UNIX%Ames-VMSB@sri-unix.UUCP (04/18/84)
The following paper contains *detailed quantum mechanical arguments* for the
existance of super-luminal communication, plus speculation commentary, and
references.
What we are looking for is for someone to shoot this argument down by
finding an error (conceptual, calculational, or any kind) in the derivations
presented in the paper. We are not looking for peopel to say it's wrong
"beacuse Einstein said you can't go faster than the speed of light". The
auther has a PhD in physics and is quite familiar with what Eistien said.
Also, arguing that the formulae are invalid because all transformations in
apparatti must be unitary transformations, or arguments simply citing the
commutation rules of field theory as disproof miss the point of the paper,
which is exactly a detailed resonse *to* those arguments.
Typeset copies of this paper, including figures, are available from the
address given below the title of the paper. Typeset Copies will be sent out
to anyone who wants them. Troff sources can also be electronically mailed.
The is an nroffed version, with some fudging. The pages are seperated
with form-feed characters. Since it has footnotes on several pages,
which are set off from the body of the text by a line of hyphens, it
can be confusing to read it at a terminal. It's prbably best to print
it out without any other pagination if possible.
``SUPER-LUMINAL COMMUNICATION''
BY QUANTUM CORRELATIONS IS POSSIBLE
by
*
J. Sarfatti
POB 26548, San Francisco, CA. 94126
ARPA mail: NEP.CLEVIT@AMES-VMSB
The letter by Bussey proving that faster-than-light communi-
cation is forbidden by quantum mechanics is refuted by a
counter-example in the form of a Gedankenexperiment.
Bussey's error is the premise that changes in the configura-
tion of the apparatus must always result in a non-singular
unitary transformation. Super-luminal communication is a
decodable controlled non-unitary violation of normalization
invariance. Unitarity (conservation of probability) is re-
stored by Galois extension of the finite dimension of the
spin/polarization vector space induced by the breaking of a
discrete nonlocal permutation symmetry in the design of the
instrumentation. This implies nonlocally transmitted ac-
tions at an arbitrary space-time distance resulting in con-
trollable instrumental malfunctions in which a photon is
neither absorbed in a polarizer nor counted in a detector.
Verification of this prediction could lead to untappable un-
3
jammable command-control-communication (C ) systems and a
new form of directed non-nuclear EMP-like ABM weaponry using
pair-correlated beams. Autocidal causal anomalies are
prohibited in accord with Godel's last theorem on time trav-
el paradoxes. This results in a type of superdeterminism
placing limits on free will and giving new insight into the
creation of the universe, in accord with the Anthropic Prin-
ciple and the Hoyle-Crick hypothesis of directed pan-spermia
for the origin of life on the earth. However, the ``direc-
tion'' would come from a future higher intelligence using
quantum ``delayed choice'' acting backwards in time (self-
creation through super-luminal communication).
Abridged version to be resubmitted for publication in Phy-
sics Letters A, North-Holland Pub. Co.
*
This research was supported by A. L. Chickering (Director,
Institute of Contemporary Studies, San Francisco), Susanna
Sedgwick, Major Csaba Szabo (USAR), Lee Porter Butler, Ran-
dall Tinkerman, and Jagdish Mann.
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
Bussey's [1] reference 3 is my patent disclosure for a
faster-than-light communication device using Einstein-
Podolsky-Rosen quantum correlations to transmit ``signals-
without-signals'' [2] in the spirit, though not the letter,
of Wheeler's ``delayed choice'' [3], backwards-in-time. I
present, as a counter-example, a Gedankenexperiment, ``The
Future Machine''.
Bussey writes:
``Experimenters I and II shall be free to choose any
kind of measurements to make on particles (1) and (2)
respectively ... the only way in which II can receive
communication from I is by finding that, as a result of
activity by I, the probability for (2) to be in some
particular state has changed.''
The Gedankenexperiment described below meets this re-
quirement because the probability to detect (2) is
1
P = -(1 + cos 2y) (1)
4
where y is controlled by I independent of the four-
dimensional space-time distance between the two correlated
irreversible detections of (1) and (2) which are lower level
parts of an inseparable whole.
Bussey continues:
``Now let I change the configuration of his apparatus
so as to measure a different quantity ... There will be
a unitary transformation ... Thus, whatever I chooses
to measure ... the probabilities of given results from
II's measurements are always the same. We therefore
conclude that there is no way here for I to send sig-
nals to II, and that any kind of communication, includ-
ing `super-luminal communication,' is impossible.''
The Gedankenexperiment is a simple and
straight-forward refinement of the experiment already per-
formed by Aspect et-al [4]. The encoder I which transmits
the ``telepathic'' [5] quantum ``signal-without-a-signal''
consists of an interferometer. Two rotating polarizers, in
phase at rate w, are placed in the two paths of photon (1).
One path contains an optical delay line in front of one of
the rotating polarizers. The time delay t is short compared
to the coherence time of photon (1). This implies that we
can not measure which path photon (1) takes. Therefore, ac-
cording to Feynman's heuristic interpretation of quantum
mechanics, we must coherently add the probability amplitudes
for photon (1) to take one path or the other. This results
in a non-unitary transformation violating the essential
premise of Busseys's ``proof'' forbidding super-luminal com-
2
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
munication. This crucial non-unitary change in the confi-
guration of I's apparatus violates the Galilean super-
selection rule that forbids the coherent addition of states
at different times. It also results in a beautiful general-
ization of the Josephson effect freeing it from cryogenic
temperatures, tiny distances for tunneling, and electron
pairs. That is, the ``2'' in the ``2y'' in the above equa-
tion for P comes from this non-unitary transformation as
shown in detail below. Therefore, the measure of superlumi-
nal communication, the change in ``the probability for (2)
to be in some particular state'' [1], is evidently given by:
dP sin 2y
-- = - ------ (2)
dy 2
where y=wt. This has the form of the Josephson equation.[1]
--------------------
[1]Feynman [9] points out that information flow from fu-
ture to past is an effective negative quantum probability
that spoils conservation of probability (unitarity) in ``the
present'' (on a single space-like slice). The dP/dy
``current-without-current'' of locally decodable controll-
able quantum action at an arbitrary Lorentz invariant
space-time distance is the formal expression of Feynman's
intuitive remark. Unitarity is restored in the larger vec-
tor space of experimental potentialities for quantum
behavior of the cross-correlated pair. These potentialities
include controllable nonlocally induced instrumental mal-
functions, which occur in this model with probability
2
sin (wt).
If this conjecture turns out to be confirmed in laboratory
test, it could lead to real ``psychotronic'' weapons systems
[14], in which thoughts are read out of a mind and and pro-
jected into a mind directly at a spacetime distance. This
assumes a solution to the mind/matter problem in which the
human biocomputer generating mental activity is a nonlocally
connected pi-orbital electron and proton spin switching net-
30
work (containing ~ 10 switches) coupled to electromagnetic
fields through the magnetic moment.
Equation (2) can be intuitively thought of as the equation
of ``The Force'' of Star Wars.
The nonmetrical ``current-without-current'' is a discrete
nonlocal analog to the continuous local Yang-Mills phase
connections that restore gauge invariance. Ordinary signals
come from continuous linear group symmetries, for example,
the electromagnetic-weak-strong gluon forces come from phase
connections in a fiber bundle with a continuous ``internal''
structure group. The local internal group is the inverse
fiber projection from the nonlocal principal bundle of
correlated acts of observer participation that bring the
3
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
The mathematical demonstration of the above conclusions
now will be given. Use Aspect's two-photon J = 0 ->1 ->0
atomic cascade as the source of pair-correlated light. The
Future Machine apparatus consists of three mutually incompa-
tible polarization frames of reference whose base states
are: |v>,|V> ; |x>,|X> ; |x+y>,|X+Y> respectively, where v
is the vertical orientation of II's fixed decoder polarizer
with a photon counter behind it. V is the orthogonal base
state in the horizontal orientation. x denotes the relative
angle between the the decoder polarizer at II and the two
in-phase rotating encoder polarizers in the non-singular un-
itary limiting ``degenerate'' case of y ->0 at the moments
of irreversible photon detections in a fixed Lorentz frame
assuming that the apparati at I and II are at rest relative
to each other. The X denotes the orthogonal base state.
Similarly for the third polarization frame which has the
optical delay line in front of it. Contrast this configura-
tion of the total apparatus with that in Aspect's experiment
[4] which essentially uses only two incompatible polariza-
tion frames rather than three.
The nonlocal objective frame-invariant second rank spin
tensor of the photon pair has a representation in the
decoder frame II given by
1
<II|1,2> = --- [ <v|1><v|2> + <V|1><V|2> ] . (3)
-
\|2
This state, by Weyl's ``reciprocity'' [6], connecting ``im-
plicate'' [7] symmetric permutation group ``Young Pattern''
representations to ``explicate'' [7] continuous linear group
representations, is a symmetric second rank tensor,
transforming under the O(2) Lie group of the polarizers,
whose tableaux is a row with two boxes.
The non-unitary transformation required for super-
luminal communication comes from applying Feynman's heuris-
tic rule to the encoder interferometer because we must pro-
ject, for example, <v|1> to both of the mutually incompati-
ble rotating frames. Thus, I make the Ansatz:
--------------------
universe into being, in Wheeler's sense [3]. The lepto-
quark source fields are cross-sections of the fiber bundle.
In contrast, the quantum ``telepathic'' ``signal-without-
signal'' is from a discrete covering fiber whose structure
group is the symmetric permutation group of degree equal to
the number of cross-correlated quanta in the bundle space.
The structure of the network of correlations is given by the
Young Pattern in the sense of Weyl's reciprocity.
4
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
1
<v|1> -> - [ <v|x><x|1> + <v|X><X|1>
2
+ <v|x+y><x+y|1> + <v|X+Y><X+Y|1> ] (4)
and similarly for <V|1>.
The non-unitary coefficient (1/2) is necessary to get
the correct unitary limit of vanishing super-luminal commun-
ication when y ->0 in which case the two incompatible rotat-
ing encoder frames become compatible. We see that the
clashing encoder frames are a non-unitary perturbation on
the non-local joint probability amplitudes for the insepar-
able pair due to the creation of new experimental alterna-
tives that spoil the completeness of the sets of single pho-
ton states violating normalization invariance. These new
experimental alternatives are non-locally induced misses in
the photon counter that lower its efficiency. That is, the
quantum action-at-a-distance causes the instrumentation to
malfunction in a controllable way in order to prevent the
causal anomalies inherent in super-luminal communication.
Thus, in agreement with Godel's last theorem [8], any at-
tempt to create a time travel paradox will fail because of
some malfunction in the desired strange loop of ``delayed
choice'' nonlocal processes acting backwards in time.
The representations[2] of the O(2) group for J=1 pho-
tons provide the Dirac transformations between the incompa-
tible polarization frames. Thus,
<v|x> = cos x ; <v|X> = sin x ;
<v|x+y> = cos(x+y) ; <v|X+Y> = sin(x+y) ; (5)
<V|x> = - sin x ; <V|X> = cos x ;
<V|x+y> = - sin(x+y) ; <V|X+Y> = cos(x+y) ;
We pick up the Josephson effect of 2y from the non-
unitary transformation by projecting the terms in the time-
delayed rotating encoder frame back to the earlier non-
delayed rotating encoder frame. That is, the O(2) group
once again tells us that:
--------------------
[2]Make a Wick rotation from the group O(2) to the
Lorentz boost group O(1,1). The trigonometric Dirac
transformation functions become hyperbolic. The ``Joseph-
son'' factor of 2 should have physical significance in this
analytically continued context.
5
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
<x+y|1> = <x+y|x><x|1> + <x+y|X><X|1>
= cos y <x|1> + sin y <X|1>,
<X+Y|1> = <X+Y|x><x|1> + <X+Y|X><X|1> (6)
= - sin y <x|1> + cos y <X|1>.
Therefore, the non-unitary transformation on the encoder (1)
photon is:
1
<v|1> -> - [ cos x <x|1> + sin x <X|1>
2
+ cos(x+y) (cos y <x|1> + sin y <X|1>)
+ sin(x+y) ( - sin y <x|1> + cos y <X|1>) (7)
1
= - [ <x|1> (cos x + cos(x+y)cos y - sin(x+y)sin y )
2
+ <X|1> (sin x + cos(x+y)sin y + sin(x+y)cos y ) ]
But, cos(x+y)cos y - sin(x+y)sin y = cos(x+2y) ,
and, cos(x+y)sin y + sin(x+y)cos y = sin(x+2y) .
Therefore, the relevant part of the non-unitary transforma-
tion takes on the physically transparent form:
1
<v|1> -> - [ <x|1> (cos x + cos(x+2y)) + <X|1> (sin(x) + sin(x+2y))] (7')
2
6
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
The right-hand side is substituted into <II|1,2> above to
get:
1
nonlocal joint click-click amplitude = ----- [cos(x) + cos(x + 2y)]
-
2\|2
(8)
1
nonlocal joint click-not click amplitude = ---- [sin(x) + sin(x+2y)].
-
2\|2
One can check these results by going to the unitary limit of
y ->0 giving the standard [9] results of:
cos x
click-click -> ------
-
\|2
sin x
click-not click -> ------ (8' )
-
\|2
for the quantum cross-correlations actually measured in
Aspect's experiment across a super-luminal (space-like) in-
terval[3].
--------------------
[3]If the phase difference in the encoding interferometer
is set at y=(n+1/2)pi, n=0,1,2,... then P=0 and dP/dy=0.
This means that the counters at both the encoder and the
decoder jam, failing to detect the photons with probability
1. i.e. total malfunction of the electromagnetic detection
equipment (directed non-nuclear ``EMP''). The vanishing of
dP/dy means that the efficiency of superluminal communica-
tion also drops to zero. Any attempt to set up an autocidal
causal anomaly in which one tries to stop the sending of a
message from the future that has been received in the past
will force y =(n+1/2)pi, [y =w t]. i.e. w = (n+1/2)pi/t.
n n n n
Interestingly enough, these ``jamming points'' (the poles of
the sphere) have the form of Planck oscillations for black-
body radiation. Is action quantized in order to suppress
causal anomalies ?
Aspect's experiment (the degenerate equator of the sphere)
is at y=npi, where P=1/2 and again dP/dy=0 corresponding to
vanishing superluminal communication, in agreement with
Aspect's ``footnote 10'' [4].
In contrast, the optimum point (45, 135 latitudes of the
sphere) for superluminal communication is at y =(n+1/2)pi/2,
n
where P=1/4 and dP/dy=+1/2, or w = (n+1/2)pi/(2t), which is
- n
again a type of Planck oscillation.
N. Herbert's ``FLASH'' design [13] for superluminal communi-
cation operates at P=1/4. Is ``FLASH'' a special case of a
7
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
The click probability at one detector, for example, II,
is the sum of the squared joint amplitudes. In the general
non-unitary case that ``lifts the degeneracy'' of the Aspect
experiment, x drops out but y remains as given by the equa-
tion for P at the beginning of this Letter.
The full nonunitary transformation is represented by
the matrix:
|cos(x)+cos(x+2y) sin(x)+sin(x+2y)|
1 | |
- | | (9)
2 | |
|-sin(x)-sin(x+2y) cos(x)+cos(x+2y)|
2
of determinant (1/2)(1+cos 2y) which equals cos y, and trace
cos x + cos(x+2y). The determinant vanishes at the ``jam-
ming points'' (see footnote 3), where the transformation be-
comes singular, that is, the inverse fails to exist.
The real boundary of a complex unitary matrix is an
orthogonal matrix. Equation (9) is real nonorthogonal if
y=0, i.e., the product of (9) with its transpose is:
2 |1 0|
cos y | | (10)
|0 1|
The eigenroots of the nonunitary transformation (9) are:
-i2y
-ix e + 1 (11)
z = (e ) ---------
1 2
+i2y
+ix e + 1
z = (e ) ---------
2 2
The characteristic polynomial of the nonunitary transforma-
tion is:
2
z - (z +z )z + z z (12)
1 2 1 2
In Aspect's experiment y=0 so the eigenroots become:
-ix
z' = e
1
+ix
z' = e (13)
2
The Galois group for the Aspect case is obviously S , the
2
--------------------
``Universal'' Future Machine?
8
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
symmetric permutation group on two letters. Thus when we
exchange photons (1) and (2), x->-x so that z'->z' and
1 2
z'->z'. Therefore, the structure of the characteristic
2 1
polynomial is invariant under permutation of the photons.
In contrast, for the Future Machine we have x->-x but
y->y. Hence, while the determinant z z is invariant under
1 2
the (12) transformation of S , the trace z +z is not in-
2 1 2
variant. i.e:
-i2y -i2y
-ix e + 1 ix e + 1
z = (e ) --------- -> (e ) --------- = z
1 2 2 2
i2y i2y
ix e + 1 -ix e + 1 (14)
z = (e ) -------- -> (e ) -------- = z
2 2 2 1
That is, the trace has changed from cos x + cos(x+2y) to
cos x + cos(-x+2y). Therefore, the Galois
group of the Future Machine is reduced from S for Aspect's
2
experiment to S which contains only the identity. By
1
Galois' theorem (1832) this broken nonlocal permutation sym-
metry is associated with a field (vector space) extension
which I interpret as instrumental malfunctions yielding
super-luminal communication. To my knowledge, this is the
first time that Galois theory, in its original form, has
been applied to a practical physics problem.
There is a simple geometric model for this
non-unitary transformation. The total state of the insepar-
able pair can be pictured as a unit vector from the center
of a sphere to any point on the surface of the sphere. x is
the azimuthal angle and y is the complement of the polar an-
gle in spherical polar coordinates. The unitary limit of
y ->0 constrains the unit vector to the equatorial great
circle of the sphere. The piece of the total state contri-
buting to P is the projection of the unit vector on a plane
parallel to the equatorial plane of length cos y confined
to a circle of latitude. The projection of the unit vector
on the axis from the center to the north pole represents the
new, non-unitary dimensions of non-locally induced instru-
mental malfunctions of controllable action at-a-distance
corresponding to y not vanishing. Bussey's unitary
``proof'' implicitly assumes that the sphere is not there at
all, but only it's equator - like the smile on the Cheshire
cat.]
--------------------
[4]It is amusing to note that the larger discrete nonlo-
cal permutation group S of the Aspect experiment
2
corresponds to the smaller continuous local group O(2) group
1
of the circle S of the sphere's equator, while the smaller
nonlocal permutation group S of The Future Machine
1
9
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
The Gedankenexperiment gets its name, ``The Future
Machine'', from the following ``delayed choice'' realization:
Place the encoder farther from the source of pair
correlated light than is the decoder. Use ultra-short
pulses of pairs. The prediction is that the P at the
decoder will be determined by the value of y at the encoder
that the twin encoder pulse is going to find after the
decoder pulse has already been detected. That is, final
causation from future to past in a controllable reproducible
objective super-determined way is my prediction. If this is
true then it tells us why the ``Anthropic Principle'' [10]
for the big-bang creation of the world is there -- but that
is the subject for another Letter.
The above derivation assumes, that to a good approxima-
tion, the Hamiltonian H, for the unitary evolution of the
photon pair, commutes with the photon spin/polarization
operator S so that: (e.g., in the Heisenberg picture)
iHdt -iHdt
e Se = S (15)
(i.e. S is a constant of the motion). Therefore, we do not
have to worry about complications from time-ordered phase
factors of the form
i int(H)dt
Te (16)
in the spin/polarization amplitudes and/or density matrices.
That is, the polarization correlation information is effec-
tively dynamically decoupled from the translational degrees
of freedom for photons. This would not necessarily be true
for finite rest mass charged particles like electrons emit-
--------------------
corresponds to the larger continuous local group O(3) of the
2
sphere S .
The determinant of the nonunitary transformation is the lo-
cal probability to count a photon in a detector or have that
photon be absorbed in the polarizer that is in front of the
detector. For example, the determinant is 1 when y=0 but is
less than 1 when y=0. The deviation from 1 in the latter
case is the negative local probability effect of the quantum
action at a distance of superluminal communication causing
2
the instrumentation to malfunction with probability sin y.
The trace of the nonunitary transformation is essentially
the nonlocal joint probability amplitude to detect both pho-
tons or to not detect both photons no matter how far apart
the detectors are in space-time. This joint probability am-
plitude vanishes at the jamming point y=pi/2.
10
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
ted in correlated pairs in some kind of collision process.
There, the above simple equations may need to be modified.
The Bogoliubov commutation relations of quantum field
theory express the false axiom of ``locality'' which is in-
consistent with the basic quantum non-locality now observed
for photon spins in Aspect's experiment. I reject the
canonical field commutation relations as an inconsistency in
quantum field theory. Dispersion relations in scattering
theory are usually put forward as proof of the correctness
of microcausality i.e. the noninterference of quantum meas-
urements over space-like intervals. A critical reexamina-
tion of this belief is now warranted.
Furthermore, Hawking [11] shows that the microcausal
Bogoliubov commutation rules, admitting only causal singu-
larities in the propagators, fail in curved space-time and
also fail in thermal equilibrium density matrices in flat
space-time, both of which demand acausal superluminal singu-
larities in the field correlations (propagators) in which
``positive frequencies are now propagated outside the future
tube'' [11], in violation of locality. The acausal singu-
larity in curved space-time leads to entropy of exploding
mini black holes. The acausal singularity in flat space-
time may explain collapse of the state vector in measure-
ment.
Essentially, in my own view, the unimodular eigenvalues
i theta
e of the unitary evolution matrices develop a ``Thom ca-
tastrophic'' [12] imaginary part in theta giving nonunitary col-
lapse or creation of states. This means that action is com-
plexified -- the imaginary part of the action is outside the
light cone and is the thermodynamic entropy, as first point-
ed out by Prince Louis DeBroglie.
11
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
References
----------
[1] P.J. Bussey, Phys. Lett. 90A (1982) 9. ``Super-luminal
---- ----
communication in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiments.''
[2] T.F. Jordan, Phys. Lett. 94A (1983) 264. ``Quantum
---- ----
Correlations Do Not Transmit Signals.'' and H.P. Stapp,
private communication.
[3] J. Wheeler, private communication, (1982). and J.
Wheeler, Frontiers of Time University of Texas, Austin.
--------- -- ----
[4] A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett.
---- --- ----
49 (1982) 1804. ``Experimental Tests of Bell's Inequalities
Using Time-varying Analyzers.''
[5] ``telepathic'' in the sense used by Einstein in his Au-
---
tobiography published in the Library of Living Philosophers
----------- ------- -- ------ ------------
series.
[6] H. Weyl, Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics (Dover,
------ -- ------ --- ------- ---------
New York).
[7] D. Bohm, private communication on ``Implicate Order",
Birkbeck College, (1972)
[8] R. Rucker, ``Conversations With Godel'' in Infinity and
-------- ---
the Mind, (Birkhauser, Boston, 1982),
--- ----
``Godel actually constructed a mathematical description
of a possible universe in which one can travel back
through time... [Godel said to me] `time travel is pos-
sible, but no person will ever manage to kill his past
self. The a priori is greatly neglected. Logic is
- ------
very powerful.' ''
[9] R.P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21 (1982) 467. and
--- - ----- ----
N. Cufaro Petroni and J.P. Vigier, Phys. Lett. 93A (1983)
---- ----
385 (eq. 7).
[10] P.C.W. Davies, The Accidental Universe (Cambridge,
--- ---------- --------
U.K., 1982). and P.C.W. Davies, God and the New Physics,
--- --- --- --- -------
(Simon and Schuster, 1983). and Fred Hoyle, Evolution From
--------- ----
Space, (Touchstone - Simon and Schuster, 1983).
-----
[11] S.W. Hawking, ``Acausal Propagation in Quantum Gravi-
ty'' in Quantum Gravity - A Second Oxford Symposium. Ed.
------- ------- - ------ ------ ---------
Isham, Penrose, Sciama, Clarendon Press (1981) 393.
[12] C.W. Kilmister in The Encyclopedia of Ignorance Ed.
--- ------------ -- ---------
Duncan and Weston-Smith, Pocket Books (1978) 175.
12
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
[13] N. Herbert, Foundations of Physics, (Dec. 1982).
----------- -- -------
[14]
(i) Interview with Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize in Physics,
1972) in Omni (1982).
----
Josephson says that he is interested in the quantum
correlations of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect be-
cause of the possibility that it might allow us to re-
ceive information over enormous space-time distances.
Curiously enough, unknown to Josephson at the time, my
equation (2) for dP/dy of ``The Force'', is a generali-
zation of his effect for which he won the Nobel Prize!
Unlike ordinary forces carried by Yukawa/Yang-Mills ex-
change quanta (photons, W vector bosons, strong gluons,
gravitons, gravitinos, and graviphotons), the dP/dy
spin-spin correlation ``current-without-current'' does
not diminish with increasing separation between
transmitter and receiver. It is not a field effect in
the local classical sense but a nonlocal quantum effect
coming from the permutation group that underlies quan-
tum statistics (e.g. Pauli exclusion principle and
Bose-Einstein condensation).
