VOLUME 4 • NUMBER 3 • SEPTEMBER 1991 • Physics Essays AN INTERNATIONALJOURNAL DEDIC�TED TO FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS IN PHYSICS Note by Jack Sarfatti March 25, 2017 The device will not work. Stapp was right. The linearity and unitarity of QM forbids locally decodable keyless entanglement messaging (aka signaling). PQM with Roderick Sutherland's wave action<--> particle reaction post-Bohmian Lagrangian is a nonlinear non-unitary non- statistical locally retrocausal weak measurement theory that does allow what we were looking for in this paper. “Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry. … Their efforts instigated major work on Bell’s theorem and the foundations of quantum theory. Most important became known as the “no-cloning theorem,” at the heart of today’s quantum encryption technology” MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser in the book “How the Hippies Saved Physics” PUBLISHED BY UNIVERSI1Y OF TORONTO PRESS FOR ADVANCED LASER AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC. = volume4, number3, 1991 · gn for a SuperluminalSignaling Device Abstract A gedankenexperiment design far a superluminal(laster than light- FJ'L)signaling deviceusing polarization-rorrelated photan pairs emittedback -to-backis given.Only the Feynmanrules far standardquantum mechanicsare used.7be new approachis Le to let the transmitterphotan interferewith itself It is thenpossible to transmitand la locallydec,ode superluminal signals by the controllableshifting of quantumphotan polarizationprobabilitks across arbitrary spac,e-time separations between the detections of the twophotons in the same pair. 7besuperluminal signal is encoded with the messageby rotatinga calciteinterferometer transmitter detector relati ve to a .fixed receivercalcite detector through angle e or, alternatively,by changingthe average interferometerphase ~ o. 7bedegree of polarization of the lightat the receiverdetector dependsupon these two parameters, e and ~. 7berejare,the messageis dec,oded by monitoringthe changingdegree of linearpolarization of the receiverlight. 7be principleof C{Jusalitythat effects are alwaysafter causes in allframes of rejerencewill be disprovedif thisdevice worlzs as predicted. 7be objections of causalparadoxes and proofsf arbiddingsuperluminal signaling are addressed.7be second part of thepaper beginsa study of the effectof causalityviolation on the restof pbysics. RJr example, possibleviolations of thespin-statistics ronnection and localLorentz intariance by dark matter,a relativisticquantum lime operator, a new viewof infinitiesin quantumfield theory,traversable wormholes as time machines, and quantumspin thermodynamics of the mind-matter· interactionare someof the topicsdiscussed. Key words: superluminal signaling, causality-violatingrelativity , time travel paradoxes, quantumconsciousness n) l34 1.,n M INTERFERENCECOMMUNICATION cisco's Bohemia(North Beach), eccentric and beyondthe cuttingedge of, nilz proceedsas if the past werethe homeof explanation;whereas for example,Paul Davies' excellentco llectionNew P/Jysi<:S.Nevertheless, ~ and the futurealone , holdsthe keyt o the mysteriesof the the refereehas courageouslywritten: " The actualgedankenexperiment is an- for superluminalinformation transfer of a type differentfrom the FIASH -: DwightSedgwick, "House of Sorrow,"An Apologyfor Old proposalof NickHerbert. Although I intuitively agreewith Stapp'sfeeling5 Maids(1908) (referredto in the paper), the designis significantlydifferent from Herbert 's there is evensometh ing vaguelyteleological about the effects and has a contributionof valuein the documentationof possibledesigns ~ ness,so that a futureimpression might affect a pastaction. of superluminalsignalling devices which can be subjectto discussionand RogerPenrose , F.R.S., 7beEmperor's New Mind 1 criticismby the physicscommunity. Thus , althoughI think that this design an- will probablysuffe r the same fate as Herbert's FLASH, I believeit should · to me that biologicalsystems are able in someway to utilize be publishedin a form whichmakes it availablefor criticalscrutiny and isite time-sensein whichradiation propagates from future to discussion.This processeither resultsin a newpotential device or helpsto 70) E.zzareas this may appear, they must somehowbe working completethe case againstsuch devicesthrough the subsequentdiscussion, :tis in time. as Herbert's examplein Foundationsof Physicrhas done." f;edHoyle, F.R.S. , 7beIntelligent Universe (Endnote 