this is key point about remote viewing
> Unfortunately, the Dopfer thesis does not discuss what was observed in
> the lower detector with the coincidence requirement removed. For this
> reason, a crucial test of quantum phenomena would be to re-create the
> Dopfer Experiment and observe the role of the coincidence requirement
> on what is observed in the lower arm detector. Several research groups
> are considering doing this, but there are no results yet

Mainstream view is that you get only random noise locally when you
remove the coincidence requirement - that's what orthodox QM says, i.e.
"signal locality" co-exists with "nonlocal entanglement". "Signal
nonlocality" is a dramatic violation of orthodox micro-quantum theory.
Antony Valentini explains this essential difference in his papers based
upon Bohm's ontological interpretation that enables us to conceive of a
theory beyond quantum theory that reduces to quantum theory in the
"sub-quantal thermal equilibrium" limit. You cannot do this in any of
the other interpretations - except maybe for Cramer's "transactional"?
What Cramer is talking about might disprove Lenny Susskind's idea on
how information loss down a black hole happens that Hawking caved in on
at GR 17 - so this is a key issue in physics today.

Note that things impossible in globally flat 1905 special relativity -
like time travel to the past - are possible in variably locally curved
1916 general relativity. The lesson is that more general covering
theories make possible what is impossible in the smaller relatively
more approximate theory corresponding to a limiting case of some
control parameter of the more general covering theory. In the case of
Einstein's two relativity theories the control parameter is curvature
(and we also need torsion)
>
>
On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Amara D. Angelica wrote:

> Yes, he summarizes the experiment here:
> http://www.analogsf.com/0612/altview.shtml, but points out the need
> for a
> better design. I'll scan the pages from Sheehan's book and send to you.

From: "John G. Cramer"
Date: January 29, 2007 11:13:52 PM PST
To: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: Why it won't work.

Dear Jack,

I had used the transactional interpretation to analyze your "stencil" scheme for nonlocal communication, and I had immediately seen the problem you mention. Without coincidences the "receiver" detector has no way of distinguishing entangled photons whose twins passed through the stencil from those whose photon twins stopped on the solid parts of the stencil, so no signal comes through. I was planning to write you and point this out.

I should also point out that my coincidence-free Dopfer gedankenexperiment is not affected by this.

Regards,
John Cramer

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
OK folks I woke up this morning realizing why my particular scheme without the coincidence circuit won't work. Very simple, same reason as usual. The noise from the receiver photons entangled with those sender photons that are absorbed by the stencil barriers will destroy the local signal. Of course, in the usual way of nonlocal interferometry the signal can be reconstructed after the fact with a proper design using data transmitted from the sender in the usual way. The only other loop hole would be if there were advanced EM signals, but if there were we would not have to go to all this trouble.

On Jan 28, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

http://qedcorp.com/APS/SignalNonlocality.pdf
now online is a bigger file with references, illustrations and some more corrections and clarifications. This file will be continually updated expanded clarified and will be presented at Quantum Mind Conference in Salzburg and at the ISST Time Conference in Montery in summer 2007.