🚀 go-pugleaf

"Shall we rant and rave like hysterical monkeys
or shall we reason with the Gods?"
from The Mind of SAR:

Review of objections against my FTL communicator device ( to Mitsu et-al)
#1 Nick Herbert's - irreducible incoherence between extraordinary and
ordinary
alternatives in double refraction. If true it would destroy my effect. So it
is a
good test of traditional retarded causality.

#2 Solovay's: Bob throws a theorem at me and asks if I deny its truth. No I
don't
deny its truth at all. It is true. I deny its relevance to the actual
physics problem.
Bob has a very strong flashlight but he is shining it in the wrong room
where the
key ain't.

Given [A,B] = 0,  A|a> = a|a>, B|b> = b|b>, and a density matrix D(A,B), the
probability distribution for eigenvalues of B is  p(b) = Trace[
|b><b|D(A,B)]
The joint probability distribution is p(b,a) = Trace[ |b><b| |a><a|D(A,B)],
If
p(b) = Sum(a)p(b,a), then since Sum(a) |a><a| = Identity(A subspace) there
can
be no dependence of p(b) on measurements of a. SOlovay's proof will be a
more
rigorous version of this.

First note that in my apparatus Sum(a) is not physical since in the final
destiny
matrix that matters, only one eigenvalue a occurs in the disentangled state
or
factorizable destiny matrix D(AB:f) = f(A)g(B) so that p(b) = p(b,a) for
that
special case.

Furthermore there are experimentally controllable parameters some local like
phi, m,b and some nonlocal like theta. These parameters determine the very
conditions of the experiment. So I am saying that my device takes an initial
entangled density matrix D(A,B:i) and maps it to a final disentangled
destiny
matrix of the form f(B, theta,phi,m,b)g(A) where all the parameters theta,
phi,m,b can be controlled and varied from distant A.   As I show explicitly
the
parameters all slip through into B (receiver space) because of the
distributive law
of algebra when the spin flipper makes |a-> -> |a+> inside the initial
entangled
pair state - disentangling it.

# unitarity violation objection of Steinberg, Caves, and Gallis
Be clear two separate experiments:
Experiment I is single photon state on transmitter which is only a piece of
the
pair experiment.  The paradox they produce in which conservation of
probability
is apparently violated is if we look only at the half wave plate as if
nothing else
is there! That's wrong! That's bad quantum mechanics. I mean it's not
standard
quantum mechanics. That's where they are wrong. Taking that fragmentary view
and given the initial normalized state

|-> = [ |E> - |O> ]/sqrt2 -> 0 if only |E> -> |E> and |O> -> |E>

The math is impeccable but the physics is wrong.  Physics is not math!
Physics
is Math +! I showed that when you do the problem right according to Feynman
and including the mirror and the beam recombiner and the two counters (I,II)
you get a very sensible result that conserves probability (eqs. #12& #13)
thus for
the above dangerous input state |->  that appears to vanish!

p(I) = [1 - cos(phi + m -b)]/2[1 - cos(phi + m) cos(b)]

p(II) = 1 - p(II)

Usually for external reflection with no absorption, the reflection phase
shifts m
and b of mirror and beam recombiner, respectively, are each equal to pi
according to elementary optics books. Therefore,

p(I) = [1 - cos(phi)]/2[1 -cos(phi)] = 1/2  even in the limit phi-> 0.

My formula can be tested for different b and different m which can be
attained!

Experiment II is for a different state - a photon pair state and a different
apparatus in which the transmitter is only a part of the whole - and we ask
what
happens not at the transmitter but at the receiver.

#3 Josephson and Eberhard - again the wrong criterion for communication. It
is
simply not true that measurements of commuting operators do not interfere
with
each other in entangled states according to Schrodinger and de la Torre
et-al.
But even that is not really relevant to my really original proposal - which
I have
remote viewed from the future in a precognitive strange loop in time of
Godelian
self-referential proportions. Indeed my final state is not even entangled!
The
measurements of the eigenvalues of the commuting operators do not interfere
with each other in my final state! The parameters that set "the very
conditions of
the experiment" (to echo Bohr who smiles down from Superluminal Heaven) do
the communicating!