UNIX%Ames-VMSB@sri-unix.UUCP (12/15/83)
This stuff was pulled of the Apex Tree in San Francisco. It was written
by Dr. Jack Sarfatti.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting dec 1, this branch of the tree will sprout excerpts from the
forthcoming book by Dr. Jack Sarfatti and Kim Burrafato, entitled:
A Beauty in the Pattern
-----------------------
See the dec. 1983 omni quote by Jack Sarfatti who writes for this tree:
"on the creation of the world"
Start with John Wheeler's "acts of observer-participation" or irreversible
quantum measurements. What is a quantum measurement? it is a faster than
light nonlocal cross correlation between the observer and the observed -- a
telepathic link. The total system of observer and observed can be in a pure
quantum state of zero thermodynamic entropy at the higher nonlocal level.
However, when we descend to the lower local level of the seemingly isolated
observed subsystem, we average out the nonlocal cross correlations of the observed
to the observer. This results in an increase of entropy for the observed
subsystem which appears to be in a mixture of quantum states rather than in a
pure state as it was before the measuring process. The space-time separation
between the irreversible act of measuring and the irreversible act of being
measured is irrelevant. This has been demonstrated in the laboratory by the
Aspect experiment in Paris (see Dec. 20 Phys. Rev. Letters). Think of the
act of measuring as the active cause that transmits a quantum message across
the arbitrary space-time separation to the passive effect of being measured,
or reception of the quantum message. The Aspect experiment transmitted
random quantum noise across a faster-than-light "space-like" separation.
However by changing the apparatus we can transmit coherent messages. The
amazing feature of quantum mechanics is that the active cause or "encoding"
that transmits the quantum message can be in the future of the passive effect
that "decodes" or receives the quantum message! the quantum message is not an
ordinary signal that continuously propagates energy-momentum through
space-time. (though the hawking acausal propagation does seem to play a role
in quantum measurement, as well as in exploding mini black holes).
So, the weird feature of new physics is what Wheeler calls "delayed choice",
in which the future creates the past. quantum information can flow backwards
through time. Indeed, evidence exists to show that the expanding universe is
created by intelligent design from our far future. Most of this evidence is
called "the anthropic principle" - details found in two books by Paul Davies:
"The Accidental Universe" and "God and the New Physics", as well as in
Freeman Dyson's book "Disturbing the Universe".
In short, the basic numbers of physics and the nature of the initial
singularity of the big bang are carefully and critically adjusted with small
room of error so that life will evolve. Even the DNA code seems to be
"directed panspermia", not by alien ETs, but by ourselves from the future.
This is the principle of "self-creation through superluminal delayed choice
communication".
The new physics is the new religion in which Man, using genetic engineering
and artificial intelligence, creates God so that god can act backwards
through time to create the universe and Man in a strange loop entangling the
creator with the created. This is the true meaning of Abraham's covenant
with God.
Our biocomputers are electron and proton spin switching networks hooked
together by quantum nonlocality. this means we can receive "divine
inspiration" from discarnate higher intelligence that our supertechnology
from the new physics creates in our future. If this is true, it means that
nuclear holocaust will not occur because Man is the essential link in the
creation of the universe. Do not be fooled by the vast space-time distances
of ten billion light years. They are not barriers to the sacred superluminal
spirit - the genie that is captured in Sarfatti's "future machine".
"The Future Machine"
How Jack Sarfatti plans to communicate faster than
light and backwards in time with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Correlation.
January 7 1983 science p.40 reports on Aspect's experiment cautioning:
"the new results should not be interpreted as suggesting ...faster than
light communication .. One possibility is that there are mysterious
signals ..but that they travel faster than the speed of light - that is,
locality would be violated, there are perhaps a few scientists who would
welcome the the existence of such signals as a possible explanation for
paranormal phenomena.."
So Sarfatti is either wrong or knows something that other physicists do not
yet know but soon will! First we review the reasoning of mainstream
physicists that superluminal communication is not possible. Then we see what
their mistake may be. The Aspect experiment confirms the quantum mechanical
predictions that the probability amplitude to detect both photons in a pair
is (1/sqrt2)cosx , and the probability amplitude to detect only one photon --
the other twin is absorbed in a polarizer -- is (1/sqrt2)sinx, where x is the
angle between the two polarizers that intercept each of the two photons that
leave the atom in opposite directions. Aspect's equipment has fast switches
so that the angle x is determined at the last moment before the photons enter
their detectors but after they have left the source atom. Therefore, there
is not enough time for an ordinary signal moving at speed of light to
transfer the information about x from one detector to another. the
probability that one detector will fire is the sum of the squared amplitudes,
or p = (1/2)(cosxcosx+sinxsinx) = 1/2, independent of x! Since p does not
depend on x there is no way to communicate this way. P has to change at one
end caused by a change at the other end.
The probability p to detect a photon at the decoder must depend upon what
changes are made at the distant encoder where and when the other twin photon
for the same atomic emission is detected in the encoder, if super-luminal
communication is to occur. So to quote Sarfatti:
"I modify Aspect's apparatus, which is too symmetrical. We must break the
symmetry of instrumentation, pass from group to subgroup and
galois-extend the associated vector space of distinct phenomena in order
to achieve controlled superluminal transfer of quantum information even
backwards in time under certain conditions. Thus, on the decoder side,
simply place a fixed polarizer and a photon counter. Throw away the
ultrafast switches of Aspect's apparatus. they have served their
purpose. On the opposite encoder side put an interferometer in front of
the counter. Insert rotating polarizers at variable rate w in the two
alternative photon paths of the interferometer. Place an optical delay
in front of one of the rotating polarizer being careful to keep the time
delay t small compared to the coherence time (reciprocal band-width of
wave packet) of the "encoding" photon of the individual pair. Therefor
we must add the Feynman quantum path probability amplitudes before
squaring to compute the local decoding probability. This is the trick,
because if in one alternate reality the photon travels through the
optical delayed path it will reach its rotating polarizer a bit later
than if, in another alternate reality, it had taken the other path.
These two alternate worlds interfere with each other to give the broken
symmetry order parameter y=wt, whose variation will change the local
probability p(y) according to the formula p(y) = (1/4)(1 + cos2y)."
Details follow for the serious inquirer into the sacred mysteries of being
and becoming.
Backing up a bit. The nonlocal joint Feynman probability amplitude for both
photons in the pair to be detected is (1/sqrt8)(cosx + cos(x+2y)) , and the
amplitude for one detection and one absorption in the polarizers is
(1/sqrt8)(sinx + sin(x+2y)) as compared to (1/sqrt2)cosx & (1/sqrt2)sinx for
the Aspect apparatus, which is a limiting case or "degeneracy", that the
encoding interferometer "removes". Thus squeezing y down to zero makes the
extended interferometer amplitudes into the Aspect amplitudes.
The cosx/sinx pieces are coherently expressing the wave interference in the
encoder. The factor of 2 in front of y is nontrivial and is a kind of
optical josephson effect arising miraculously in the trig identities that
emerge when the calculation is done consistently in a single spin frame of
reference (details on request). The local decoding probability p(y) is then
found as in the Aspect case, by summing the squared joint amplitudes. This
is a nonunitary transformation because a new phenomenon arises demanding a
new dimension in the vector space of possible phenomena. The total
transformation will be unitary when the new dimension is added. The new
dimension is the controlled superluminal action at a 4d space-time distance
separating the irreversible acts of encoding and decoding.
This means that the efficiency of the full decoding apparatus is nonlocally
manipulated - the basis of real psychotronic weaponry! suppose we want to
jam an enemy radar or sensor, choose y so that p(y) vanishes! if you try an
autocidal causal anomaly you will get total jamming of enemy defense
command-control-communication. Indeed, p(y) = (1/4)(1+cos2y) = 0 is solved
by the planck quantum oscillator condition y(n) = (n+1/2)pi, n integer. the
1/2 is zero point energy!
----
This is Jack Sarfatti speaking. I shall try to give a more elementary talk.
We are preparing an introductory course in new physics that you can pay for.
In the meantime we cast these pearls into the noosphere gratis as a public
service for the record and for those Ph.D's on the tree - if such there be.
To participate in this forth tree, (300 baud), call 415-673-9571 and type a
few carriage returns. When you get the prompt, type "read help" if you've
never used a forth tree. If you add a node, make sure to mention that you
found this information on net.physics or physics@sri-unix (or wherever).
Books for background:
All books by Paul Davies especially "God and the New Physics"
"Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Zukav, last chapter (bantam).
Our course will be based on our book "Matter, Mind, God: A Beauty in the
Pattern", that Kim and I are working on, slowly! Those serious inquirers who
wish to participate, contact Kim Burrafato at Apex Information, SF CA.
The book will deal with the following questions:
1) how is the universe brought out of being into becoming?
2) why does time appear to flow?
3) what is Man's purpose in the cosmos?
4) does god exist?
5) is esp real or fake?
6) is time travel possible?
7) is nuclear holocaust avoidable?
8) can we liquidate nuclear weapons?
9) can we tap zero point quantum energy and use future machine navigation
to travel to the stars and beyond both forward and backwards in the
cosmic time of the expanding universe?
10) ufo's?
11) can we talk now to our unborn children's children's ... Children
who will be to us as the gods were to the greeks?
11) is the secret of secrets of the hidden wisdom that of self-creation
through superluminal communication?
12) is the physical substrate of thought and feeling in the
nonlocal (i.e. Beyond space-time) quantum cross-correlations of
pi-orbital electron spins which are tiny switches each worth one bit.
Hence about 10 to the 31 power bits in the human biocomputer?
13) can we make psychotronic weapons to program thoughts telepathically?
----
Review of the new book by John Wheeler & W.H. Zurek, Princeton 1983
"Quantum Theory and Measurement".
"quantum theory...the overreaching principle of ... Physics our supposed
knowledge of a particle with a definite track through space and time
dissolves into a wave, definiteness becomes indeterminism...beyond the
probability interpretation of quantum mechanics... lie deep issues on
which full agreement has not yet been reached in the physics community.
They include questions like these: Does observation demand an
irreversible act of amplification such as takes place in a grain of
photographic emulsion or in the electron avalanche of a geiger
counter?...does the quantum theory apply in any meaningful way to the
whole universe? or is it restricted to the light cone? and if so, whose
light cone? how are observations made by different observers to be
fitted into a single consistent picture in space-time?... What is the
most productive meaning to assign to the term `reality'? ...
"Eugene wigner ...tried to connect the concept `observation' as it is
employed in quantum mechanics with `consciousness'. ...The
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment deals with a system which, once united
in a definite quantum state splits into two well-separated systems. it
considers the correlation between the state observed for one system and
the state observed for the other. It asks: does the predicted
correlation exist? and if so, how does it come about? ...in a
measurement of a weak effect, like a gravitational wave from a supernova,
can one circumvent quantum indeterminacy limits on the sensitivity of the
measuring device?...what part does communication play in creating what is
called `knowledge'?...from what deeper principle arises the necessity of
the quantum in the construction of the world?"
London & Bauer (1939) in "The theory of observation in quantum mechanics":
"...the observer and the measuring apparatus being viewable as one entity
..the wave function used to describe the object no longer depends solely
on the object, as was the case in the classical representation, but, above
all, states what the observer knows and what in consequence are his
possibilities of predictions about the evolution of the object...certain
quantities called noncommutable, cannot be known simultaneously with
complete certainty... different forms of `maximum knowledge'
corresponding to different so-called `pure states'...if the wavefunction
gives us probabilities, it does so only in anticipation of an eventual
measurement...it may happen that there is an additional uncertainty in
the state of a system - that is in the choice of which pure wavefunction
to use. In this case it is a question of probability in the ordinary
sense of the word.
"...it is necessary to distinguish clearly between these ordinary
probabilities and the `potential' quantum probabilities given by the pure
wavefunctions i.e. `mixtures' as distinct from `pure states' [mixtures
have entropy and pure states have zero entropy. A measurement locally
converts a pure state into a mixture increasing entropy in accord with
second law of thermodynamics and generating arrow of times flow and
consciousness? -Sarfatti commentary]
"it is necessary to bring out an aspect of quantum mechanics which we
have not yet mentioned, but which contains the very essence of the theory,
the feature responsible for the appearance of quantum probabilities ...
i.e. Statistics of a system composed of two subsystems ...according to
the schrodinger equation, a pure state represented by a single
wavefunction always remains a pure state...but let us study what happens
when one puts into contact two systems,both in pure states and afterwards
separates them.
London & Bauer(1939) continued:
"while the combined system 1+2, which we suppose isolated from the rest
of the world, is and remains in a pure state, we see that during the
interaction systems 1 and 2 individually transform from pure states into
mixtures. This is a rather strange result. In classical mechanics we
are not astonished by the fact that a maximal knowledge of a composite
system implies a maximal knowledge of all its parts. We see that this
equivalence,which might have been considered trivial,does not take place
in quantum mechanics.there a maximal knowledge of a composite system
ordinarily implies only mixtures for the component parts - i.e. A
knowledge that is not maximal. The mixtures represented by the [local
density matrices] of 1 and 2 naturally cannot express all that it is
possible to know about the combined [nonlocal] system 1+2...thus the
wavefunction for the combined system contains still other relations, to
wit, statistical cross-correlations [the nonlocal connection of Sarfatti]
between the components of the two mixtures 1 and 2.
