B) = (y'|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y'|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)

+ (y'|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B) + (y'|-qd)(-qd|A)(x|qu)(qu|B)


(y',x|A,B)' = (y'|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y'|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B)

After both Alice's and Bob's filters operate - this is the entangled state left over.

The key to what Bob sees locally is then the integral of (-ps|y')(y'|-qs) over the statistical ensemble of Alice's photons collected in the extended focal region of Alice's lens. If

(-ps|-qs) = 0 ORTHOGONALITY

and if

Sum |y')(y'| = 1 COMPLETENESS

Then Bob still sees NO STAND-ALONE LOCAL FRINGES when the CCC is switched off.

If you switch on the CCC one will see Bob's fringes emerge after the fact TOO LATE for any retro-causal (BACK FROM THE FUTURE) or faster-than-light SIGNAL NONLOCALITY.

This is what most physicists will say will happen contradicting what Cramer, Woodward, Srikanth think might happen.

If the mainstream is correct here then the no perfect cloning theorem of orthodox quantum theory is correct and if orthodox quantum theory is complete in Bohr's sense as THE FINAL SOLUTION FOR ALL PHYSICAL REALITY then Lenny Susskind's black hole complementarity is also correct. From that it follows that:

1) Signal nonlocality is impossible.

2) Remote viewing is impossible.

3) We can never directly see beyond the horizons (event or particle) to the parallel universes on the cosmic landscape.

This is a creative tension in Lenny Susskind's theory because as David Gross pointed out in Nature it makes Lenny's theory untestable in Popper's sense. That makes everyone uneasy.

On the other hand from AAAS USD Russell Targ's comments on Ingo Swann in the CIA SRI tests remote viewing is ALLEGEDLY a fact. We also heard from Roger Nelson the Global Consciousness data and from other people. So the debate will be on how good the evidence is? Is it junk science? Is it pathological science? Or is it good science? No double standards here. The same rules need to be applied not only to Hafnium isomer triggers but also to string theory and to loop quantum gravity theory. No one is above the Rule of Law.

A final remark: The UNITARITY LOOPHOLE is not yet plugged.

The standard argument against signal nonlocality in orthodox micro-quantum theory is that if

(Alice(0)|Alice'(0)) = 0 at time t = 0


(Alice(t)|Alice'(t)) = 0 at time t


|Alice(t)) = U(t)|Alice(0))

and U(t) is a UNITARY OPERATOR in qubit Hilbert space


U*(t)U(t) = 1

Therefore, sums over y' of

(Alice(t)|y')(y'|Alice(t)') = 0

Note however that

U*(t)U(t') =/= 1 when t =/= t'

This may be a clue for a loophole to let signal nonlocality creep back into orthodox micro-quantum theory.

That is, if the focal plane momentum measurement statistical sample Alice makes correspond to different arrival times t =/= t' then perhaps local fringes will be seen by Bob with the CCC switched off?

Note my Super Cosmos book does NOT ASSUME signal nonlocality in orthodox micro-quantum theory. I replace orthodox micro-quantum theory with a post-quantum macro ODLRO theory that explains the "classical limit", i.e. WHY space-time physics is local physics at the light signal level and also explains why the early universe has low entropy from retro-causal signal nonlocality at the cosmic scale in accord with the empirical Second Law of Thermodynamics. The post-quantum theory reduces to orthodox micro-quantum theory when non-equilibrium open system complexity vanishes in the same way that 1915 General Relativity reduces to 1905 Special Relativity when the curvature vanishes.

On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

This is a tighter version so you can tell who is saying what for the I have not fully understood as yet all of Srikanth's potent remarks below. So this is only the first comment of an emerging sequence since the objective is mind-boggling and will have profound technological impact if Srikanth is ultimately correct here. Too soon for me to tell. Much of the folklore of modern physics will collapse like a heap of wilted broccoli if Srikanth and Cramer and Woodward and Peacock and Hepburn et-al prevail. Reality will be like the way I pictured it in the mid-1970's brilliantly irreversibly described by Arch-Debunker Martin Gardner in MIT Technology Review 1976 and in "Magic and Paraphysics" about me and Uri Geller. That's why I am being careful not to jump back on my old bandwagon prematurely especially with Sharon Weinberger's example of Carl Collins's Hafnium isomer trigger delusion fresh in mind. We have had enough "Imaginary Weapons" already. ;-)

On Jul 7, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Srikanth R wrote:

"Thank you for the forwards on the articles by Prof. John Cramer, which I read with interest. I also found Ray Jensen's article on the net."

