home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Path: sparky!uunet!well!sarfatti
- From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
- Subject: Proof that standard QM requires FTL phase connection signal.
- Message-ID: <BxBF04.Bwv@well.sf.ca.us>
- Sender: news@well.sf.ca.us
- Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:12:04 GMT
- Lines: 102
-
-
- Review - for the record
-
- Dirac ket derivation of quantum connection phase signal. Including
- irrelevant beam splitter.
-
- |a,b> = {|a,e,+>|b+> + |a,o,->|b->}/sqrt2
-
- |a,e,+> -> e^iphi|a,e,+> -> e^iphi[|1><1|a,e,+> + |2><2|a,e,+>]
-
- |a,o,-> -> |a,o,+> -> |1><1|a,o,+> + |2><2|a,o,+>
-
- |a,b> -> |a,b>'
-
- = {[e^iphi(|1><1|a,e,+> + |2><2|a,e,+>)]|b+>
-
- + [|1><1|a,o,+> + |2><2|a,o,+>]|b->}/sqrt2
-
- <3|a,b>' = {[e^iphi(<3|1><1|a,e,+> + <3|2><2|a,e,+>)]|b+>
-
- + [<3|1><1|a,o,+> + <3|2><2|a,o,+>]|b->}/sqrt2
-
- <b'+'|<3|a,b>' = {[e^iphi(<3|1><1|a,e,+> + <3|2><2|a,e,+>)]<b'+'|b+>
-
- + [<3|1><1|a,o,+> + <3|2><2|a,o,+>]<b'+'|b->}/sqrt2
-
- <b'+'|b+> = cos(theta)
-
- <b'+'|b-> = sin(theta)
-
- <b'+'|<3|a,b>' = {[e^iphi(<3|1><1|a,e,+> + <3|2><2|a,e,+>)]cos(theta)
-
- + [<3|1><1|a,o,+> + <3|2><2|a,o,+>]sin(theta)}/sqrt2
-
- |1><1| + |2><2| = 1
-
- This shows the beam splitter is irrelevant if it is unitary, which I
- assume.
-
- <b'+'|<3|a,b>' = {e^iphi<3|a,e,+>cos(theta) + <3|a,o,+>sin(theta)}/sqrt2
-
- |<b'+'|<3|a,b>'|^2 = |
-
- {e^iphi<3|a,e,+>cos(theta)+<3|a,o,+>sin(theta)}/sqrt2|^2
-
- <3|a,e,+> = |A|e^iphi(e)
-
- <3|a,o,+> = |A|e^iphi(o)
-
- Note |a,e,+> and |a,e,-> span the e-subspace and |a,o,+> and |a,o,-> span
- the o-subspace. Both e and o paths are dumped into |3> totally in first
- approximation. This is part of the physical geometry of guiding collimated
- beams into a counter of extended area and volume.
-
- |<b'+'|<3|a,b>'|^2 = (|A|^2/2){1 + sin(2theta)cos(phi+phi(e)-phi(o))}
-
- Similarly,
-
- |<b'-'|<3|a,b>'|^2 = (|A|^2/2){1 - sin(2theta)cos(phi+phi(e)-phi(o))}
-
- Therefore, |A| = 1 and the local probabilities sum to 1 on both sides. On
- the other hand if we interpret them as probability densities. Let
-
- PHI = phi+phi(e)-phi(o)
-
- Integral{|A|^2 p(PHI)d(PHI)} = 1
-
- So again |A| = 1
-
- There is no reason to assume that it is a law of nature that under all
- circumstances
-
- Integral{cos(PHI)p(PHI)d(PHI)} = 0
-
- where p(PHI) is the classical probability distribution of phase differences
- PHI corresponding to different distinguishable non-interfering "spots" on
- the transmitter detector photo-sensitive surface where the transmitter
- photon a can be irreversibly and non-unitarily absorbed to make a record.
-
- Indeed, the evolution is unitary between measurements, and non-unitary in
- the collapse into |3> on the transmotter side which induces "fringes" at
- a distance on the receiver side - no fringes on transmitter side. So
- it is effectively unitary in that the sum of local probabilities add to
- unity on each side (transmitter and receiver). The only way to not get
- a quantum phase connection polarization signal in standard quantum
- mechanical formalism is to introduce an entirely ad-hoc non-quantum idea
- that Integral{cos(PHI)p(PHI)d(PHI)} = 0, but even then there is still
- a sin(2theta) nonlocal dependence in the local receiver root mean square
- fluctuations of the receiver counter photo-currents analogous to the Hanbury
- Brown-Twiss correlated intensity fluctuations. The quantum connection phase
- signal is also analogous to the nonlocal phase shift of the Bohm Aharonov
- effect. What we have here is simply the classic Heisenberg microscope
- double slit experiment in which the photon pair is an inseparable super-
- photon. The transmitter part goes through the "two slits" (i.e. ordinary
- abd extraordinary paths of transmitter crystal with half-wave plate in one
- path - but the receiver part arrives at the (discrete) "screen" and
- shows the complementary energy and probability conserving "fringes"
- controlled from the transmitter even from the future state of transmitter
- in a delayed choice mode. The probability at the transmitter is also
- conserved, always 1 with no paradoxical fringes. Everything is globally
- consistent and physical. All the abstract proofs to the ocntrary are not
- worth the paper or computer space they occupy!
-