🚀 go-pugleaf

Ramsay writes:

"(1) My claim follows from the no-signal proofs, such as have been
posted, which *do* apply to this case. (2) I did present a calculation
in more specific terms earlier, although you may have missed it. I
will mail you a copy of that posting. (3) The onus remains on you to
show that your "discovery" is valid."

I say the standard no-signal proofs are wrong. The one's that depend upon
vanishing spacelike commutators are wrong because of Schrodinger 1930 and
dela Torre et-al (Fdn Physics Letters) showing that commuting operators can
have Heisenberg incompatibiity in presence of entanglement.

The one's basedon unitary time evolutions leave out shifts in global
boundary conditions.

The one's based on summing over spots like Stapp's invoke a classical
contingency independent of quantum formalism which perhaps can be corrected
for by phase compensation plates.

Furthermore, they only apply to means and not to fluctuations.

In another article:

|OK Ramsay's point about summing over phases of transmitter output ports
|(i.e., arg<3|1> - arg<3|2>) at different diffraction-limited spots on
|photo-sensitive surface of transmitter detector is a good one. It
|corresponds to Henry Stapp's argument.  But all this means, is that the
|receiver light will be unpolarized on average because the classical
|statistical average <...> over the spots has
|
|cos[arg<3|1> - arg<3|2>]> = 0.
|
|However, the root mean square fluctuation in the difference of receiver
|count rates

Ramsay asks
"What exactly does that quantity mean? Fluctuation with respect to
what?"

Let J be flux of photons arriving at a receiver V' counter. The count rate
(clicks per unit time) will be proportional to J times p(V'). Plot the
count rate as a function of time over scale bigger than duration required
to determine count rate. This time series will fluctuate about a mean.  Now
I do not say that such an analysis is easy- other fluctuations of equipment
processes must be subtracted etc. but in principle it is possible.

|will still be modulated at a distance from the transmitter.

"How can the people at the "receiver" measure it?"

It's easy in principle, they will see an intelligible modulation of the
standard deviation in the time series of the fluctuating difference in
receiver counter firing rates.
|That is,
|
|RMS [p(V') - p(H')] = sin(2theta)cos(phi)RMS[cos[arg<3|1> - arg<3|2>]>]/2

"What is the variable over which you are taking the "RMS"?"

The variable is cos[arg<3|1> - arg<3|2>] or arg<3|1> - arg<3|2> if you
like. Ultimately it is fluctuations in optical path differences from the
transmitter recombiner output ports to the single transmitter counter. We
can artificially enhance these fluctuations and it will be detected at the
distant receiver.

"The probabilities of photons which enter the "receiver" end being
found to have polarization V' are independent of each other. I claim
they all have probability 1/2. This tells us the statistical nature of
what the people at the "receiver" end will see. There is no variation
due to what the people at the "transmitter" end do."

I know you claim it but again you have not proved it. It does no good to
quote suspect proofs.  Perhps we should let experiment decide!




Keith Ramsay         "But I really think that frequent posters such as
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca  myself, Dale, Scott, McIrvin and others are not
                     crackpots; we are simply loudmouths."
                                        -John Baez

PS I may have mistakenly added "missing factor of 2" to your statement
after all - but it is of little consequence.
- a random error in operation of complex system - we are not noise free.
Perhaps it was an influence from the future? (e.g. see Fred Hoyle's book
Intelligent Universe, Holt Rhinhart Winston NY 1986 - he talks of how our
actions as quantum events in brain can be influenced from the future.