What's the URL?

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The raw pair entangled state in the above picture is, if I am not mistaken,

(y,x|A,B) = (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)

+ (y|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B) + (y|-qd)(-qd|A)(x|qu)(qu|B)

The two lenses on Bob's side filter the above nonlocally entangled SIGNAL state down to

(y,x|A,B)' = (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B)

The issue then is whether or not (-ps|-qs) = 0 or not? If the former for both image and focal plane choices by Alice, then the experiment will not work without the CCC, if the latter then it will. I think that's what Srikanth is asserting?

“Indeed. In this "four-stream" model, the condition is true to the extent that the nonlocal correlation is tight, as manifested in the usual two-photon interference in the CCC.”


“Thus, I think one cannot give up (-ps|-qs) = 0 without also giving up the observed two-particle correlations observed in the CCC.”

But if (-ps|-qs) = 0 for both Alice using image plane and Alice using focal plane, and IF in both cases we must use

Integral |y)(y| = 1

Then Bob will never see stand-alone local fringes without the CCC ever no matter what Alice does. In other words "signal nonlocality" does not happen and, therefore, the perfect no-cloning theorem and black hole complementarity is saved IF orthodox quantum theory is THE FINAL SOLUTION for physical reality - or in Einstein's words if quantum theory really is "complete."

The real idea here is counter-factual definiteness that what might happen even if it doesn't would be definite if it were to happen. Therefore, the equation of completeness

Integral |y)(y| = 1

of everything Alice might have done in all the multiple branches or parallel classical worlds add up to what Bob actually sees locally without the CCC. That's the basic implicit subliminal ontological-epistemological Ansatz in the orthodox thinking I think?

“To see this, for example, let us replace Bob's optics with a lens system like Alice's. Her detection at y selects modes |-ps) and |-pd) on her side, and leaves Bob's field in the superposition |ps) + |pu).”

Let's see if Alice filters in focal plane at y, starting from

(y,x|A,B) = (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)

+ (y|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B) + (y|-qd)(-qd|A)(x|qu)(qu|B)

there is a collapse to

(y,x|A,B)" = (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)

Bob's filter further collapses this to

(y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) with a random Bohm phase factor e^i@ relative to |qs).

Which is completely disentangled. B's state is then |ps) and there is also |qs), so I get a random mixture of |ps) & |qs) at x without any fringes. I don't understand how you get the coherent superposition |ps) + |pu) at x in the picture? It seems only |ps) & |qs) make it through the diaphragm with the hole? So let's stop here for the moment to get this detail straight. What am I missing here?

In any case that's only a definite y for a possible thing for Alice to do. We still must make the Sum |y)(y| according to the conventional wisdom that does seem to fit other experiments on nonlocal EPR pair-correlated interferometry. Let's delay discussion of the stuff below until we get the above stumbling point settled.

“One can then show that, if Bob measures in his image plane, his twin photon will be found in -y (above the lens' axis, on Bob's side), in agreement with the Dopfer experiment. But if it were the case that (-ps|-qs) not = 0, this would mean the nonlocal correlation is not tight, so that one sees "ray-optically" that Bob's twin photon might also be found at y (on his side), and, for the matter, at points other than -y, in contradiction with the observed reasonably strong correlation in the Dopfer experiment (This analysis ignores noise, which, unless it is conspiratorially pathological, can still be taken care of by rewording the contradiction in terms of the visibility of the correlations, rather than of perfect correlations).

The proposed experiment could be also described in this way. The state of the down converted light field (apart from a normalization factor) can be written in the entangled form:
|psi) = |-pd,pu) + |-ps,ps) + |-qd,qu) + |-qs,qs)

Because of Bob's "direction filter", the state conditioned passing thru it, is, ignoring normalization:

|psi1) = |-ps,ps) + |-qs,qs)

If Alice does not do anything, or if she measures "position", by detecting her photon in the image plane, Bob's state is:

rho_1 ~ |ps)(ps| + |qs)(qs|,

that is, an incoherent mixture of the two modes. Hence no double-slit pattern fringes are found. Until this point, there are no surprises.

But if she measures "momentum", by detecting her photon in the focal plane, following the standard procedure, her measurement P is represented as the sum over annihilation operators for the two modes. Apart from phase factors, it is:

P = a_(-ps) + a_(-qs)
= |vac)(-ps| + |vac)(-qs|
= |vac)((-ps| + (-qs|)

Applying this to |psi1), we find that Bob's field is left in the state:

|phi2) = |ps) + |qs),

that is, the two modes are coherently related, which is why they can interfere and Bob can observe a fringe pattern unilaterally (even without CCC).”

OK if you really have proved that it is important. I need to think about this. :-)

“I think the basic idea in Jensen's experiment is the same, except perhaps that my use of a direction filter can help boost the nonlocal signal, and may be experimentally more convenient. But it appears that the heart of nonlocality here is that Alice's focal plane measurement is not complete. (Her measurement at the focal plane in the {|-qs),|-ps)} subspace consists of only one measurement operator, namely P not = 1.)”

That is, the formal issue is Alice's cross-term integral dy(-ps|y)(y|- qs) + cc
does it vanish or not? Does its vanishing depend on whether the integral is done in the focal plane or the image plane on Alice's side? There will still be NOISE A photons in states -pd & -qd, but they are no longer effectively entangled to B photons because of the two lenses with the pinhole screen in-between, and therefore will not affect what happens at B when Alice decides to make an image plane measurement.

On Jul 5, 2006, at 9:59 PM, james f woodward wrote:

“OK, I'm pleased to see that you tracked down R. Srikanth as his papers on
this subject are quite illuminating (so to speak). Assuming that this
will see wider circulation, I note that those papers are available on the
arXiv server in the quant-ph files: 9904075, 0101023, and 0101022.

The configuration of the experiment in 0101023 was inspired by the Dopfer experiment (though, not having had a look at her thesis, I cited it indirectly through Zeilinger's Reviews of Mod. Phys. article).


First, a disclaimer: I am just an innocent bystander in this business. That said, I note that the normal "formal" argument is pretty much what one would expect, namely, that non-local (that is FTL) signaling is precluded so that SRT seems to be preserved by nature by denying us FTL communications. This notwithstanding that non-local actions that we are denied access to are otherwise permitted (without, allegedly, violating SRT). The formal argument is based on the analysis of two pairs of slits and a source of entangled photons. While one might argue that the proposed experiment (and one already done that demonstrates the functionality of the "Heisenberg" detector used by Alice in the attached figure) can be effectively reduced to the simple two pairs of slits of the formal argument, I note that the proposed experiment differs in important ways from the simple formal case. The issue then is do these differences merit the expectation that FTL signaling might actually be possible, the formal argument notwithstanding?

Yes, indeed. The formal argument goes thru if we allow the usual assumptions (measurement completeness in particular, but others have been discussed, eg., by Peacock and Hepburn).

My own understanding, outlined above, is that the reason why Jensen and my configurations work is that Alice's focal plane measurement violates the usual (reasonable) assumption of measurement completenesss.”

That is, you claim

Sum |y)(y| = 1 does not apply there in focal plane, but it does apply in image plane?

“Further reasons for me to believe this is that if we give it up in order to avert the nonlocal signalling, we also end up spoiling our ability to explain two-particle correlations _with_ CCC.

Another reason is that I am able to interpret noncomplete measurement simply as a sort of counterfactual suppression or augmentation of the probabilty to generate photons (in this case, entangled photons) _within the coherence time_ of the light source. Thus it seems to have a natural interpretation within orthodox QM. (I could elaborate this, if required).

Jensen, Cramer, and, from his comments below, Srikanth seem to think that
the Heisenberg detector based experiment might indeed sidestep the
conditions of the formal argument and make such communications possible.
Were the transactional interpretation (TI) of QM not available to square
relativity with such seeming non-local signaling, I'd probably not count
myself among those of this view. But the TI is available, and I suspect
that apparent FTL signaling may well be possible as it would not violate

First let me point out some interesting features of the setup in Figure
1. If you add a coincidence counting circuit CCC to the setup you get
basicly the experiment done by Dopfer mentioned by Cramer (whose thesis
he has studied).”

This is the key issue. If you add the CCC of course you will see Bob's (B) fringe visibility controlled by Alice (A) because IN THE ABSTRACT ORTHODOX ARGUMENT (like Fred Alan Wolf suggested) the CCC filters a coherent sub-ensemble out of the full integrated incoherent random ensemble - that's orthodox QM, i.e. use of the CCC projects out a single value of the integrand (A+|x')(x'|A-)(B+|x)(x|B-) + cc rather than the local smear which is the dx' integral of the above expression. The orthodox prediction is that Bob will never see fringes no matter what Alice does if the CCC is switched off. The CCC is the classical key that allows one to extract the nonlocal quantum message.

“Another interesting point (noted by Srikanth) is that if Alice's apparatus is deactivated and only unentangled photons from the source pass through Bob's apparatus, Bob sees interference fringes, not a single slit diffraction pattern. Note too that Bob's detection system is completely passive; he merely registers whether an interference pattern or diffraction pattern is present (or accumulates in some short interval) on his screen.

Indeed. I think I added this note in response to an early objection to my proposed experiment, that the diffraction caused at the hole in the direction filter would produce an interference pattern, no matter what Alice did. While the appearance of an interference pattern is true, it does not invalidate my argument because one can still show that the _visibility_ in the patterns Bob observes will mutually differ.

Ultimately, the "funny business" seems to be taking place on Alice's side, rather than Bob's, in her focal plane measurement. The direction filter merely helps expose it but is in principle not necessary.

The active part of the experiment is the placement of her detector by
Alice either in the focal or imaging plane (1 or 2 f distant from her
lens) of her apparatus. If the detector is in the focal plane (at the
focus) of the lens, then the entangled photons produce an interference
pattern in Bob's apparatus (along with the unentangled photons in the
system). Placement of the detector in the imaging plane, however,
produces the opposite outcome: the photons, at best, produce a
diffraction pattern in Bob's apparatus as they pass through one or the
other of his slits. So detecting a signal doesn't consist of picking out
a faint interference pattern in overwhelming noise using a coincidence
counter. It is noting the degradation of an interference pattern
assisted by a coincidence counter.”

If that works I will be amazed and happy since that is close to what I thought would be possible somehow back in the 1970's.

“It would be great if an open-minded quantum optical experimentalist could be interested to test the modified Dopfer experiment! As pointed out by Prof. John, this issue may be regarded as a quantum paradox that can be resolved via an experiment. I once talked to a researcher at Grenoble, France, who was quite interested in testing my idea. But he has still not reported any further progress, possibly because their current main thrust area seems to be in condensed matter physics.

This behavior is already demonstrated in apparatus with a coincidence
counting circuit (which, if the coincidence counter is required to
discriminate changes in the interference pattern, limits signal
transmission to (= c speeds). The question is: What happens in this
system if you turn off the coincidence counting circuit? Does Bob's
fringe/blob pattern visibly (detectably) change "instantaneously" when
Alice changes the position of her detector? If the answer to this
question is "yes", then apparently FTL signaling should be possible. In
other words, does turning off the coincidence counting circuit (which
only enables one to identify and separate entangled photons from those
that are not) change the behavior of the photons in the system so that
the entangled photons in Bob's apparatus are unaffected when Alice
places her detector in the imaging plane of her Heisenberg detector?
Keep in mind that upwards of 80% of the photons in the system are
entangled, so the SNR in the fringe pattern Bob sees is not one picked
out of massive amounts of noise -- thus requiring the coincidence
counting circuit as a matter of practicality.
Obviously, neither I, nor anyone else to my knowledge, know the factual
answer to this question (yet). But I'll still put a small amount of
money on the basic behavior of the system not depending on the presence
of the coincidence counting circuit.”

