Signal Nonlocality by Jack Sarfatti on 1/28/07, 4:22 PM, 1 of 4, [email protected]

Retrocausal Nonlocal Signals From Ruler and Compass to Stencil and Grating

ABSTRACT Retrocausal nonlocal signaling back from the future using delayed choice between different parts of an entangled whole happens because not-linear not-unitary operators seem to exist in actual laboratory experiments. I predict that the linearity/unitarity axioms of orthodox quantum theory will be violated in modified Dopfer/Cramer-type experiments. This is analogous to non-metric theories in extensions of Einstein’s general relativity. _____________________________________________________________________ In Einstein’s 1915 general relativity of real gravity as curvature of space-time the metricity postulate is that the lengths of vectors propagated parallel to themselves along world lines do not change, only their orientations change. The corresponding postulate in quantum theory is that the lengths of the state vectors in the Hilbert information space do not change in the “unitary” propagation of the system. The latter idea leads to “unitarity of the S-matrix” associated with conservation of probability, which played a key role in the Hawking-Susskind debate over information loss through particle and event horizons. However, this ignores the phenomenon of “More is different” ODLRO Goldstone-Higgs fields for spontaneous broken ground state symmetries in which qualitatively new properties of systems emerge.

The single-pair initial entangled state is

ab = " ! k a

k

b

(1.1)

k

k

It is understood that we have a large ensemble of identically prepared entangled pairs each pair is in state (1.1). The “Play Doh” stencil techniquei at the University of Rochester’s “optical buffer” extends quantum theory because the “stencil” operator is not linear and not unitary in the usual sense having the following action on sender photon b:

ab ! ab ' = S ( b ) ab = " S ( b )k# k a

k

b

k

(1.2)

k

So this is why the model works. We violate the axioms that all physical operators are linear and unitary and we claim that the “stencil”ii is a laboratory example of such a new kind of operator. S (b ) * S (b ) ! 1

(1.3)

Signal Nonlocality by Jack Sarfatti on 1/28/07, 4:22 PM, 2 of 4, [email protected]

{

The modulation envelope spectrum S ( b )k

} is the nonlocal signal’s message content on

the stand-alone entanglement Command Control Communication Channel C4 that, unlike quantum teleportation, dense-coding and cryptography, does not require a secondary classical signal or coincidence circuitiii to locally decode or unlock the message content. The rest of the proof is trivial. Using the Born/Von Neuman projection postulate, so we do not even need to go to Antony Valentini’s “sub-quantal non-equilibrium.” The statistical output of a diffraction grating at the receiver photon a is

Pk ( a ) = ab S ( b ) * a

a S ( b ) ab = S ( b )k ! k 2

k k

2

(1.4)

Therefore, the shape of the stencil impeding the flow of identical sender photons a is faithfully imaged across an arbitrary spacetime barrier in the diffraction pattern of the twin receiver photons b using a simple diffraction grating as the receiver to see the momentum spectrum of (1.4).

i

"It's just like when you put Play-Doh through one of those stencils," Howell says. Like the Play-Doh, each pulse that passes through the stencil does carry the whole "UR" shape, but, as with the two-slit diffraction pattern, one photon does not produce the whole image on being detected. Howell says the experiment is the first demonstration that optical buffering, or delaying of light, can reliably transmit two-dimensional information—in this case an image. The kind of information sent down optical fibers is normally encoded along the length of the pulse, he says.” (see reference ii) ii

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=5116CF53-E7F2-99DF3B64CF41CFBB5B91 iii “The experiment builds on work done in the late 1990s in Anton Zeilinger's lab, when he was at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Researcher Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were "entangled", or linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same wave-or-particle behavior as one another. Using a crystal, Dopfer converted one laser beam into two so that photons in one beam were entangled with those in the other, and each pair was matched up by a circuit known as a coincidence detector. One beam passed through a double slit to a photon detector, while the other passed through a lens to a movable detector, which could sense a photon in two different positions. The movable detector is key, because in one position it effectively images the slits and measures each photon as a particle, while in the other it captures only a wave-like interference pattern. Dopfer showed that

Signal Nonlocality by Jack Sarfatti on 1/28/07, 4:22 PM, 3 of 4, [email protected]

measuring a photon as a wave or a particle forced its twin in the other beam to be measured in the same way. To use this setup to send a signal, it needs to work without a coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame University, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs. The double slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector should have its twin appear at the other. As before, the way you measure one should affect the other. Jensen suggested that such a setup might let you send a signal from one detector to another instantaneously -- a highly controversial claim, since it would seem to demonstrate faster-than-light travel. If you can do that, Cramer says, why not push it to be better-than-instantaneous, and try to make the signal arrive before it was sent? His extra twist is to run the photons you choose how to measure through several kilometers of coiled-up fiber-optic cable, thereby delaying them by microseconds. This delay means that the other beam will arrive at its detector before you make your choice. However, since the rules of quantum mechanics are indifferent to the timing of measurements, the state of the other beam should correspond to how you choose to measure the delayed beam. The effect of your choice can be seen, in principle, before you have even made it.”

Signal Nonlocality by Jack Sarfatti on 1/28/07, 4:22 PM, 4 of 4, [email protected]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL&hw=Science+hopes+to+change+events+that+have +already+occurred&sn=001&sc=1000