Important typo error: The sentence fragment in original

"it says that signal nonlocality is not essential even in linear
nonlocal micro-quantum theory"

Should be

"it says that signal locality is not essential even in linear nonlocal
micro-quantum theory"

i.e. change "nonlocality" to "locality" - fixed below:

On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 12:14 PM, Solomon ha-Zarfati II wrote:

Memorandum for the Record
from Jack Sarfatti

Thanks to Gary Bekkum for alerting me to this 1999 paper.

The author of this paper is competent and cites key past papers arguing
against signal nonlocality in orthodox micro-quantum physics based
essentially on the fact that the first reduced quantum density matrices
of each particle in the EPR entangled pair are insensitive to the
distant choice of type of measurement (basis) as described by Henry
Stapp and several others now almost 30 years ago. I have not had time
to understand every detail of Srikanth's paper based on new technology
that was not available at the time in the late 1970's when I came up
with a roughly similar idea of using relative phase interference at the
receiver that was published in the early editions of Gary Zukav's "The
Dancing Wu Li Masters". Under pressure from some physicists, Gary caved
in and removed that entire section in later editions that are now of
great historical interest showing I was generally ahead of the curve
back then. Of course Srikanth's idea is much better than what I had
originally more vaguely suggested, which would not have worked, but
which, nevertheless, pointed in an interesting direction of inquiry that
blossomed in 1999. If Srikanth's 1999 paper survives critical scrutiny
it is very important because it says that signal locality is not
essential even in linear nonlocal micro-quantum theory as distinct from
"more is different" (PW Anderson) nonlinear local macro-quantum theory.
The macro-quantum theory is to micro-quantum theory as general
relativity is to special relativity with "nonlinearity" from
Bose-Einstein condensation analogous to "curvature" in general
relativity. This impacts Antony Valentini's work that signal locality
is a consequence of sub-quantal heat death i.e. an "equilibrium" of the
hidden variables giving the Born probability distribution P(x) ~
|x|psi|^2 for the pure micro-quantum state |psi.

My interferometer EPR gedankenexperiment was described on pages 311 to
314 of the original 1979 edition of "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"
published by William Morrow. Note the remarks below were written several
years before Aspect's actual Paris experiment was completed in 1982. I
also did not have PW Anderson's 1967 "More is different" idea in mind at
that time in the late 1970's even though I wrote a 1966 paper on
Goldstone broken symmetry in solid state physics (Jahn-Teller) with
Marshall Stoneham at UKAEA Harwell (published in Proceedings of the
Physical Society of London 1967). I had not yet connected those dots and
would not do so until 2002 as in http://qedcorp.com/APS/Ukraine.doc It
seems that the "collapse" of the micro-quantum wave in "measurement"
always needs an "irreversible amplification" from micro to macro levels,
which according to PW Anderson has something akin to a "More is
different" BEC, preserving the micro-information in the amplification
needed for a good measurement, i.e. a definite decohered pointer state.
That is, the initial micro-quantum information must be reliably
preserved in the amplification process leading to a macro signal that is
the final "measurement". Each "quantum" in the cascade amplification
must keep that original micro-information intact which is analogous to a
BEC where each quantum is in the same micro-quantum state.

"According to Sarfatti, however, in terms of information theory, the
Aspect experiment, at best, will demonstrate a pure noise superluminal
channel. This is because the Aspect experiment, as it is designed, uses
only the particle mode of complementarity in its detection process.
Therefore, Sarfatti proposes that we replace Aspect's photomultipliers
(which are particle detectors) with double-slit systems that have
'Heisenberg microscopes' at each slit. A double slit system is a wave
detector. A Heisenberg microscope is a particle detector ... The use of
a double slit system with Heisenberg microscopes ... gives us the option
of using either a wave mode of detection or a particle mode of detection
.... Sarfatti theorizes ... that the interference pattern that we see at
one end of such a dual double slit system is inseparably linked, photon
pair by photon pair, with the interference pattern that we see at the
other end in a way that is beyond spacetime. Therefore, a modulation of
the interference pattern at one end of the system will cause a similar
modulation at the other end of the system even though no energy-momentum
transporting signal is connecting the two processes. This is what
Sarfatti calls a 'nonlocal phase lock over space-like intervals' ..."
pp. 312 - 313 1979 edition of Wu Li Masters.

Now compare the above from 1978 to Srikanth 1999

"The signal sender measures either position or momentum of particles"

That is "Alice" the "sender" measures either the "particle" or "wave"
aspect. Srikanth does not use a double slit at the sender but he has a
functional equivalent to it.

"Two spatially seperated observers, Alice and Bob analyze the light.
Alice is equipped with a device, labelled K, to measure momentum or
position of the photons in x
and y direction. Bob is equipped with a Young's double-slit interferometer"

Equation (5) shows the Young double slit interference pattern at the
receiver that Bob sees locally provided that Alice makes a "wave"
(transverse momentum) measurement at the sender. On the other hand if
Alice at the sender chooses to measure both transverse position y and
longitudinal momentum px, then eq. (9) for a single slit diffraction
pattern is observed by Bob at the receiver.

Srikanth's gedankenexperiment is, of course, far superior and more
quantitative than what I suggested 20 years before him. It also uses
technology not available in the 1970's. Should his scheme prove correct,
I cannot say at this point, then it is a great achievement and it will
again show how premature rejection of even half-baked ideas on the
"fringe" can often slow the progress of fundamental physics.

[BTW note in passing that I mention "torsion" in gravity theory in
footnote on p. 199 of that 1979 edition.]

On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 10:09 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Thanks - looks interesting. I will study it.

On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 09:31 AM, Gary Stephen Bekkum wrote:

Hi Jack,

I saw the reference to the Oak Ridge paper, and noticed that they
referenced R Srikanth, a 'target' of conceptual RV'ing. See this paper:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9904075

Noncausal Superluminal Nonlocal Signalling

Authors: R. Srikanth
Comments: Includes a refinement of the thought-experiment presented
earlier, 4 figures (new); Two sections added: to explain how
no-signalling arguments are circumvented; and to propose a plan for a
possible practical realization of the thought-experiment
Report-no: IIAp-99/7/1

this is really hilarious. why is a thing a "particle,"
just because it was detected?... as you note,
the "H-scope" detects particles, anyway.
Young's original experiment was a two *hole* job,
which gives a nice moire pattern;
the two slits just make a simpler patter to observe.

I could go on, but why,
ask the Original DWL Master, Why?

Jack Sarfatti wrote in message ...

Therefore, Sarfatti proposes that we replace Aspect's photomultipliers
(which are particle detectors) with double-slit systems that have
'Heisenberg microscopes' at each slit. A double slit system is a wave
detector. A Heisenberg microscope is a particle detector ... The use of
a double slit system with Heisenberg microscopes ... gives us the option
of using either a wave mode of detection or a particle mode of detection
... Sarfatti theorizes ... that the interference pattern that we see at
one end of such a dual double slit system is inseparably linked, photon
pair by photon pair, with the interference pattern that we see at the
other end in a way that is beyond spacetime. Therefore, a modulation of
the interference pattern at one end of the system will cause a similar
modulation at the other end of the system even though no energy-momentum
transporting signal is connecting the two processes. This is what
Sarfatti calls a 'nonlocal phase lock over space-like intervals' ..."
pp. 312 - 313 1979 edition of Wu Li Masters.

--Dec.2000 'WAND' Chairman Paul O'Neill, reelected
to Board. Newsish?
http://www.rand.org/publications/ran...sues/rr.12.00/
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac