From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Prospects for practical quantum connection technology - a review.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:05:47 GMT


Status Report on Prospects for Quantum Connection Signal Super-Technology

1. If it can done it will be very important in terms of our world view,
mind-matter interaction, telecommunications and ultra-fast and
"precognitive" computing and our economic development as a space-faring and
time-travelling species.  With quantum connection communication one need
not try to predict what complex chaotic systems (e.g. stock market,
weather, war....) will do (a hopeless task), rather, one will simply access
information from the future behavior.  The work of Godel, Hoyle, Thorne,
Novikov, Deutsch et-al show that logical inconsistencies are suppressed by
nonlocal quantum forces of destiny coming from the quantum potential
(Bohm).

2. If cannot be done within standard unitary invariant reversible quantum
mechanics (SQM) unless energy can be either dumped into or extracted out of
zero point vacuum fluctuations.  That is, first-order vacuum phase
transitions will produce causality-violating quantum connection signals
across space-like intervals and back from the future as a spin-off effect.
The work of Hal Puthoff at Jupiter Technologies in Texas bears close
scrutiny in this regard.

3. The "nonunitary" effects of gravitation, far-from-thermal equilibrium
nononlinear chaotic effects in open quantum systems still not understood
enough to say anything decisive.  These are areas for fruitful research
(e.g. Penrose's graviton -non unitary collapse of non-relativistic wave
function", Peat's "gentle action", Stapp's speculations on wave function of
the human brain etc.)

4. A weakly non-unitary generalization of quantum mechanics (i.e. non-
standard quantum mechanics or NSQM) permits quantum connection signals
without violating conservation of probability.  A complete formal model of
this exists described by a non-unitary N-transform of the photon-pair state
|1,2> used in Aspect's Paris experiment showing violation of Bell's
locality inequality over a spacelike interval between detections of both
photons in the same connected pair.

|1,2> = [|1+>|2+> + |1->|2->]/rt2    (1)

This is an entangled state. The single photons do not have their own local
pure states.  Their local reduced density matrices are not idempotent.
Therefore, they are locally in mixed states.

|1,2> manifests real action-at-a-distance (AAD) because both photons 1 and
2 must be in the same (+,-) linear polarization basis.  This is the basic
reason why SQM violates Einsteinian locality. The 1935 EPR paper is exactly
correct in that the universal validity of the Heisenber uncertainty
principle demands real AAD.  In other words, Einstein's criterion for
reality shows that SQM is incomplete only in the absence of AAD.  If we
admit AAD then SQM is complete in Einstein's sense.

The local density matrices for each photon in |1,2> are totally
unpolarized.  This precludes faster-than-light (quantum connection)
signaling since the light remains locally unpolarized no matter how we
change orientation of distant polarizing beam splitter.

But now suppose we could build a new kind of "transmitter" described by a
nonunitary N-operator.  That is,

|1,2>' = N|1,2> = [e^i&|1+>|2+> + |1+>|2->]/rt2

       = |1+>[e^i&|2+> + |2->]/rt2 = |1>|2>     (2a)

|1> = |1+>    (2b)

|2> = [e^i&|2+> + |2->]/rt2   (2c)

Now, each photon has its owm local pure state and each photon is completely
polarized. It is this controllable and locally decodable transition of the
local state of the receiver photon 2 from completely unpolarized to
completely polarized that is the basis for this type of quantum connection
signaling which does not require zero point energy releasing unstable
vacuum phase transitions. Carefully distinguish option 1 above from this
option 4.

The phase angle & controlled from transmitter but detected at receiver is a
modulation variable for the quantum connection signal. So is the nonlocal
angle @ (an unhidden variable) between the two local event orientations of
the transmitter and receiver polarizing beam splitters at the scatterings
of photons 1 and 2 from them, respectively.  The space-time invariant
interval between these two local photon-crystal scatterings is irrelevant
to the AAD effect.

Note that

<1,2|1,2> = '<1,2|1,2>' = 1   (3a)

where

'<1,2| = <1,2|N*    (3b)

i.e., norm invariance of pair state under nonunitary N-transformation.

also

<1|1> = 1    (3c)

<2|2> = 1    (3d)

so that local probability is conserved on each side of the apparatus -  a
very important result!

The weak (i.e. "off-diagonal") nonunitarity is

N|1+> = e^i&|1+>    (4a)

N|1-> = |1+>        (4b)

but

<1+|1-> = 0         (4c)

'<1+| = <1+|N* = e^-i&<1+|      (4e)

|1->' = N|1-> = |1+>            (4f)

so that

'<1+|1->' = e^-i&<1+|1+> = e^-i& /= <1+|1-> = 0   (4g)

Will this weak off-diagonal nonunitarity induce strong "diagonal"
nonunitarity in an incompatible basis? If so, that would violate
conservation of probability (and energy) so that option 4 would become
equivalent to option 1.

What kind of apparatus can do this?  As an analogy consider a neutron
interferometer with a spin-flip coil in the - path. Suppose the incoming
state is

|n> = |+><+|n> + |-><-|n>   (5a)

<+|-> = 0   (5b)

If the spin-flip coil is off, it is an experimental fact that |n> can be
reconstructed when the two paths are recombined.  What happens if the spin-
flip coil is on?  Clearly

the spin flip coil causes

|-> -> e^i&|+>  (5c)

so that |n> -> |n>' = |+><+|n> + e^i&|+><-|n> = |+>[<+|n> + e^i&<-|n>] (5d)

This is beginning to look familiar.  Norm invariance requires that

arg<+|n> - arg& - arg<-|n> = pi/2    (5e)

Or is this an incorect model of neutron interferometer with spin-flip coil
on?  How does SQM describe this neutron interferometer with a spin-flip in
one path?  Must we include correlations to radiation oscillator. This would
produce a random phase factor e^i& if the radiation oscillator is in exact
number eigenstates, but what if the oscillator is initially in a Glauber -
coherent state that is not an orthogonal basis?

The spin-flip coil for the neutron corresponds to a half-wave plate for the
photon (1).

Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups