From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Superluminal Debate I
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:43:34 GMT



Sarfatti-Gallis Superluminal Debate I
From MRG3@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Wed Aug 12 06:04:27 1992
Date:    Wed, 12 Aug 92 09:04 EDT
From: <MRG3@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: diagram and predictions
To: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us

First, My predictions for your device, as per the diagram you sent.

The two polarizations input at the "transmitter" are effectively
incoherent because of the quantum entanglement. See any quantum text on
open systems which will discuss the properties of a subsystem which is
correlated with (QM entanglement) but NOT dynamically coupled with
another subsystem. As a result, there will be no interference effects
when the two beams are recombined, and the intensity distribution at
detectors will be independent of the phase plate modulator setting.
Probability of detection at either counter is 1/2.

The two polarizations at the "receiver" are similarly incoherent.
Horizontal and vertical polarizations are detected with equal
probability,regardless of "transmitter" settings. The signal is simply
binary noise. In addition, comparison of signal to the detections at the
"transmitter"can produce no information on the original quantum
entanglement since the recombination of the two beams at the transmitter
has destroyed the information which was contained in the actual channel
(h or v) the photon would have been detected in.

Comments: -You have not been using Feynmann's QM correctly, as claimed.
I strongly suggest you carefully review Feynmann and Hibb's text.  You
seem to be ignoring my observation that the various formulations of QM
are equivalent. Do you have any references which indicate differing
predictions when Feynman rules are used versus other standard methods?
I'm am not aware of any such claim (certainly no such claim was made by
Feynmann) made in a refereed journal.  If yours is the only such
variant, this should tell you something.

You continue to abuse the notion of normalizing a wave function.
Perhaps you should attempt  to use your version of the Feynman rules
on simpler optical systems to insure you get standard results.  For
example,standard double slit, Mach-Zhender interferometer, Michelson
interferometer,etc. -perhaps you should contact someone who currently
works in quantum optics, or submit your ideas to a refereed journal.  If
you already have, then you've probably gotten pretty much the response
Internet has given you.-let me know if you can actually get someone to
build one of your devices.

-mike gallis

Dialogue I

#1 Gallis: The two polarizations input at the "transmitter" are
effectively incoherent because of the quantum entanglement....
Probability of detection at either counter is 1/2.

Sarfatti: If you read what I actually wrote more carefully you will
see that I have said exactly the same thing about the transmitter
counter responses p = 1/2 for transmitter counters I and II.

#2 Gallis: The two polarizations at the "receiver" are similarly
incoherent.  Horizontal and vertical polarizations are detected with
equal probability,regardless of "transmitter" settings.

Sarfatti: Of course I assert you are wrong here. You are just hand
waving. You present no mathematical justification of your claim and
you do not refute my specific detailed computations.

#3 Gallis: You seem to be ignoring my observation that the various
formulations of QM are equivalent.

Sarfatti: I am not ignoring it. I agree with it. But I have shown
in detail how you have misused the matrix formulation because you
did not include the effects of the mirror, the beam recombiner and
the counters. I did include them and got a perfectly sensible
probability conserving result for the dangerous input

|-> = [|v> - |h>]/sqrt 2  in fact when the mirror and recombiner
reflection phase shifts are each pi I get p = 1/2 for both counters.

Again you are hand waving with no mathematics to give credibilty
to your claims and no coherent refutation of my detailed mathematical
description.

#4 Gallis: You have not been using Feynmann's QM correctly.
Sarfatti: OK show me how to use them correctly  for my device. Be
specific. This is more hand waving without justification by reason.

#5 Gallis: Do you have any references which indicate differing
predictions when Feynman rules are used versus other standard methods?

Sarfatti: No, of course not. I claim that other methods when used
correctly will give my answer. The specific example you did give
was incorrect because you did not describe the apparatus correctly
so that you math had nothing to do with the physics.

#6 Gallis: Perhaps you should attempt  to use your version of the
Feynman rules on simpler optical systems to insure you get standard
results.  For example,standard double slit, Mach-Zhender interferometer,
Michelson interferometer,etc.

Sarfatti: This is the first useful thing you have said. I will do just
that soon.

#7 Gallis: Perhaps you should contact someone who currently works in
quantum optics, or submit your ideas to a refereed journal.
Sarfatti: I have done both those things. People in quantum optics
generally have same knee jerk irrational reaction you do and they
suspend their normal standards of professionalism and objectivity
because of our brainwashing not to question traditional ideas of
causality. An editor of Physical Review Letters wrote me that he
has not been able to find anyone willing to referee the paper. I
want to change that paper anyway as a result of my debates with
people like you - my ideas have gotten clearer. This is uncharted
territory of enormous significance if true.


Xref: sparky sci.physics:12730 alt.religion.kibology:3432