(ii) R.A. Beaumont ``C[Nth]? On the Strategic Potential of
ESP'' in Signal, (Jan. 1982):
------
``Interest in the military potential of ESP... has
grown in recent years. Some of it stems from the
search for reliable and jamming-free modes of communi-
cation...
``And so it is not clear at this point if both sides
are really just playing with each other, or if there is
something really developing in the realm of ESP.
Spoofing, deception, and camouflage are normal stra-
tegies in the conduct of war -- and peace. If ESP
does work... it could allow reliable, unjammable, un-
monitorable communication with remote strategic
weapons, especially the nuclear submarine force...
``When looking at the current plight of policy makers
in respect to ESP, then, it is sobering to recall that
the vast atomic bomb project of World War II, undertak-
en in fear of parallel Nazi efforts, was based on an
unproven hypothesis in a highly theoretical branch of
science. Nevertheless, two days before Pearl Harbor,
President Roosevelt committed vast and scarce resources
to support the work of scientists who had no firm data
in hand, to seek the exotic goal of loosing the electr-
ical bonds of matter. As a result, what was literally
science fiction until 1944 became brutal truth in
13
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
1945.''
(iii) March 12, 1982 letter from A.L. Chickering to R.D. de-
Lauer (Undersecretary of Defense, Research and Engineering):
``Jack [Sarfatti] says that if, in fact, we can control
the faster-than-light nonlocal effect, it would be pos-
sible... to make an untappable and unjammable command-
control-communication (C[3]) system at very high bit
rates for use in the submarine fleet. The important
point is that since there is no ordinary electromagnet-
ic or acoustic signal linking the encoder with the
decoder in such a hypothetical system, there is nothing
for the enemy to tap or jam. The enemy would have to
have actual possession of the `black box' decoder to
intercept the message, whose reliability would not
depend on separation from the encoder nor on ocean or
weather conditions!
``... the CIA (Memorandum for the Record, December 4,
1979) described Jack's intuitive ideas as highly specu-
lative but `genuine basic research' lacking experimen-
tal support... Jack suspects that Igor Akchurin, a
member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and Director
of the Moscow Institute of Philosophy, is thinking
along lines similar to his own. (I understand that
Akchurin even sent Jack a Christmas card a couple of
years ago with an inscription like `Yours in the
telepathic spirit of new physics.') ... Wheeler does
not, however, go as far as Jack on the control issue.
In fact, he once described Jack's attempt to control
this effect as `moonshine'. On the other hand, Jack is
fond of telling the story of how Lord Rutherford, dis-
coverer of the atomic nucleus, in the thirties used the
same word in relation to the idea of a nuclear bomb.''
(iv) W.J. Broad ``Pentagon is Said to Focus on ESP for War-
time Use'', in The New York Times (Jan. 10, 1984) p. 17:
--- --- ---- -----
``In 1977 ... President Carter ordered the Central In-
telligence Agency to conduct a high-level review of
psychic research behind the Iron Curtain in an attempt
to assess a possible Soviet threat ... Advocates such
as Representative Charlie Rose, a North Carolina Demo-
crat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, say
that the possibility of psychic warfare is all too
real, and might one day call for a crash program of
development similar to the Manhattan Project that built
the first atom bomb. ... McRae contends that psychic
research was used to evaluate the MX missile `shell
game' mode ... Such episodes, according to Mr. McRae,
are part of a `30 year record of psychic research in
the CIA, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, NASA,
14
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
and the Defense Intelligence Agency ... ' ''
(v) interview with Barbara Honegger in Omni (Mar. 1984) p.
----
35 and R.M. McRae ``Mind Wars'' in Omni (April 1984) p. 60 :
----
``Equally astounding, however, were the conclusions of
a 1972 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study ... `So-
viet efforts ... sooner or later might enable the Rus-
sians to do some of the following: A. Know the contents
of top-secret U.S. documents, the deployment of our
troops and ships, and the location and nature of our
military installations. B. Mold the thoughts of key
U.S. military and civilian leaders at a distance. C.
