On Jul 26, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:
At 02:34 PM 7/26/2007, Srikanth R wrote:
Hi,
Shih has performed many beautiful experiments exploring various aspects of entangled photons: two-particle interference/diffraction, quantum lithography, quantum teleportation, an entangled version of the delayed choice experiment using the quantum eraser principle, violation of Bell-type inequalities, etc.
Among Shih's work, the work i find to be closest the question of nonlocal signaling being actually addressed is his experiment to test Popper's experiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper's_experiment
published in Foundations of Physics.
Hi, Srik!
That is interesting, more interesting than what I have heard (second hand) about the Cramer stuff.
In fact -- when Yanhua and I realized that the quantum delay eraser work WOULDN'T
lead to backwards time transfer of real information, and would not be a decisive test of the backwards time
theory of quantum mechanics, my next step was to lay out a plan to use a modified version
of the Popper experiment to do that. Our correspondence on that is posted at
www.werbos.com/reality.com... along with a unified model of physics that would
translate the backwards-time theory into a whole new testable axiomatic formulation.
Stapp even Bohm argue that no nonlocal signals within the assumptions of micro-quantum theory is possible in principle. One consequence is the no perfect cloning of an unknown quantum state - though imperfect cloning is possible. No signal is used as a bound on what happens with imperfect cloning - this is a bit dubious. See papers by Hep mentioned in Retrocausality AAAS USD June 2006 - Cramer attended.
Micro-quantum theory means
1) linearity of the quantum operators
2) unitarity of the time evolution sans measurement (e.g. unitary scattering matrix) for closed not open systems.
3) NO ODLRO - latter is completely neglected in all treatments I know of i.e. Stapp, Bohm & Hiley (Undivided Universe)
So my claim is MACRO-quantum theory is a new set of rules
Schrodinger equation of micro-quantum theory shares stage with ODLRO (ground state/vacuum) Landau-Ginzburg order parameter condensate eqs - the two are coupled!
micro-Schrodinger eq is linear, unitary, nonlocal entanglements
MACRO-Landau-Ginzburg eq is nonlinear, non-unitary and local suppressing EPR entanglements and collapsing micro-quantum phase space (lowering entropy).
So it's a whole new ball game and experiments (Libet, Radin, Bierman) on living matter, i.e. ODLRO non-equilibrium suggest retrocausality as does the low entropy of the early universe.
See also papers by A Valentini showing how nonlocal signals happen in sub-quantal non-equilibrium beyond orthodox micro-quantum theory's set of axioms.
(The Lagrangian I propose now just uses GR for the gravity part, but it is CONCEIVABLE that
equations 1.11 of Jack's latest paper might yield an alternative testable model
within the same general framework.)
My theory is formally same as GR, but with a larger connection field including the antisymmetric 3rd rank GCT torsion tensor field in addition to the symmetric non-tensor curvature (disclination) only Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport of tensor fields along paths - at the spin 2 geometrodynamic field level bilinear in the spin 1 Yang-Mills tetrad/spin connection fields that emerge from modulations in the macro-quantum vacuum ODLRO coherence. The dimensionless world hologram coupling (Lp^2/\)^1/3 = (1/N)^1/3 (N = Bekenstein BITs) of the spin 1 Yang-Mills A^a tetrad field to flat spacetime makes the pure gravity torsion field renormalizable in its quantum fluctuations. The dimensional coupling hc/Lp^2 of the pure gravity-torsion field to matter fields is still there of course.
The basic equations are
e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a
I^a are the tetrads for globally flat Minkowski space-time without any gravity field (curvature disclination closed strings) and any torsion field ("gap" in infinitesimal loops i.e. open strings - dislocation defects).
curvature-torsion coupling breaks closed strings into open strings & vice versa.
A^a are the warped Yang-Mills spin 1 tetrad field 1-forms
A^a = M^a^a
M^a^b is the M-Matrix
M^a^b = dTheta^a/\Phi^b - Theta^a/\dPhi^b
Theta^a, Phi^b are the 8 Goldstone phase 0-forms of the vacuum ODLRO post-inflation field.
Lp^2 = hG/c^3
N = surrounding surface area/number of hedgehog point gravity monopole defects in the 3 real Higgs fields of 3D + 1 spacetime projection of 9D + 1 spacetime.
Area of surrounding surface is ~ NLp^2
L ~ N^1/2Lp
quantum gravity length fluctuation is ~ (Lp^2L)^1/3 = LpN^1/6
Resolution scale-dependent Geometrodynamix Volume Quantum of a single quantum foam bubble inside the finite surrounding surface is &V ~ Lp^3N^1/2
Volume without volume V interior to surrounding surface is
V ~ (NLp^2)3/2
V/&V = N^3/2/N^1/2 = N
The center of each &V quantum gravity foam bubble is a node in the 3 real Higgs fields where the 2 Goldstone phases are undefined. This is the gravity monopole - like a simple pole in complex function residue theorem.
Basic covariant exterior derivative is
D = d + S/\
S is the spin-connection 1-form
S^a^b = M^[a,b]
e.g. the torsion field 2-form is
T^a = De^a = de^a + S^ab/\e^b
where S^ab = w^abce^c
w^abc = Ricci-rotation coefficients
Therefore, the localized space-time Poincare symmetry group geometrodynamic spin connection covariant derivative has same form as the internal Yang-Mills spin covariant exterior derivative
De^a = de^a + w^abce^c/\e^b
where w^abc are analogous to the internal symmetry Yang-Mills Lie algebra structure constants
Einstein's basic formula is
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea
The covariant "Maxwell" torsion gap dislocation defect field equations are
T^a = De^a
DT^a = 0
D*T^a = *J^a
* = Hodge dual
*J^a = torsion matter field current density 3-form
D*J^a = 0 local torsion matter field current density conservation law
The curvature disclination 2-form is
R^a^b = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^c^b
where remember
S^ab = w^abce^c
The pure gravity torsion field action density 0-form is
L ~ *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + /\zpfe^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d)
In the end, however, I feel more confidence that we can get decisive results
using a new chip, which can make the effects much larger.
But... hey, if you really have decisive Popper-based results, that's (1) plausible;
and (2) incredibly important if it does the real thing.
Best of luck to us all,
Paul
(Regarding Pedersen's proposal, i am trying to figure out a painless way of opening his .doc line on a linux system!)
Best regards,
Srik.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Yeah, I am swamped also but will look, the two authors write very well however. They are no dummies.
On Jul 26, 2007, at 4:02 AM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:
At 07:12 PM 7/25/2007, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Comments? He means, I would suppose, sending a signal backwards in time from present to past like in Greg's "Timescape" though not so far back of course. I am not endorsing the message have not yet looked at the details.
Begin forwarded message:
Don't have time to study his paper -- but it (and Cramer's thing) sound a LOT like an experiment Yanhua Shih already did several years ago,
as a follow-up to the quantum delay eraser work he had published in Phys Rev Letters in the first
issue (Jan 4?) of the year 2000.
Shih also did a very long delay experiment. The award, which I funded, was called "backwards time
quantum teleportation."
But Shih and I had a major handicap here, vis-a-vis the unusual culture. We understood
what we were doing. We could see quite clearly, through mathematical analysis,
that this really wasn't the kind of system that can carry information backwards through time, any more
than Bell's experiments can do it FTL in space. It is quite understandable
that one might EXPECT it to be able to do so... Like Bell's Theorem
experiments it sounds that way... and I can remember my own disappointment years
ago when I realized the same about the Bell experiments. (Fortunately not in
a way that was publicly embarrassing...).
I do believe there is a way to get around the limitations here, by taking a completely
different approach -- but I doubt that the establishment would tolerate the experiment
being done. The high priests are simply too rigid.
I did inform Cramer of Yanhua's experiment, in an email, before he started talking about
doing... whatever. I don't see any sign of him exploring an alternate approach.
Best of luck to us all,
Paul
P.S. Jack -- wouldn't it be more useful for everyone to hear answers to my simple-minded questions about
your equations 1.11? (And some may be intelligible in ASCII, some not.)
What question? Also make sure it's same equation as the numbering may have changed.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/STAIF2008Sarfattiv8.pdf
After discussion with Murad & Robertson the actual paper will be much shorter focusing only on the zero g-force propulsion part of the paper since it's for engineers who do not know theoretical physics at the required level and I am covering too much ground in too short a space for such a short talk.
From: "Keith Pedersen"
Date: July 25, 2007 11:54:42 AM PDT
To: lensman@stardrive.org, sarfatti@well.com
Subject: Retrocausality proven?
Dear Dr. Sarfatti,
My name is Keith Pedersen. I have recently finished a computer
simulation of a long delay quantum eraser experiment testing
retrocausality without coincidence counters. The results show that for
a two bit message and an idler storage time of four bit periods, there
is only a 6% error rate at 549 entangled photons per bit (bit size @
549). My experiment is similar to Cramer's except that I am using a
Mach-Zehnder interferometer instead of the modified Dopfer. I would
appreciate it if you could look over my paper (skip to sections 9 and
10). You can also run the simulation yourself; please note that
sometimes it takes a while for the program to simulate in between
prompts, especially @ 1024 scans.
I hope that, based on the results of the simulation, it should
encourage somebody to perform the experiment in real life. I am
actually an undergraduate seeking a graduate school. I hope to hear
from you.
Yours truly,
Keith Pedersen
No comments:
Post a Comment