From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Precognition and Quantum Physics 3
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:08:44 GMT


Mind, Matter & Quantum Connection 3 (The Meaning of Bell's Theorem)
Continuing with my review of F. David Peat's article  "A Science of Harmony
and Gentle Action" in "The Interrelationship Between Mind and Matter"
edited by Beverly Rubik (Center for Frontier Sciences, Temple University).

Peat writes :"John Bell's remarkable result indicates that non-local
correlations exist within quantum mechanics that cannot be explained on a
mechanistic, causal basis."

So far so good.

"The Bell experiment ... involves a pair of photons or electrons whose
combined state is correlated and which are then allowed to separate to a
macroscopic distance.  Careful experiments show that a remarkable degree of
correlation is maintained between the two particles even when no
interaction, signal, or force passes between them."

Correct. The quantum result is easily derived in the Dirac formalism in a
few lines as follows. The combined (i.e., entangled) pair state for photons
(1&2) in the Aspect Paris experiment is:

|1,2> = (1/sqrt2)[|1+>|2+> + |1->|2->]

If photon 1 is detected in the (+,-) polarization basis and its twin photon
2 is detected in another (+',-') basis and angle @ relative to (+.-) then
the nonlocal joint probability is

p(1+|2+') = |(1/sqrt2)[<1+|1+><2+'|2+> + <1+|1-><2+'|2->]|^2

but

<1+|1+> = 1

<1+|1-> = 0

<2+'|2+> = cos@

therefore,

p(1+|2+') = (1/2)(cos@)^2

Bell showed that any theory which forbids action-at-a-distance (AAD)
outside the mutual lightcones of the two photon detection events for a
given individual pair cannot obey this quantum formula - a formula actually
observed in Aspect's 1982 experiment in a very clear way despite the photon
counter efficiency problem.

Peat falls into self-contradiction when he writes: "Bell's theorem has been
used by a number of writers to explain supposed mental effects and
interactions by proposing that such mental interactions are in some way
'nonlocal' and can make instantaneous or faster-than-light connections.
But this is to misinterpret the meaning of Bell's result which denies that
any force or interaction whatsoever passes between the two particles.
(Again, an exception may be made in the case of Bohm's holistic quantum
potential.)"  p.199

It is true that the quantum connection is not an ordinary force in the
sense of the exchange of a virtual boson between two charges, but it is
action at a distance in the sense of "Bohm's holistic quantum potential".
The correct statement should be:Bell's theorem has been used by a number of
writers to explain supposed mental effects and interactions by proposing
that such mental interactions are in some way 'nonlocal' and can make
instantaneous or faster-than-light connections in the sense of Bohm's
holistic quantum potential. That is my position - and I think it is also
Brian Josephson's and, perhaps, even Henry Stapp's provided that the word
"communication" is left out.  I go beyond Josephson and Stapp in that I
think "communication" is essential to understand the mind-matter
connection. Such quantum connection communication (i.e. controllable
locally decodable AAD) is a violation of standard quantum mechanicsw (SQM)
because it demands a breakdown of the unitary invariance of the initially
zero Dirac bra-ket between orthogonal single-particle states. My prediction
is that open far-from-thermal equilibrium chaotically nonlinear quantum
systems can do this.  This is a conjecture.


Mind, Matter & Quantum Connection 4

More comments on Peat's article in the Mind Matter Conference proceedings
edited by Dr. Beverley Rubik of Temple University Center for Fronteir
Sciences. I am following up on Dr. Rubik's request to review the book - and
am doing so in a sequence of short remarks.

p.202 0n "Gentle Action"
"... a highly complex system in which its individual phases are subject to
fine adjustments.  By making a series of small adjustments globally across
the system is becomes possible to lock these phases together so that the
whole system becomes involved cooperatively in some new activity. Such a
system may be quite resistant to any local, forceful intervention; however,
tiny changes that are made in a co-operative or non-local way can result in
entirely new behavior."

This is a very nicely written image and very enticing and I hope it is true
- it would help to see a simple math model of it. Should we think
classically of a distribution of systems across space at a fixed time with
a field of little phasors? Or should we think quantum mechanically in
Hilbert space. If we have several systems then we have an entangled sum of
products of kets one for each system. So take the photon pair case in which
we start with

|1,2> = (1/sqrt2)[|1+>|2+> + |1->|2->]

consider, for example

|1,2> -> |1,2>' = (1/sqrt2)[e^i&|1+>|2+> + |1->|2->]

where & is a relative phase - but it is not a phase attached to either
photon 1 or photon 2.

Just what kind of math model would illustrate Peat's verbal picture? I am
at a loss and would like to hear from Peat.




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).










The point of all this is that it soon may be possible to make simple
electro-optical devices that will exhibit objective reproducible
"precognition" in the sense that the device will transmit useful
information from a future state of itself to a past state of itself.
Any attempt to create a paradox will fail - free will limited.
Attempts at creating paradoxes will induce metric distortions that
prevent the paradox including vacuum phase transitions that could release
enormous amounts of energy - much bigger than thermonuclear fusion.
Conteol of this coming super-technology will permit human migration
into interstellar space on a vast scale. The Destiny of Man is
Space Migration, Intelligence Increase,Life Extension.
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal