home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!network.ucsd.edu!nic!mitsu
- From: mitsu@nic.cerf.net (Mitsuharu Hadeishi)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: ***********MIND-BLOWING GEDANKENEXPERIMENT**********
- Message-ID: <2377@nic.cerf.net>
- Date: 24 Jul 92 09:52:59 GMT
- Organization: CERFnet
- Lines: 130
-
-
- I don't think anyone fully understood the import of the communication from Dr.
- Jack Sarfatti I posted a few days ago. Let me summarize it first.
-
- It has widely been asserted that the non-local correlations evinced in the
- EPR paper and most recently verified conclusively in the Aspect experiments
- in France, though very strange, cannot be used for communication. However,
- the demonstrations to this effect rely on non-unitary behavior of the detectors
- (i.e., probability current is not conserved).
-
- Dr. Sarfatti has recently come up with a thought experiment that implies
- that if you design a device with unitary behavior (conserved probability
- current) you can in fact use it to transmit messages. This means
- SUPERLUMINAL COMMUNICATION BACKWARDS THROUGH TIME
- is possible. These experiments rely on an understanding of the Aspect
- experiment, so I suggest that those of you unfamiliar with this please go
- read up on it before trying to read this. An understanding of the recent
- Wheeler delayed-choice experiments is also useful, but not required. In
- a sense, this Sarfatti apparatus is like the combination of the Aspect and
- the Wheeler experiments, and the net result is you get SUPERLUMINAL
- COMMUNICATION; i.e., the correlation can be used to transmit information
- backwards through time and faster than the speed of light!
-
- [begin edited quote (typos omitted) with permission from author,
- edits in square brackets]:
-
- It's hard to explain the basic idea in this format - but I will make
- a quick introduction. I would like you to get this into general
- circulation - I am not competent with using Well yet.
- The current experiments on photon pair polarization correlations cannot
- be used for communication - but a simple change of design will allow
- communication. Yes, it will allow communication from the future - I mean
- a backwards-in-time quantum radio as you put it.
- One must break the symmetry between the two detectors that detect the
- two photons in the same back to back pair. One must have the "transmitter
- photon" interfere with itself in a special way. The self-interference
- coherence information is teleported to the receiver photon using what
- Professor Costa de Beauregard of Institut Henri Poincare calls the
- "Feynman zig zag". Let the 4D space-time event for the pair emission
- from an atom be S. Let the irreversible measurement of the transmitter
- photon be at 4D event T in the light-like future of event S. Let the
- irreversible measurement of the receiver photon be at event R also in
- the lightlike future of S. The space-time interval between T and R is
- generally space-like which means a superluminal signal would have to
- connect them directly. But what happens, and I emphasize that this is
- standard quantum mechanics using the Feynman rules for how to combine
- amplitudes, the transmitter photon retarded wave arrives at T and is
- detected. Information on the setting of the transmitter at event T is
- sent backwards-in-time by an advanced transmitter photon wave. The
- advanced wave arrives at S just as the photon pair is being emitted.
- This is what Fred Hoyle calls a "loop in time" between events S and T.
- Thus, the twin receiver photon's polarization frame of reference is
- prepared from the future detection of its twin. The receiver photon
- carries that information into its future over to the detection event
- at R which analyses what T prepared. You can run the analysis the
- other way - it doesn't matter. What matters, however, is that T is
- active cause and R is passive effect the way the apparatus is configured.
- One can operate this in a "delayed choice mode" (Wheeler) in which T
- happens after R - this is the backwards-in-time quantum radio mode.
- This all comes from the old Wheeler-Feynman electrodynamics modified
- by John Cramer's "transactional" picture (done first by de Beauregard)
- and formalized by me. I have algebra based on Feynman rules to back
- up every detail of what I am talking about intuitively here. This is
- not handwaving. Now here is the beautiful effect that I predict. The
- equations show - I emphasize it is the equations talking not some
- time-travelling dwarf from Zeta Rediculi possessing Nick Herbert's
- mind - or Shirley Mac Claine's - the equations say that the coherent
- phase information at the transmitter disappears from the transmitter
- and reappears at the receiver as elliptical polarization of the
- receiver photon! Now I must tell you more about the apparatus if
- you want to grok this. I assume you want to grok it? The receiver is
- simply a birefringent calcite rhomb which provides two alternative
- paths for the receiver photon each of a different orthogonal linear
- polarization (say V(R) and H(R)) with counters for each path. The
- [transmitter] signal is measured in the difference
- between the count rates.
- In the ordinary experiments (e.g., Aspect in Paris) the count rates
- are equal indicating unpolarized light. [ . . . ] The transmitter is an
- interferometer. The first stage is the calcite rhomb as in the receiver.
- Let the V(T) path for the transmitter photon out the back of the calcite
- pass through a variable phase plate which is the modulator encoding
- the quantum message carried over to the receiver by the Feynman
- zig-zag. This is a phase modulation quantum connection
- communicator [ . . . ] The other H(T) path passes through a half-wave
- plate which transforms H(T) to V(T). The orginal V(T) path is reflected by
- non-absorbing (to make it simple) mirror M to 50-50 beam recombiner B
- which also catches the H(T)->V(T) beam. The two inputs to B have to
- (erase "to") The two inputs to B have two interferogram outputs one to
- each detector. Now if the light incident on T were not pair correlated
- then one would see local coherent interference effects as the position
- of the phase plate modulator was changed. But, and this is interesting,
- because of the distant nonlocal quantum correlations of the transmitter
- photon to orthogonal spin states of its twin receiver photon, this
- expected local coherence at the transmitter interferometer is not there!
- It has teleported (in the zig zag) over to the receiver - this is
- a nonlocally controllable induced polarization of the receiver photon
- which should have been unpolarized! The actual equation from the
- Feynman rules of standard quantum mechanics in the simple ideal case
- of 100 % efficient detectors and no absorption at M and B is that the
- difference in the count rates at the two receiver photon counters is
- equal to the sine of twice the misalignment angle between the settings
- of the calcite rhombs at events R and T multiplied by the [cosine] of the
- sum of the phase controllably variable phase delay of the transmitter
- phase plate plus the reflection phase shift at transmitter mirror M
- multiplied by the cosine of the reflection phase shift of the beam
- recombiner B at the transmitter. [ . . . ]
- So in order to see the new kind of quantum phase signal on the nonlocal
- connection the two calcite rhombs must be misaligned - a relative fixed
- angle of 45 degrees is optimal and the reflection phase shift at the
- transmitter interferometer beam recombiner must not be 90 degrees - as
- close to zero degrees is best - this is a matter of Fresnel equations in
- Maxwell's electrodynamics.
-
- [end quote]
-
- Comments? I have analyzed this myself, and the more I think about it the
- more I am convinced that he is right. I'd like to hear from anybody who can
- demonstrate clearly that he is not right, and if so, why. (Think about this:
- suppose you take the Wheeler delayed-choice experiment, but instead of
- using a half-silvered mirror, you use a calcite rhomb and a half-wave plate.
- Then instead of using an uncorrelated stream of photons, you use an
- Aspect correlated twin pair source. Think about it!!!)
-
- ------------------
- Mitsu Hadeishi
- General Partner, Open Mind Research
- mitsu@well.sf.ca.us
- mitsu@cerf.net
- mitsu@netcom.com
-
-