That's the key issue. Lenny Susskind will bet that Bob will only see CONDITIONAL FRINGES for a fixed y selected by the CCC because if you are right then his whole theory of information flow through black hole horizons collapses like wilted broccoli and Hawking caved in too quickly at GR 17.

With best regards,

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 20:31:35 -0700 Jack Sarfatti (
On Jul 3, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Srikanth R wrote:
“Hi, Dr. Jack,
Thanks for the cc. Being the said "fellow called Srikanth", the
reference to my work prompts me to pen this quick note. ;-)
Your point about why nonlocal signaling is not possible via
entanglement can be paraphrased also in this standard way: if
Alice and Bob share entanglement, Alice's any local operations will not
affect Bob's reduced density operator. Ergo there is no nonlocal

Right, so how do Cramer and Woodward get around this barrier?

“One of the assumptions that go into showing this is the very
reasonable one that Alice's any measurement on her half of the
entanglement must be _complete_: that is, a partition of unity.”

Yes, that was in my formalism.

“It must not be non-complete. If I am right about the possibility
of nonlocal signaling, it must be because my set-up on the sender
Alice's side appears to permit a non-complete measurement, when
She detects photons at a "path singularity" (by placing her detector
At the lens focus).”

That's what I called Y in

Sum of |y)(y| = 1 + Y

Y can be negative - under-complete

or positive - over complete

like Glauber & squeezed states, i.e. ODLRO AKA macro-quantum
coherence in ground states of condensed matter systems and in vacua
of relativistic quantum fields in D + 1 space-times.

“It is still not obvious to me that this kind of peculiar non-
complete measurement is not possible. For example, in a laser
experiment conducted within the laser's coherence length, I
believe noncompleteness can be interpreted as the augmentation or
suppression of the probability to generate photons, without
violating energy conservation.”

With ODLRO there is a breakdown of Born's probability rule. The
ODLRO condensate is a source and sink of particles and the condensate
itself is emergently phase-rigid.

“I have another ground to believe such noncompleteness is not
precluded. In a recent work (quant-ph/0602114, to be updated), I
suggested that locality (or, the prohibition on nonlocal
signaling) may be a consequence of the algorithmicity of the universe, i.e.,
that physical reality is fundamentally discrete and information
theoretic, and that the laws of physics correspond to efficient
"sub-physical" algorithms in the computational complexity
theoretic sense. From this viewpoint, nonlocal signaling is prohibited
because interactions enabling it would also permit computing NP-
complete problems efficiently, something that seems unlikely from
a computation theoretic perspective.”

Well you have just proved Roger Penrose's thesis that consciousness
is non-algorithmic beyond Strong AI and that the universe has a
conscious Mind of God. I mean, the facts are that signal nonlocality
exists in living matter - many experiments show that at AAAS USD
meeting. As Fred Alan Wolf says "the vacuum thinks".
If locality is indeed a side-effect of a deeper layer of physical
reality in this way, this suggests that it may be possible to
physically realize a logic gate (if such exists) that permits
nonlocal signaling but lacks the power to make NP-complete (and
presumably harder) problems tractable. I am able to show that the
noncomplete measurement of the above type indeed fits this bill.
I want to turn what you just said topsy turvy. :-)
Thanking you,
With best regards,

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The usual formal argument against any such scheme of direct
entanglement communication without a supplementary classical key
to unlock the locally undecodable entangled message goes like

First consider an ordinary double slit experiment with 2 slits a
& a'. The single-quantum state of A passing the slits is then

|A) = Ca|a) + Ca'|a')

where (a|a') = 0 means integral (a|x)(x|a') = 0
x is a position on the screen beyond the 2 slits.
The fringe pattern field is ~ Ca*Ca'(a|x)(x|a') + cc
If the pair of quanta A & B is entangled that means something

|A,B) = Cab|a)|b) + Ca'b'|a')|b') I

for slits a & a' and slits b & b' for A & B respectively.
Note that this is different from two local independent fringe
patterns that you can have in a NON-ENTANGLED pair state like

[Ca|a) + Ca'|a')][Cb|b) + Cb'|b')]