Cause the instant death of any U.S. Official at a dis-
tance. D. Disable, at a distance, U.S. equipment of all
types, including spacecraft.' ''
(vi) Lt.Col. J.B. Alexander ``The New Mental Battlefield''
in Military Review (Dec. 1980):
-------- ------
``The use of telepathic hypnosis also holds great po-
tential (for use by the military). This capability
could allow agents to be deeply planted with no cons-
cious knowledge of their programming.''
Note:
----
How can we make an untappable unjammable command control
communication (C[3]) system to replace the unreliable low
bit-rate ``ELF'' system that the U.S. Navy wants?
We need to develop lasing and/or masing sources of correlat-
ed pairs of labeled pulses. We also need long-lived ``bot-
tles'' to store sequences of these labeled macroscopic
pulses (e.g. ultra-high Q resonators for pairs of polariza-
tion correlated electromagnetic pulses). We must also study
the potential for using correlated pairs of elementary exci-
tations in materials (e.g. transverse optical phonons and
magnetic spin waves) provided that we can break the material
into two pieces without destroying the polarization correla-
tions.
The first Future Machine may be built with correlated pairs
of neutron pulses because of the new ``neutron interferome-
ter'' [see D.M. Greenberger, ``The Neutron Interferometer as
a Device for Illustrating the Strange Behavior of Quantum
Systems'', Rev. Mod. Phys. 55, 875 (1983)]. But the range
--- --- ---- 3
of a neutron Future Machine would be limited to 10
~
seconds into the future because of the weak decay of the
free neutron. Relativistic neutrons would live longer be-
cause of Einstein's time dilation but their DeBroglie
15
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
wavelength would be too short for Bragg scattering off the
atomic crystal planes of the neutron interferometer.
The main idea is that the encoder/decoder observer-
participators are free to choose when to pass their pulses
through their transmitting and receiving detection equipment
in regions I and II. They must choose the same sequence of
labeled macroscopic pulses in order not to garble the mes-
-------
sage. The sequence of choices of the nonlocal control vari-
able y=wt made by the active encoder observer-participator
(in the region I world tube) would be one-to-one duplicated
by the sequence of values of P and/or dP/dy observed by the
passive decoder observer-participator (in the region II
world tube).
Since there is no ordinary signal propagating from I to II
in this process, there is nothing for the ``enemy'' to tap
or jam. Intervening weather or sea conditions are ir-
relevent. This system would be ideal for interstellar voy-
ages if we could harness zero point energy for propulsion.
Can we make a quantum telescope to see the future universe?
Yes, if this theory is true and if advanced future intelli-
gences have their encoding interferometers waiting for our
pulses.
For example, if we could build a zero point energy propelled
Star Ship, the Einstein ``Twin Paradox'' of special rela-
tivity tells us that the astronauts would travel into the
far future of the friends they left behind. Nevertheless,
the Future Machine, in the ``black box'' version (using un-
tappable unjammable ``bottles''),would enable the astronauts
to tell their friends what the future universe is like in-
cluding the future state of the earth if they chose to re-
turn to it.
The zero point energy locked into the unstable mutable quan-
tum vacuum state is enormously larger than thermonuclear en-
ergy. This would enable the Star Ship to get very close to
the speed of light relative to the earth, thereby enabling
it to get further into the future.
Fred Hoyle argues that the DNA molecule arrived on earth
essentially intact at the time of the origin of life on our
planet. It begs the question to say that some past higher
intelligence designed the DNA because then we can ask who
designed that past higher intelligence? We are forced to put
Hoyle's higher intelligence into the far future. Freeman Dy-
son in his `Time without end'' (in Reviews of Modern Phy-
sics) models such a higher intelligence. I.J. Good (Dis-
tinguished Professor of Statistics at Virginia Polytech,
formerly of British Intelligence in WWII with Alan Turing)
has named such a superluminal entity ``GOD(D)''. One may
also wonder if the ``Mind'' of ``GOD(D)'' does not reside in
16
Sarfatti, 1984 Super-luminal Communication
the spin correlations of the virtual zero point fluctuating
quanta of the vacuum state?
Acknowledgments
---------------
I would like to thank Kim Burrafato (V.P., Apex Information
Systems) for reviewing this manuscript, and Creon Levit
(NASA Ames Research Center) for reviewing the manuscript,
doing the computer graphics, computer-aided algebraic mani-
pulations, and typesetting.
17
------