🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <92206.164128MRG3@psuvm.psu.edu> MRG3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>If this is indeed the proposal from Physics Essays, then I have a few comments:
>That proposal has a fundamental, but subtle flaw, which may remain in this
>proposal.

        Yes, it seems the spin-flip process is the mysterious process
involved here.  Though I'm not sure that is the end of the story.  How
to account for the following set-up, a simple experiment which I came
up with while thinking about the Sarfatti experiment:

       Suppose you had a pair of correlated photons, and you detect
a vertical event at the left detector.  This guarantees, of course,
a vertical event detection on the right detector.  Now, rather than
passing the photon on the right through a birefringent crystal which is
rotated by 45 degrees, but through a crystal with the same orientation,
and you again pass the photon through a half-wave plate and recombine.
A "normal" uncorrelated photon passing through such an apparatus would
split and interfere with itself, and you would expect interference
fringes.  However, if the correlated photon on the left has *already
been detected* as vertically polarized, this means you have to
detect the photon on the right as vertically polarized.  Thus, it
should pass through the birefringent crystal via the V path, and hit
the detector with no interference with itself.  E.g., if you detect
the photon on the left, you would not get interference, if you
don't detect it, you will.  (When I say interference I mean, of course,
statistically speaking).  This apparatus seems to conserve probability
and also allow FTL communication, at least at first glance.  What is
wrong with this picture?  (if there is anything wrong).

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