In this UN-ENTANGLED case the Bohm quantum potential is QUASI-
LOCAL not directly coupling the different quanta of the form QA +
QB in non-overlapping sectors of configuration space in contrast
to the ENTANGLED case where the Bohm potential is manifestly
NONLOCAL having support in overlapping sectors of configuration
space of the form QAB =/= QA + QB.

the form

Cab*Ca'b'(a|x)(x|a')(b|x')(x'|b') + cc

Therefore there is no local fringe pattern at either end no
Matter what changes are made to the apparati because e.g. the local
fringe pattern at x is the integral of the above formula over all
x'. The result is zero for one of two reasons

(b|b') =0


Integral of |x')(x'| = 1

Therefore, this is the general FORMAL refutation of the INFORMAL
argument below. One will locally see no fringes under all
conditions. One can see the fringes in a correlation measurement
that selects out a fixed x' (i.e. a small enough region of x'
whose influence on the phase noise at x is small). Such
correlation measurement are always retarded timelike in hindsight
inside the light cone. That is, signal nonlocality is impossible within the rules of
orthodox micro-quantum theory. Post-quantum theory breaks these
rules but limits to them in the appropriate regime in the same
way that General Relativity limits to Special Relativity when
curvature -) 0 in a space-time region.

On Jul 3, 2006, at 12:48 AM, james f woodward wrote:
“The presence or absence of fringes in the "receiver
detector" [that is, dots (no fringes) or dashes (fringes)] is determined completely
by the local conditions of detection of the entangled photons in the
"transmitter detector" (at either 1 or 2 focal lengths from the
lens in the system there).”

The above formal argument says this initial step is wrong. If so,
then the quanta would not be entangled to begin with contrary to

“This is completely independent of the temporal ordering of the detection of the photons by the receiver and transmitter.

The temporal ordering of photon detection in the receiver and
Transmitter can be adjusted by changing the location of the source of the
Entangled photons between the receiver and transmitter.

For example, if the source is slightly closer to the transmitter than the receiver, the
Transmitter detector will register photons first, and the state of the
Entangled photon in the receiver slightly later will clearly be determined
by the detection conditions in the transmitter.”

That’s ordinary common sense retarded causality. Beware “common sense.”

“But as the transmitter detection conditions can be changed locally, the receiver
detection conditions will also change almost instantaneously when the
transmitter conditions are changed. FTL signaling; but no causal paradox
(as the transmitter detector acts first).”


“Move the source close to the receiver, however, and the receiver
registers the conditions at the transmitter at some non-
negligible time in the future. Retro-causation, for what you see at the
receiver depends on conditions at the transmitter in the future that has
allegedly not yet happened.”

The above formal argument predicts that one will only see a
uniform smear locally under all the different conditions
described here. One will only see the fringes emerge in a correlation
analysis after the fact.

“As I commented to John when I told him of Jensen's STAIF paper
(of which there is a more complete and detailed version by a fellow named
Srikanth published several years ago that I didn't know about at the
time), this opens the possibility of testing Wheeler and Feynman's "bilking
paradox" with real hardware that has already been proven in operation (by
Dopfer, as John has remarked). :-) Real experimental tests of FTL
Signaling using this elegant technique are now possible. And the results
should be just as significant as those of Aspect, et al. My money (in
small amounts) is on FTL signaling being possible (and the TI being
correct and discriminable thereby from other interpretations of QM).”

I hope Woodward and Cramer are correct on this because it would
then show that I was essentially correct qualitatively way ahead
of my time back in the 1970's (see Martin Gardner's "Magic and
Paraphysics"), but they have to show how the above formal
refutation I give above - the standard mainstream one essentially
- is wrong somehow.
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 21:17:48 -0700 Jack Sarfatti
Why do you think that? I hope you are right. I have not yet
Really thought about it.

On Jul 2, 2006, at 9:03 PM, james f woodward wrote:
It should work.
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:45:51 -0700 Jack Sarfatti
Is anyone able to refute John Cramer's gedankenexperiment for
backwards-through-time reverse causation in which the future
creates the past? I have not had time enough yet to think hard enough about
Cramer's particular proposal in this attachment from the AAAS USD
Meeting last week.

No comments: