🚀 go-pugleaf

to Mike Gallis MRG3@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
EXORCISING THE UNITARITY DEMON

#1 your argument [ |v> - |h>]/sqrt2 -> 0 does not describe the behavior of
my
device. I showed that earlier.

#2 The mistake you keep making is to take a fragmentary view. You keep
saying that the matrix is not unitary. So what! I am using both Feynman
rules
from preparation to irreversible detections and this process is not unitary.
If you
want to describe the total behavior of my device then of course the matrix
from
start to finish is not unitary because of measurements!

Feynman gives us two rules to do standard quantum mechanics. The first rule
corresponds to your much beloved unitary evolution but you forget that
unitary
evolution is only true between preparation and detection. Feynman's unitary
rule is:
Unitary rule: Add amplitudes before squaring for indistinguishable
histories.

Feynman's non-unitary measurement rule is:

Measurement rule: Square amplitudes before adding for distinguishable
histories.

Why do you, and others for that matter, have such tunnel vision and exclude
the detection processes?

#3 It is not good enough to present irrelevant formal arguments that the
matrix
is not unitary. It is not supposed to be unitary since I have a complete
solution
of the problem including the irreversible measurements at the four
detectors.

#4 I show that local probabilities at the photon detectors are conserved ,
so that
I do not violate the unitary evolution between the preparation and the
detections.

#5 Enough of formal irrelevant arguments what are you specific formulae for
the count rates (assume 100% ideal efficiency) of all the detectors in both
experiments?

Experiment 1 is pair case with both receiver and transmitter.

Experiment 2 is single photon case with only transmitter.

I have given a complete solution with definite quantitative testable
formulae.
How do your formulae differ from mine. Be specific and do not beat around
the
bush.

In summary:
I. The overall matrix from input to output including irreversible
preparations
and detections is not supposed to be a unitary matrix.

II when you change experiment from photon pair to single unconnected photon
you change the apparatus and you get a new overall nonunitary matrix.

III When you do it right according to Feynman's rules rather than a
fragmentary garbled "unitary matrix" way neglecting the measurements that
actually happen then the sum of the local probabilities add to 1 in a
"unitary way.

IV The criterion that the expectation of the commutator of spacelike
separated
operators vanish is mathematically incorrect as shown by Schrodinger in
1930.