From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Ramsay's "Sorry Sarfatti".
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:43:44 GMT


*Comments by Sarfatti*

Subject: Sorry, Sarfatti
Date: 15 Dec 1992 05:53:45 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: gauss.math.ubc.ca

Sarfatti writes:
>No Ramsay your comment is dead wrong in what follows as I show below.

OK, Sarfatti, a fair cop. I was in error. Post in haste, repent at
leisure. I usually spend a much longer time writing posts, and check
them more carefully. I thought that this time I could save time by
cutting straight to the point, and I slipped up.

I would feel a bit more contrite about this if I thought you generally
used equal care in producing your postings and replies. You agreed
before that your previous "FTL in standard QM" derivations had been in
error. They were in fact-- ALL of them. But it took *weeks* for us to
get you to admit to the possibility.

*Fair enough Ramsay - but the prize is a juicy one - for example, Eberhard
told me personally that he thinks standard quantum mechanics is not
complete and that something like quantum connection communication may be
possible in fact. So it is important to make sure that standard quantum
mechanics really will not allow it - and we have come up with something
interesting.

What is interesting? Strict unitarity is sufficient for conservation of
probability but it may not be necessary. The weaker diagonal unitarity with
off diagonal nonunitarity (i.e., a dynamical transformation in which
initially orthogonal states are rendered parallel) may be enough - unless
it can be shown that diagonal unitarity implies off-diagonal unitarity in
some sense - the last word is not in.

How would you make a standard QM model of two Stern-Gerlach's (I&II) with
the second the time-reverse of the first such that the initial input pure
state is reconstructed - except now a spin flip coil put in one path?
          _____________________
        /     1+                \
------/ I                      II \___________
      \                           /
        \_____2-_____|_|________/
                 spin flip


If spin flip is off then input |e> = |1+><+1|e> + |2-><2-|e>  , <1+|2-> = 0
is
reconstructed at II after being split at I.  But now switch spin flip coil
on so that |2-> -> e^i&|2+>, even if <1+|2+> = 0 as off-diagonal unitarity
demands what is this new state |e>' = |1+><+1|e> + e^i&|2+><2-|e> like
physically. How does it differ from |e>? Remember |2+> and |1+> have spin
pointing in same way and II erases space-path memory.  Or do you say that
absorption of photon in spin flip coil is a measurement that makes
correlation to orthogonal number states of photon field hence |e>' is
locally a reduced density matrix with coherent relative phase between |1+>
and |2+> destroyed. Which would y6ou say Ramsay - or would you say
something else althogether?*


 In the meantime, you often concluded, based on your errors, that
criticisms were obviously incorrect. This was arrogant and emotionally
biased, the thing which you criticize me for.

*Fair enoug, but two wrongs don't make a right! Besides that is rhetoric.
If you won't do it I won't do it. But how do you, or anyone else, describe
above experiment?*

In article <Bz7Mn7.Exw@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us
(Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>OK the real reason why the interference terms must vanish when summed over
>all places where transmitter photon can be absorbed is conservation of
>energy.

I did tell you this before, pointing out the analogy with classical
electromagnetism (although I don't know if I would call it "the" real
reason, but rather "a" real reason). I am relieved you see it now.

Keith Ramsay
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca

& Sarfatti

PS if Casimit force can be used for zero point tapping as Puthoff suggests
then the conservation of energy argument above can be circumvented within
the unitary QM maybe.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion