home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.paranormal:2681 sci.skeptic:21635
- Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic
- Path: sparky!uunet!well!sarfatti
- From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
- Subject: Precognition and Quantum Physics 3
- Message-ID: <BzpDAL.68J@well.sf.ca.us>
- Sender: news@well.sf.ca.us
- Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
- Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:08:44 GMT
- Lines: 291
-
-
- Mind, Matter & Quantum Connection 3 (The Meaning of Bell's Theorem)
- Continuing with my review of F. David Peat's article "A Science of Harmony
- and Gentle Action" in "The Interrelationship Between Mind and Matter"
- edited by Beverly Rubik (Center for Frontier Sciences, Temple University).
-
- Peat writes :"John Bell's remarkable result indicates that non-local
- correlations exist within quantum mechanics that cannot be explained on a
- mechanistic, causal basis."
-
- So far so good.
-
- "The Bell experiment ... involves a pair of photons or electrons whose
- combined state is correlated and which are then allowed to separate to a
- macroscopic distance. Careful experiments show that a remarkable degree of
- correlation is maintained between the two particles even when no
- interaction, signal, or force passes between them."
-
- Correct. The quantum result is easily derived in the Dirac formalism in a
- few lines as follows. The combined (i.e., entangled) pair state for photons
- (1&2) in the Aspect Paris experiment is:
-
- |1,2> = (1/sqrt2)[|1+>|2+> + |1->|2->]
-
- If photon 1 is detected in the (+,-) polarization basis and its twin photon
- 2 is detected in another (+',-') basis and angle @ relative to (+.-) then
- the nonlocal joint probability is
-
- p(1+|2+') = |(1/sqrt2)[<1+|1+><2+'|2+> + <1+|1-><2+'|2->]|^2
-
- but
-
- <1+|1+> = 1
-
- <1+|1-> = 0
-
- <2+'|2+> = cos@
-
- therefore,
-
- p(1+|2+') = (1/2)(cos@)^2
-
- Bell showed that any theory which forbids action-at-a-distance (AAD)
- outside the mutual lightcones of the two photon detection events for a
- given individual pair cannot obey this quantum formula - a formula actually
- observed in Aspect's 1982 experiment in a very clear way despite the photon
- counter efficiency problem.
-
- Peat falls into self-contradiction when he writes: "Bell's theorem has been
- used by a number of writers to explain supposed mental effects and
- interactions by proposing that such mental interactions are in some way
- 'nonlocal' and can make instantaneous or faster-than-light connections.
- But this is to misinterpret the meaning of Bell's result which denies that
- any force or interaction whatsoever passes between the two particles.
- (Again, an exception may be made in the case of Bohm's holistic quantum
- potential.)" p.199
-
- It is true that the quantum connection is not an ordinary force in the
- sense of the exchange of a virtual boson between two charges, but it is
- action at a distance in the sense of "Bohm's holistic quantum potential".
- The correct statement should be:Bell's theorem has been used by a number of
- writers to explain supposed mental effects and interactions by proposing
- that such mental interactions are in some way 'nonlocal' and can make
- instantaneous or faster-than-light connections in the sense of Bohm's
- holistic quantum potential. That is my position - and I think it is also
- Brian Josephson's and, perhaps, even Henry Stapp's provided that the word
- "communication" is left out. I go beyond Josephson and Stapp in that I
- think "communication" is essential to understand the mind-matter
- connection. Such quantum connection communication (i.e. controllable
- locally decodable AAD) is a violation of standard quantum mechanicsw (SQM)
- because it demands a breakdown of the unitary invariance of the initially
- zero Dirac bra-ket between orthogonal single-particle states. My prediction
- is that open far-from-thermal equilibrium chaotically nonlinear quantum
- systems can do this. This is a conjecture.
-
-
- Mind, Matter & Quantum Connection 4
-
- More comments on Peat's article in the Mind Matter Conference proceedings
- edited by Dr. Beverley Rubik of Temple University Center for Fronteir
- Sciences. I am following up on Dr. Rubik's request to review the book - and
- am doing so in a sequence of short remarks.
-
- p.202 0n "Gentle Action"
- "... a highly complex system in which its individual phases are subject to
- fine adjustments. By making a series of small adjustments globally across
- the system is becomes possible to lock these phases together so that the
- whole system becomes involved cooperatively in some new activity. Such a
- system may be quite resistant to any local, forceful intervention; however,
- tiny changes that are made in a co-operative or non-local way can result in
- entirely new behavior."
-
- This is a very nicely written image and very enticing and I hope it is true
- - it would help to see a simple math model of it. Should we think
- classically of a distribution of systems across space at a fixed time with
- a field of little phasors? Or should we think quantum mechanically in
- Hilbert space. If we have several systems then we have an entangled sum of
- products of kets one for each system. So take the photon pair case in which
- we start with
-
- |1,2> = (1/sqrt2)[|1+>|2+> + |1->|2->]
-
- consider, for example
-
- |1,2> -> |1,2>' = (1/sqrt2)[e^i&|1+>|2+> + |1->|2->]
-
- where & is a relative phase - but it is not a phase attached to either
- photon 1 or photon 2.
-
- Just what kind of math model would illustrate Peat's verbal picture? I am
- at a loss and would like to hear from Peat.
-
-
-
-
- Status Report on Prospects for Quantum Connection Signal Super-Technology
-
- 1. If it can done it will be very important in terms of our world view,
- mind-matter interaction, telecommunications and ultra-fast and
- "precognitive" computing and our economic development as a space-faring and
- time-travelling species. With quantum connection communication one need
- not try to predict what complex chaotic systems (e.g. stock market,
- weather, war....) will do (a hopeless task), rather, one will simply access
- information from the future behavior. The work of Godel, Hoyle, Thorne,
- Novikov, Deutsch et-al show that logical inconsistencies are suppressed by
- nonlocal quantum forces of destiny coming from the quantum potential
- (Bohm).
-
- 2. If cannot be done within standard unitary invariant reversible quantum
- mechanics (SQM) unless energy can be either dumped into or extracted out of
- zero point vacuum fluctuations. That is, first-order vacuum phase
- transitions will produce causality-violating quantum connection signals
- across space-like intervals and back from the future as a spin-off effect.
- The work of Hal Puthoff at Jupiter Technologies in Texas bears close
- scrutiny in this regard.
-
- 3. The "nonunitary" effects of gravitation, far-from-thermal equilibrium
- nononlinear chaotic effects in open quantum systems still not understood
- enough to say anything decisive. These are areas for fruitful research
- (e.g. Penrose's graviton -non unitary collapse of non-relativistic wave
- function", Peat's "gentle action", Stapp's speculations on wave function of
- the human brain etc.)
-
- 4. A weakly non-unitary generalization of quantum mechanics (i.e. non-
- standard quantum mechanics or NSQM) permits quantum connection signals
- without violating conservation of probability. A complete formal model of
- this exists described by a non-unitary N-transform of the photon-pair state
- |1,2> used in Aspect's Paris experiment showing violation of Bell's
- locality inequality over a spacelike interval between detections of both
- photons in the same connected pair.
-
- |1,2> = [|1+>|2+> + |1->|2->]/rt2 (1)
-
- This is an entangled state. The single photons do not have their own local
- pure states. Their local reduced density matrices are not idempotent.
- Therefore, they are locally in mixed states.
-
- |1,2> manifests real action-at-a-distance (AAD) because both photons 1 and
- 2 must be in the same (+,-) linear polarization basis. This is the basic
- reason why SQM violates Einsteinian locality. The 1935 EPR paper is exactly
- correct in that the universal validity of the Heisenber uncertainty
- principle demands real AAD. In other words, Einstein's criterion for
- reality shows that SQM is incomplete only in the absence of AAD. If we
- admit AAD then SQM is complete in Einstein's sense.
-
- The local density matrices for each photon in |1,2> are totally
- unpolarized. This precludes faster-than-light (quantum connection)
- signaling since the light remains locally unpolarized no matter how we
- change orientation of distant polarizing beam splitter.
-
- But now suppose we could build a new kind of "transmitter" described by a
- nonunitary N-operator. That is,
-
- |1,2>' = N|1,2> = [e^i&|1+>|2+> + |1+>|2->]/rt2
-
- = |1+>[e^i&|2+> + |2->]/rt2 = |1>|2> (2a)
-
- |1> = |1+> (2b)
-
- |2> = [e^i&|2+> + |2->]/rt2 (2c)
-
- Now, each photon has its owm local pure state and each photon is completely
- polarized. It is this controllable and locally decodable transition of the
- local state of the receiver photon 2 from completely unpolarized to
- completely polarized that is the basis for this type of quantum connection
- signaling which does not require zero point energy releasing unstable
- vacuum phase transitions. Carefully distinguish option 1 above from this
- option 4.
-
- The phase angle & controlled from transmitter but detected at receiver is a
- modulation variable for the quantum connection signal. So is the nonlocal
- angle @ (an unhidden variable) between the two local event orientations of
- the transmitter and receiver polarizing beam splitters at the scatterings
- of photons 1 and 2 from them, respectively. The space-time invariant
- interval between these two local photon-crystal scatterings is irrelevant
- to the AAD effect.
-
- Note that
-
- <1,2|1,2> = '<1,2|1,2>' = 1 (3a)
-
- where
-
- '<1,2| = <1,2|N* (3b)
-
- i.e., norm invariance of pair state under nonunitary N-transformation.
-
- also
-
- <1|1> = 1 (3c)
-
- <2|2> = 1 (3d)
-
- so that local probability is conserved on each side of the apparatus - a
- very important result!
-
- The weak (i.e. "off-diagonal") nonunitarity is
-
- N|1+> = e^i&|1+> (4a)
-
- N|1-> = |1+> (4b)
-
- but
-
- <1+|1-> = 0 (4c)
-
- '<1+| = <1+|N* = e^-i&<1+| (4e)
-
- |1->' = N|1-> = |1+> (4f)
-
- so that
-
- '<1+|1->' = e^-i&<1+|1+> = e^-i& /= <1+|1-> = 0 (4g)
-
- Will this weak off-diagonal nonunitarity induce strong "diagonal"
- nonunitarity in an incompatible basis? If so, that would violate
- conservation of probability (and energy) so that option 4 would become
- equivalent to option 1.
-
- What kind of apparatus can do this? As an analogy consider a neutron
- interferometer with a spin-flip coil in the - path. Suppose the incoming
- state is
-
- |n> = |+><+|n> + |-><-|n> (5a)
-
- <+|-> = 0 (5b)
-
- If the spin-flip coil is off, it is an experimental fact that |n> can be
- reconstructed when the two paths are recombined. What happens if the spin-
- flip coil is on? Clearly
-
- the spin flip coil causes
-
- |-> -> e^i&|+> (5c)
-
- so that |n> -> |n>' = |+><+|n> + e^i&|+><-|n> = |+>[<+|n> + e^i&<-|n>] (5d)
-
- This is beginning to look familiar. Norm invariance requires that
-
- arg<+|n> - arg& - arg<-|n> = pi/2 (5e)
-
- Or is this an incorect model of neutron interferometer with spin-flip coil
- on? How does SQM describe this neutron interferometer with a spin-flip in
- one path? Must we include correlations to radiation oscillator. This would
- produce a random phase factor e^i& if the radiation oscillator is in exact
- number eigenstates, but what if the oscillator is initially in a Glauber -
- coherent state that is not an orthogonal basis?
-
- The spin-flip coil for the neutron corresponds to a half-wave plate for the
- photon (1).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The point of all this is that it soon may be possible to make simple
- electro-optical devices that will exhibit objective reproducible
- "precognition" in the sense that the device will transmit useful
- information from a future state of itself to a past state of itself.
- Any attempt to create a paradox will fail - free will limited.
- Attempts at creating paradoxes will induce metric distortions that
- prevent the paradox including vacuum phase transitions that could release
- enormous amounts of energy - much bigger than thermonuclear fusion.
- Conteol of this coming super-technology will permit human migration
- into interstellar space on a vast scale. The Destiny of Man is
- Space Migration, Intelligence Increase,Life Extension.
-