From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Sarfatti answers Gallis re:unitarity barrier to FTL QM COMM.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:20:38 GMT


Sarfatti replies to:

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:11:07 EST
From: <MRG3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: "Elementary, my dear Ramsay!"


In article <By01uA.Mtv@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack
Sarfatti)
says:
>
>Ramsay writes:
>
>>What the principle of superposition means is that we can vary our
>>choice of superposition, e.g. z1 |a,e,+> + z2 |a,o,+>, *without* also
>>varying the experimental design,
>
>[I don't think that is true. Why is that true?]

So we see that Sarfatti STILL cannot distinguish between or understand the
independence of
-dynamics(hamiltonian, scattering operators)
-intial conditions (initial state |psi>)

*Bull Tweedle Mike. Depends what you mean by varying experimental design. I
include in that varying the parameters of the design. For example, suppose
linearly polarized photon |a> is incident on a calcite crystal. Let @ be
angle that the plane of polarization of incident light makes with crystal
basis |e>,||o>. Then the superposition that |a> is transformed to is

|a> -> cos@|e> + e^iphi sin@|o>

by changing parameter @ we change experimental design because we are
rotating a polarizer. This is the context in which my remarks should be
understood.

Look I am predicting a definite result

p(e') = [1 + sin2@ cos(phi)]/2 etc. for arrangement in I think it was
Fig.6A.

There is enough ambiguity in the details of interpretation of QM that it is
a quibble whether I am using standard QM or a deviation from it. Let's see
what experiments say! If you like call my model "Sarfatti Mechanics".

It is arrogant for all of you to presume and pretend that "standard quantum
mechanics" is unambiguous. Even Feynman said he did not really understand
it. So did Bohr.

Also I am not denying that the unitary operator cannot be used on any
formal input state - I only deny that the output is relevant to my limited
purpose. That is, every apparatus is equivalent to a unitary transformation
on an input state to an output state. Fine I accept that. Formally, one can
vary the input state - although it may not be possible to physically
prepare an arbitary input state. For example, you cannot prepare a pure
superposition of electric charge eigenstates though you can write one down.
For exampole Ramsay wrote his pair state with z1,z2,z3,z4 but you cannot
prepare that state for somew of the choices of z he is prepared to admit.

I claim my apparatus will act on any input state - it is wrong for you to
say I do not know difference between dynamics and initial conditions - what
I claim is that the interesting physical results will depend upon a
restricted class of initial states plus the unitary operator. In
particular, the initial state actually prepared in a J = 0->1->0 atomic
cascade, for example. I am quite prepared to believe that you can give me
some other mathematical input state, which may not be possible to make
physically, whose output, using same unitary operator representing the
experimental design, will give an oputput state without a quantum
connection signal- but so what, who cares!

The proofs that unitarity prevent quantum connection communication are
false because I have provided a counter example. I have shown that my
experimental design has local unitary matrices representing the parts of
the apparatus, and that the state transformations preserve norms and inner
products generally and that the local detector probabilities are conserved
everywhere. What more do you want? Let experiment decide. If some one has
money and means go ahead and do the experiment. But do it right.


I (and others) have tried to show that local unitary evolution is
not compatible with his purported physical description.  (Actually, we have
shown).

*You have shown nothing of the sort. You have made rhetorical and red
herring arguments but they do not stand up undert detailed scrutiny. I do
admit that I have not helped matters by using bad notation at time. I saw
the right answer immediately using Feynman heuristics and it has taken some
time to rigorize it using Dirac kets and unitary matrices - for that you
guys deserve some credit.*

 In order for FTL communications to be possible, something
other than standard QM is required.  Sarfatti does not quite seem to
grasp the full implications of unitarity, which Ramsay has recently and
repeatedly tried to have Sarfatti address.

On the other hand, perhaps Sarfatti could point out some specific
references where (his version?) of the Feynmann sum over paths
gave different results than our "inadequate" operator formalism,where these
differences have been experimentally verified? If no such references are
available, perhaps he should reexamine the mounting evidence that he is NOT
using standard QM.
-mike gallis

On the contrary, the evidence is not mounting but diminshing. The following
shows that it really doesn't much matter whether |a,e> and |a,o> are
parallel or perpendicular. One can get a quantum connection signal in
either case if certain conditions are met.

*I claim that my latest postings give an adequate operator formalism.

Case I
|a,e,+> is parallel to |a,o,+>

That is,

|a,e,+> = |a,e>|a,+>

|a,e> is space ket and |a,+> is spin ket.

|a,o,-> = |a,o>|a,->

the half-wave plate in o path causes

|a,-> -> |a,+>

|a,o,+> = |a,o> |a,+>

but this half-wave plate acts locally, so it does not change |a,+> to |a,->
in the e path. Thus the half-wave plate disentangles the spin connection.

The space part never was entangled because

|a,e> = |1>

|a,o> = i|1>

<a,e|a,o> = i

|1> = (1/sqrt2)[|a,e> + |a,o>] = (1/sqrt2)(1 + i)|1>

|a,b> = [|a,e,+>|b,e,+> + |a,o,->|b,o,->]/sqrt2

= |1>[|a,+>|b,+> + i|a,->|b,->]/sqrt2 -> |a,b>'

|a,b>' = |1>|a,+>[e^iphi|b,+> + i|b,->]/sqrt2

which corrects #6 in my Lecture 1 cos(phi) should be

cos(phi - pi/2) = sin(phi)

|a,b>'= |a>|b>

in which:

|a> = |1>|a,+>

|b> = [e^iphi|b,+> + i|b,->]/sqrt2

Case II |a,e> perpendicular to |a,o>

<a,e|a,o> = 0

In that case

|a,b> -> |a,b>''

= |a,+>[e^iphi|a,e>|b,+> + |a,o>|b,->]/sqrt2

<a.+|<a,phi|a,b>'' = [e^iphi<a,phi|a,e>|b,+> + <a,phi|a,o>|b,->]/sqrt2


Consider, for example, |<b,+'|<a,+| <a,phi|a,b>'|^2

which is the nonlocal joint probability that photon b is detected in
channel +' at angle @ relative to channel + and that its twin photon is
detected with relative phase phi.

The local photon b probability will be the sum over all |a,phi>. If the
dispersion in phi is small compared to 2pi as it is in a Mach-Zehnder
interferometer, we will see a quantum connection signal even if the space
kets are orthogonal.*

Sarfatti