🚀 go-pugleaf

I received the following communication from Dr. Jack Sarfatti a couple
of days ago, and I thought it was important enough to post to the net:

[begin edited quote (typos omitted) with permission from author,
edits in square brackets]:

 It's hard to explain the basic idea in this format - but I will make
 a quick introduction. I would like you to get this into general
 circulation - I am not competent with using Well yet.
 The current experiments on photon pair polarization correlations cannot
 be used for communication - but a simple change of design will allow
 communication. Yes, it will allow communication from the future - I mean
 a backwards-in-time quantum radio as you put it.
 One must break the symmetry between the two detectors that detect the
 two photons in the same back to back pair. One must have the "transmitter
 photon" interfere with itself in a special way. The self-interference
 coherence information is teleported to the receiver photon using what
 Professor Costa de Beauregard of Institut Henri Poincare calls the
 "Feynman zig zag". Let the 4D space-time event for the pair emission
 from an atom be S. Let the irreversible measurement of the transmitter
 photon be at 4D event T in the light-like future of event S. Let the
 irreversible measurement of the receiver photon be at event R also in
 the lightlike future of S. The space-time interval between T and R is
 generally space-like which means a superluminal signal would have to
 connect them directly. But what happens, and I emphasize that this is
 standard quantum mechanics using the Feynman rules for how to combine
 amplitudes, the transmitter photon retarded wave arrives at T and is
 detected. Information on the setting of the transmitter at event T is
 sent backwards-in-time by an advanced transmitter photon wave. The
 advanced wave arrives at S just as the photon pair is being emitted.
 This is what Fred Hoyle calls a "loop in time" between events S and T.
 Thus, the twin receiver photon's polarization frame of reference is
 prepared from the future detection of its twin. The receiver photon
 carries that information into its future over to the detection event
 at R which analyses what T prepared.  You can run the analysis the
 other way - it doesn't matter. What matters, however, is that T is
 active cause and R is passive effect the way the apparatus is configured.
 One can operate this in a "delayed choice mode" (Wheeler) in which T
 happens after R - this is the backwards-in-time quantum radio mode.
 This all comes from the old Wheeler-Feynman electrodynamics modified
 by John Cramer's "transactional" picture (done first by de Beauregard)
 and formalized by me. I have algebra based on Feynman rules to back
 up every detail of what I am talking about intuitively here. This is
 not handwaving. Now here is the beautiful effect that I predict. The
 equations show - I emphasize it is the equations talking not some
 time-travelling dwarf from Zeta Rediculi possessing Nick Herbert's
 mind - or Shirley Mac Claine's - the equations say that the coherent
 phase information at the transmitter disappears from the transmitter
 and reappears at the receiver as elliptical polarization of the
 receiver photon! Now I must tell you more about the apparatus if
 you want to grok this. I assume you want to grok it? The receiver is
 simply a birefringent calcite rhomb which provides two alternative
 paths for the receiver photon each of a different orthogonal linear
 polarization (say V(R) and H(R)) with counters for each path. The
 [transmitter] signal is measured in the difference
 between the count rates.
 In the ordinary experiments (e.g., Aspect in Paris) the count rates
 are equal indicating unpolarized light.  [ . . . ]  The transmitter is an
 interferometer. The first stage is the calcite rhomb as in the receiver.
 Let the V(T) path for the transmitter photon out the back of the calcite
 pass through  a variable phase plate which is the modulator encoding
 the quantum  message carried over to the receiver by the Feynman
 zig-zag. This is a phase modulation quantum connection
 communicator [ . . . ]  The other H(T) path passes through a half-wave
 plate which transforms H(T) to V(T). The orginal V(T) path is reflected by
 non-absorbing (to make it simple) mirror M to 50-50 beam recombiner B
 which also catches the H(T)->V(T) beam. The two inputs to B have to
 (erase "to") The two inputs to B have two interferogram outputs one to
 each detector. Now if the light incident on T were not pair correlated
 then one would see local coherent interference effects as the position
 of the phase plate modulator was changed. But, and this is interesting,
 because of the distant nonlocal quantum correlations of the transmitter
 photon to orthogonal spin states of its twin receiver photon, this
 expected local coherence at the transmitter interferometer is not there!
 It has teleported (in the zig zag) over to the receiver - this is
 a nonlocally controllable induced polarization of the receiver photon
 which should have been unpolarized! The actual equation from the
 Feynman rules of standard quantum mechanics in the simple ideal case
 of 100 % efficient detectors and no absorption at M and B is that the
 difference in the count rates at the two receiver photon counters is
 equal to the sine of twice the misalignment angle between the settings
 of the calcite rhombs at events R and T multiplied by the [cosine] of the
 sum of the phase controllably variable phase delay of the transmitter
 phase plate plus the reflection phase shift at transmitter mirror M
 multiplied by the cosine of the reflection phase shift of the beam
 recombiner B at the transmitter. [ . . . ]
 So in order to see the new kind of quantum phase signal on the nonlocal
 connection the two calcite rhombs must be misaligned - a relative fixed
 angle of 45 degrees is optimal and the reflection phase shift at the
 transmitter interferometer beam recombiner must not be 90 degrees - as
 close to zero degrees is best - this is a matter of Fresnel equations in
 Maxwell's electrodynamics.

[end quote of Dr. Jack Sarfatti]

------------------
Mitsu Hadeishi
General Partner, Open Mind Research
mitsu@well.sf.ca.us
mitsu@cerf.net
mitsu@netcom.com