"The fact that the description we obtain for each of the two individual
subsystems does not have the character of a pure state warns us that we
are renouncing part of the knowledge contained in [the nonlocal total
pure wavefunction for 1+2] this renunciation expresses itself by [the
integrating out of the nonlocal connections]... this loss of knowledge
expresses itself by the appearance of the quantum correction not
`quantum' but `classical' probabilities now understood in the ordinary
sense of the word, as expression of the fact that our knowledge of the
combined system is not maximal. It is evidently necessary to make a
characteristic distinction between two essentially different modes of
evolution of an individual system, a distinct ion which has no analog
in classical mechanics:
"1. Reversible or causal transformations. These take place when the
system is isolated...it is therefore a unitary transformation that
characterizes a causal evolution. It transforms a pure state into a pure
state"
For those who know linear algebra: the unitary transformation of a quantum
system is an "automorphism" of a vector space into itself. It is nonsingular
which means its determinant does not vanish. Hence all its "eigenvalues" do
not vanish.if an eigenvalue vanishes we have a "Thom catastrophe", a
singularity, the transformation is no longer "unitary". The best to hope for
is a structure invariant "endomorphism" or "collapse" of the vector space of
possible phenomena into a subspace of itself. indeed, we have a collapse
into more than one subspace with classical mixture probabilities due to the
cutting away of the superluminal or nonlocal cross-correlations -- like
invisible strings of the quantum puppet master acting at an arbitrary four
dimensional space-time distance between puppet and puppet master? for
example, the story of jason and the argonauts, or the role of the gods in
homer. - But now back to the sober worlds of London & Bauer writing in
1939):
"2. Irreversible transformations, which one might also call "acausal".
These take place only when the system in question (1) makes physical
contact with another system(2). The total system(1+2) again in this case
undergoes a reversible unitary transformation so long as the combined
system(1+2) is isolated. But if we fix our attention on subsystem(1),
this subsystem will undergo an irreversible [nonunitary] transformation.
If it was in a pure state before the contact,it will ordinarily be
transformed into a mixture...once thus degraded,the subsystem has no
chance in and by itself ever to regain its initial degree of
determination."
Wheeler and zurek write in 1983 on "questions of principle", to wit,
consciousness:
"Wigner reasons that an observation is only then an observation when it
becomes part of the consciousness of the observer and points to the
impressions which the observer receives as the basic entities between
which quantum mechanics postulates correlations. For Bohr, the central
point is not consciousness, not even an observer, but an experimental
device -- a grain of silver bromide, or a geiger counter -- capable of an
irreversible amplification that brings the measuring process to a close.
"The eye, the "window of the mind" has evolved independently in at least
forty different places and times -- a natural spelling out of the
principles of computers and automata. Understanding where the individual
quantum phenomenon links up with human perception...
"Parmenides of Elea argued that what is is identical with the thought that
recognizes it (550bc). Bishop Berkeley advocated... `esse est
percipere', `to be is to perceive or to be perceived' How decisive the
difference is between Berkeley's `tree that falls in the forest'.
[Does Dok Sar's new physics from the future fall, like berkeley's tree, in
Dante's forest of deaf ears?]
"a many quantum process and the individual quantum phenomenon... In the
transition from individual quantum effects to classical concepts, many a
chance "yes-no" gives rise to the substantially "how much"... as early
as 1909 g.i.taylor showed that one obtains interference fringes even with
feeble light...consider amplification .that brings the elementary quantum
phenomena to a close and redundancy .can we construct a macroscopic
redundant record of a certain observable by making sufficient ly many
microscopic copies of the same observable?"
"zurek points out that in fact physic al observables are always defined
in a relative manner, with respect to other physical systems.this
observation alone may be significant for reconciling distinct and
definite outcomes of measurements as perceived by the individual observer
with the indefinite superpositions of outcomes which follow from
the"(unitary)"schrodinger evolution of the combined apparatus-system
wavefunction. He shows that only in the open apparatus interacting with
the environment will know what observable of the measured system it is
supposed to record. The very interaction which will define the preferred
pointer observable of the apparatus will also remove spurious correlation
elements from the apparatus-system density matrix,thus accomplishing von
neumann's second stage of the measurement, reduction of the wavepacket."
[Sarfatti comments: a pointer observable defines a frame of reference.
Hermann Weyl defines "objectivity" as "invariance" independent of frame
shifts that bring out different facets or perspectives or appearances of the
invisible platonic reality of self-conscious mythic archetypes whose fibre
bundle projections or emanations into space and time structures the
historical unfolding of God's plan of self-creation through superluminal
communication. In particular, Zurek's mechanism for the singular nonunitary
irreversible collapse is also a spontaneous broken symmetry in which the
fundamental solution does not share a symmetry with the invisible structure
that creates the fundamental solution. An example is the superconducting
phase transition and also its noncommutative generalization to the Higgs
super-luminal mechanism creating rest mass of particles like the weak gluon
of the electroweak unified force.]
Back to Wheeler and Zurek:
"Does Godel's undecidability have any connection with quantum
indeterminism?"
Sarfatti comments on Wheeler's question: If consciousness demands Godelian
self reference in the sense of Cantor's diagonal and Hofstadter's strange
loop tangled heirarchies of Russell-Whitehead logical types, or levels of
the Polanyi stratified reality, the great chain of being and becoming, in
which the map becomes the territory like Escher's pair of hands coming out of
the painting and drawing themselves. How else can all this magick without
magic come to pass without the truth behind the future machine of
self-creation by superluminal communication.
Wheeler chants "No elementary quantum phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is
a registered observed phenomenon." Of course, that's true but Wheeler stops
too short of the mark. As Nietzsche warned the physics community back in
1888 in "beyond good and evil" of the dangers of aristotle' heresy against
his master, plato - of the fool's gold of pragmatism versus mathematical
Platonism in the sense of Kurt Godel's last theorems on causal anomalies in
time travel to the past, I chant in harmony with Wheeler: "self-creation
through superluminal communication!" let that be the battlecry for the new
physics in its warfare with the false prophets of pseudo-theology -- what
William F. Buckley, jr. calls "junk-thought".
Only by full mastery of the complex issues raised here can we hope to have a
chance of avoiding nuclear holocaust. because out of the supertechnology
that is now emerging from new physics will come the massive neutrino particle
beams to make nuclear bombs into harmless duds, will come the real
psychotronic weapons to control the hearts and minds of the enemies of God
who would destroy his cosmic program that we call physical reality! This is
the credo of the officers of the higher intelligence agency.
Wheeler and Zurek continue:
"irreversible evolution" [what Sarfatti means by "becoming"] "could get
rid of spurious correlations represented by off diagonal elements in
the apparatus/system density matrix. Assuming that irreversible
evolutions are possible, one can accomplish reduction of the
wavepacket...however, it may be possible to transfer the information
rather than dissipate it" [this is what Sarfatti claims for his future
machine as does Nick Herbert for his "flash" device published in
foundations of physics,december 1982].
"then the forgetting of the off-diagonal correlation terms
would not be due to irreversible decay of information,but rather due to
its transfer. This scenario ties in with the process of
amplification, where the information about the chosen observable of the
measured system is recorded in many separate copies at the expense of the
information about complementary observables."
Sarfatti comments: both decay and transfer under different conditions.
Penrose shows, in agreement with Everett, that the increase of macroscopic
thermodynamic entropy creates Bohm's "implicate order" of nonlocal
correlations, for example, quantum gluing the spins of particles both real
and virtual into intelligent switching networks, universal quantum turing
machines, the inner order described by christ, in which self-realization
arises from Young's kabalistic patterns of permutations that control the
many-particle quantum wavefunctions as described by Hermann Weyl in his great
theorem of "reciprocity". So it is, using Penrose's observation, that the
initial singularity of the big bang creation of the visible world of
expanding space-time we conclude that the big bang has zero entropy
corresponding to a pure state. Even if the proton decays and the universe has
"heat death", god lives!
Bell's inequality was extended to cover actual systems providing an
experimental test for all local hidden variable theories...the polarizations
of the two annihilation photons given out when positronium disappears have a
correlation that can be measured... maximum and minimum rates of coincidence
between counters detecting annihilation quanta were measured for
perpendicular and parallel orientations of the two polarizations...all of
these investigators found qualitative agreement with the predictions of
quantum mechanics... The correlation..was measured anew with improved
angular resolution..the dependence of coincidence rate upon angle between the
two polarizations agreed well with quantum theory" therefore, violating
bell's inequality which forbids faster-than-light or "superluminal" quantum
action outside the light cone of Einstein's special relativity of 1905. That
is, the principle of locality forbids any influence across a four-dimensional
"space-like" space-time distance separating the two cross-correlated
irreversibly amplified photon detections. Aspect's 1982 experiment disproves
the principle of locality, but that is only a necessary not a sufficient
condition for superluminal communication. This is why Aspect is careful to
include his "footnote 10", but, that his experiment does not establish
superluminal communication. the future machine design is a new apparatus
that i think will yield superluminal communication without causal anomalies
at the price of free will in the sense of godel's last theorem as quoted by
Rucker in his fine book,"infinity and the mind". Let us continue with
Wheeler and zurek's summary of the key literature in the field of new
physics.
"Still more precise measurements of coincidence rate and its
dependence on angle between the two polarizations ..supplemented by
reasonable additional symmetry assumptions appear to indicate
disagreement with bell's inequality, agreement with quantum
theory... Agreement with bell's inequality and therefore
disagreement with quantum theory was reported in measurements of
the correlation of the polarizations of annihilation quanta were
reported by Faraci (1974). Moreover, their measurements ... made on
annihilation photons, some of which had a coherence length of 7cm.,
others 47 cm. Suggest that there is a decrease of correlation with
increase in the difference between the flight paths of the two
photons."
Now this would disprove my future machine which claims to
command-control-and communicate quantum information "telepathically",
(Einstein's usage), in which, unlike ordinary electro-magnetic
signalling, there is no fall off in effectiveness with increasing space
and time separation between acts of transmission and twin acts of
reception even with reversed final or "teleological" causal order where
the cause comes after the effect rather than before as in the ordinary
case. fortunately, for the new physics from the future, Faraci's
depressing results are not true. Thus, Wheeler and zurek add:
"disagreement with the results of Faraci et al, agreement with the
predictions of quantum theory, was found by Wilson...(1976)
they...were able to vary the separation between photon source and
polarizers by as much as 2.5m,and the difference in separation by
as much as 1m, as compared to a 12cm coherence length for the
annihilation photons. They found no dependence of polarization
correlation upon either separation."
"correlation of spins in low energy proton-proton scattering has been
observed by Lamehi-Rachti...(1976). departures from rutherford
scattering arise at low energies almost exclusively from the
interaction of protons in a state of zero orbital angular momentum. That
state is [permutation] symmetric in proton coordinates. In order to
satisfy the Pauli exclusion principle [i.e. Young patterns of a single
column] it must be [permutation] antisymmetric in proton spins; that is,
it must possess total spin zero. Such a state gives rise to a maximal
anticorrelation of the spin directions of the two particles. The
measurements (1978) indicate that the hypothesis of agreement with
quantum theory, disagreement with the Bell inequality has only 7 chances
in ten thousand to be wrong... Correlation of the polarization emitted
in a 2-photon atomic cascade was investigated...in the experiment of
Aspect ... The relevant quantity...is found to be (5.72 plus or
minus0.43)x1/100 violating by more than 13 standard deviations the
condition that" the relevant quantity be negative as required by
Freedman's transcription of the Bell inequality, but agreeing with the
prediction of quantum theory, of (5.8 plus or minus0.2)x1/100. moreover,
these investigators report `moving each polarizer up to 6.5m from the
source, that is, to four coherence lengths of the wavepacket associated
with the lifetime of the intermediate state of the cascade (5 nanosec), we
observed no change in the results'"
Science jan 7,1983 p.41:
"what the French physicists did was to devise rapidly switching
polarization analyzers..thus, there is no time for any signal to be
transmitted between the parts of the apparatus and influence the outcome
of any measurement...the theoretical quantum value is 0.112 observed by
Aspect is 0.101+-0.02.
More details on Aspect's experiment, Science 7 jan 1983 p.40:
"A calcium40 atom excited by the absorption of laser light into an
electronic state with total angular momentum equal to zero decays to its
ground state,also with zero total angular momentum,by the emission of two
photons. The decay is through an intermediate state with angular
momentum quantum number j=1. conservation of linear and angular momentum
requires that those photons that fly out in opposite directions be
circularly polarized in the same sense(both right or both left). quantum
mechanics views the wavefunction of a circularly polarized photon as
an...linear superposition of(say) horizontally and vertically linearly
polarized wavefunctions. Thus,if one were to place a linear polarization
analyzer in front of a circularly polarized photon,there is a 50-50
chance that it will pass whatever the orientation of the analyzer...now
place linear polarization analyzers in front of each of the photons from
an excited calcium atom...one would expect no correlation between the
linear polarizations of the photons,since each one has a 50-50 chance
of being linearly polarized in either direction. Yet the correlation is
100%. The photon pairs either both pass or neither passes if the
orientations of the analyzers are the same, and only one passes if the
orientations are perpendicular...the key to this paradox is the fact that
at no time did anyone actually measure the circular polarization states
of the photons, so one cannot assert that there were two circularly
polarized photons whose wavefunctions consisted of equal parts
horizontally and vertically polarized components.
"In quantum mechanics,one cannot say a physical system has a particular
property until it is measured. In fact,if one had measured the circular
polarizations before the linear polarizations the correlation between the
latter would have been random. This is a particular example of the more
general phenomenon of interference. In quantum mechanics, when there are
two possible ways for something to occur, the total probability is the
square of the sum of the wave functions for each path. However, when each
path is examined specifically, the total probability is the sum of the
squares - that is the interference disappears... physicists have been
troubled by the inability of quantum mechanics to state with certainty
what the properties of a physical system are at every moment... one
solution was... hidden variables that were inaccessible to measurement but
which if known, would allow one to predict the outcome of any measurement.
An additional restriction... is the assertion of special relativity that
energy cannot travel faster than the speed of light, a property termed
locality.. bell's proof applied to realistic (i.e. Hidden variable), local
theories."
Sarfatti comments: Here we see basic confusions in the conventional wisdom.
First, the notion of "realism" as "hidden variables" that allow us "to state
with certainty what the properties of a physical system are at every moment"
is the Aristotelian pragmatic reversal of Plato's "realism" - a confusion of
the shadow of appearance for the light of reality in the sense of Book VII of
The Republic's "allegory of the cave". Einstein's special relativity is
already Platonic because there it is not required that "the properties of a
physical system" be "real" or "objective" in the sense that observers in
different frames of reference will see the same "properties". So, for
example, one observer may see an electric charge at rest with an electric
field and no magnetic field, another observer, moving uniformly relative to
the first, sees the same charge in motion with a magnetic field!
Therefore, different observers who measure the same objectively real events
perceive different phenomena. Phenomena are appearances -- shadows on the
wall of plato's cave. Physicists are confused to think of phenomena as real.
The relativity theory shows how each observer can process his deceptive data
to compute an "invariant" that is the same for all observers no matter what
their frame of reference. This same criterion of "objective reality" must be
used in quantum mechanics. The only difference is the change in the
operational meaning of "frame of reference". In quantum mechanics, the
orientation of a polarizer analyzer provides a frame of reference to measure
a spin observable transformation on the wave function. For example, Einstein
was not consistent. He used Plato's reality for special relativity and
Aristotle's reality for quantum theory. I use Plato's reality for both.
Next we dispose of the confusion of "the assertion of special relativity that
energy cannot travel faster than the speed of light, a property termed
locality". There is a double confusion here. First, special relativity does
assert that an ordinary particle of nonzero rest mass cannot be accelerated
to the speed of light because it would require infinite energy. Photons are
exempt since they have zero rest mass and can travel only at the speed of
light in the absence of quantum gravity corrections. But relativity does allow
for tachyonic motions of particles of imaginary rest mass that do transfer
energy faster than the speed of light. It would require an infinite energy to
slow a tachyon down to the speed of light. The lower the energy of a tachyon
the faster it goes. Hawking has recently shown that mixtures of states, in
sense of London & Bauer above, have a tachyonic property. [see proceedings of
the 2nd symposium on quantum gravity]
So we see that it is simply not true that special relativity forbids the
faster than light transport of energy. Indeed, the new hawking discovery
seems to suggest that superluminal transport of energy may be an essential
part of the quantum measuring process, in which a subsystem's pure quantum
state before the measurement undergoes a singular nonunitary irreversible
collapse to an entropic mixture of pure states caused by the cutting away or
integrating out of the nonlocal connections to the measuring apparatus.
But there is another hidden assumption in the "Science" statement of the
principle of "locality" that may be unjustified by the facts. It is the
assumption that the only way to transmit information is to propagate
energy. This classical prejudice seems to contradict the very essence of the
quantum principle. My future machine thought experiment is designed to test
this assumption. Its equations involve direct quantum action at an arbitrary
four dimensional space-time separation between two cross correlated acts of
irreversibly amplified measurements. This is the "telepathic" quantum
"signal-without-signal" inherent in quantum statistics of many-particle
systems called "Young patterns" by mathematicians in group theory. It is
also what I mean by "quantum message". One must see if the hawking acausal
propagation of quantum fields in thermal mixtures is a tachyon with
superluminal energy transport or is, rather, my signal-without-signal that
transfers inforation without any measurable energy transport.
I do not know the answer yet. It is too soon. What is interesting is the
possibility that the so called local quantum fields that are technically
"cross sections" and "connections" in the modern unified force theories using
mathematical fiber bundles may have a nonlocal superluminal origin as
quantum messages.
back to science 7 jan,83:
"Hidden variables could...explain the 100% correlation between the linear
polarizations of the two photons when the polarization analyzers are
parallel, and the zero percent, when they are perpendicular. It is when
the analyzers are at arbitrary angles to one another that quantum
mechanics predicts slightly higher correlations between the polarizers
than do realistic local theories. The formal expression of the different
predictions ..is in the form of an inequality (constructed from the
correlations between the linear polarizations at four relative
orientations of analyzers) that must be obeyed by all realistic local
theories...their inequality stated that a certain sum s must lie between
-1 and 0. The maximum value of s allowed by quantum mechanics occurs
when the polarization analyzers have orientations such that the angle
between them is 22.5 or 67.5 degrees. The theoretical quantum mechanical
value for s is then 0.112. The value observed by Aspect.... Is
0.101+-0.020 this is five standard deviations away from the limit imposed
by realistic local theories.
"In another experiment the investigators also reproduced the cosine
angular dependence predicted by quantum mechanics between the
correlations for six orientations between 0 and 90 degrees...the
overwhelming evidence is in favor of quantum mechanics...what the recent
french experiments contribute is the closing of a loophole that previous
experiments could not eliminate. The loophole is the possibility of some
kind of signal being transmitted from one part of the experiment to
another that allows photons to know what polarization they are supposed
to have and thereby guarantee the observed correlations. The first
photon arriving at an analyzer could...send a message back to the source
of calcium atoms telling it what polarization orientation was being
checked for. All subsequent pairs of emitted photons would then know
what state they should be in.
"This communication is possible in principle because the settings of the
polarization analyzers are not changed for each pair of arriving
photons. Such signals would not have to travel faster than the speed of
light, and so would not violate the requirements of realistic local
theories. What the french physicists did was to devise rapidly switching
polarization analyzers. It takes a photon about 20 nanoseconds to
travel from the calcium atom to the detector in their experiment, but the
polarization analyzer is switched every 10 nanoseconds. Thus there is no
time for any signal to be transmitted between the parts of the apparatus
and influence the outcome of any measurement."
Sarfatti commentary: Now we see clearly the semantic trap into which almost
the entire physics community has fallen by their uncritical acceptance of
Aristotle's pragmatism as opposed to Plato's realism. They assume that only
ordinary classical signals are possible. But this is inconsistent. they are
tacitly slipping locality back into the interpretation of the data when the
whole point is to test the idea of locality! I have already shown how their
concept of "signal" is defective. We can conceive of two types of
superluminal signals, one that is tachyonic transporting energy and
information, the other that is "signal-without-signal" transferring only
information but not energy.
What the Aspect data shows is that there is an undecodable superluminal
signal not of the ordinary type. What my future machine shows is how to
decode that new kind of superluminal signal which, unlike ordinary signals
that propagate energy inside and on the light cone, does not weaken with
separation in space nor time nor can be interfered with -- hence potential of
untappable unjammable defence communication-command-control systems emerging
from my future machine hypothesis. Science wears conceptual blind folders
by uncritically assuming a priori that all meaningful signals are confined to
the future light cone of Einstein's 1905 theory.
Aspect's result can also be explained by Costa de Beauregard as advanced
photons propagating backwards through time along the past light cone of the
detection event. There is no way to discriminate between my explanation and
Costa de Beauregard's using photons. perhaps we can tell the difference using
massive quanta like electrons? the successful operation of the future
machine as predicted by the decoding probability p =(1/4)(1+cos2y) will tend
to confirm my model.
"the remaining loophole, not touched by any experiment so far, has to do
with the efficiency of the devices that detect the photons or other
particles in correlation experiments. Because the detector systems are
relatively inefficient, only a small fraction of the emitted particles are
registered. It is therefore possible to argue that for some reason the
particles that are detected are in some way different from those that are
not...no experiments to deal with this objection are or are about to be
underway, however.
Sarfatti: My future machine is such an experiment. It claims that the
efficiency of the decoder and the encoder detectors can be controlled or
modulated nonlocally by changing the rotation rate and/or time delay in the
encoder interferometer. The value of the encoder control parameter y=wt
experienced by the encoder photon for a given individual pair from the same
atomic emission event is also experienced by its twin decoder photon when it
is detected. Different photon pairs will respond to different values of y
causing a systematic change in efficiency for any space-time separation!
------stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS) (12/20/83)
How about net.physics.quack? Or perhaps net.lemming?
Both seem like appropriate newsgroups for continuing the
Sarafatti discussion. The creation discussion could
follow as well.
Jimjreuter@cincy.UUCP (Jim Reuter) (12/24/83)
He is writing a book called "Matter, Mind, God: A Beauty in the Pattern"??? Golly, Gee, this sounds like a rewrite of Hofstadters "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid"! If Sarfatti also wants to win a Pulitzer he better learn to control his excess verbal baggage. On the curious side, though, could someone explain what a "forth tree" is? Is it some kind of dialup bulliten board or what? Jim Reuter U. of Cincinnati
abc%brl-bmd@sri-unix.UUCP (12/26/83)
From: BRINT <abc@brl-bmd> In the context of the previous discussion, a Forth tree is a woody plant which grows in a Galois Field and is fertilized with matter from the physics newsgroup.