2, p. 213). I am predictinga startlingnew ph enomenon,hitherto thought to be im­ possiblein principle- the distantand/or retroacti ve controlof polarization the reader. The point of viewabout the natureof physicsthat I of photons(and spin of massiveparticles) via nonlocalquantum corre la­ :e is controversial, not respectablein either style or substancein tionsas the communicationchannel. My essential intuitio n in the following academia, spawnedin the romantic CaffeTrieste of San Fran- quantitativemodel is not difficultto grasp. In the simplest case, for twopho- 315 Designfor a SuperluminalSignaling Device tons 1 and 2 emittedback-to-back, let the twodoubly refracting crystals be day quantummechanics. I agreethat livingmatter probably does contro l perfectlyaligned. The results of linearpolarization (V and If) measurements, quantumnonlocality, but that the wayin whichit doesso can be understood whenneither photon is allowedto interferewith itself (Fig. 1), are comput­ usingpresent-day quantum mechanics. What has to be profoundlymodified, ed fromthe purespin-entangled pair state [1V)1IV)2 + IH)1IH)2 l / ../2. in my view,is not quantummechanics, but the causalaxiom of relativity The distantcorrelations of photon 1 to orthogonalspin statesof photon withoutabandoning the fundamentalsymmetry of relativitythat the lawsof 2 ensurethat photon1 is completelyunpolarized in localmeasurements. natureshould be independentof the frameof reference. Now,on the otherhand, suppose (in analogywith the well-knownspin-flip 1.1 New Kindsof Signals? techniquein one path of a neutroninterferometer, and the Berry-Chiao Thenonstandard distinction between signals of the first,second, and thinl phasetechnique using a coiledoptical fiber that adiabaticallyrotates the kind is developedin moredetail in Sec. 2 of this paper.H~ver, briefly, planeof polarizationof a photon)that wecan coherentlyand adiabatically I adoptthe modernfiber bundle extens ion of worldgeometry as used in disentanglethe abovepair state withoutcollapsing it into the new form the gaugetheory of fundamentalforces. Subluminal and luminalsignals [1V)1IV)2 + IH)1IV)z] I ../2 = [ IV)1+ IH)d IV)z/../2. Wedo this by of the first kind obeycausality and involvedecodable ene rgy flowsinside lettingphoton 2 interferewith itself and rotatingits polarizationby 90°in and on the light cone, respectively. Superluminaland retroactivesignals one of the twointerfering paths (Fig.3). The twophotons are no longer of the secondkind violatecausality in a "globally self-consistent"way 3 spin-correlated.Each has itsown spin state. But now, photon 1 is completely and involvedecodable energy flows outside the light cone, and similarly polarizedat 45° to the commonorientation of both alignedcrystals. Com­ for signalsof the thinl kind, which the followinggedanken experiment pare thisnew situation to the old onewhere photon 2 did not interferewith purportsto generate. For causality-violatingsignals of the thinl kind,the itself- a choicewhich forced photon 1 into a mixedunpolarized density communicationchannel is the controllablynonlocal quantum correlations matrixwith one bit of positiveentropy. On the otherhand, when we choose in the extra dimensionsof internalfiber spaces beyond space-time. There to makephoton 2 interferewith itself in concertwith the adiabaticrotation is nowcompelling experimental evidence for the breakdownof causalityin of polarizationin one branchof the interferometer,we havethen made the dispersionrelations for the scatteringof gammaphotons off protons. 4 I the oppositechoice which forces photon 1 into a purepolarized zero-bit claimthat controllablenonlocality is part of standardquantum mechanics entropylessstate. That is, the choiceof forcingphoton 2 to interferewith and that proofsstatint othelWiseare incorrect.Signals of the thinl kindwill, itselfproperly transmits a negativeentropy bit of informationto photon of necessity,involve energy flows; in the presentcase they are on the light 1 and its measuringapparatus. furthermore, the metricspace-time interval cone,but theseflows within four-dimensional space-time are not the channel betweenthe choicefor photon2 (whichis the cause)and the polarization wherethe informationis encodedtransmitted and decoded. The channel is in for photon1 (whichis the effect)is irrelevant.The nonlocal quantum spin the extranonmetrical "fibe r" dimensionsbeyond space-t ime in the senseof geometryis premetrical.The space-timeinterval between active cause and gaugetheory 5 ratherthan the extracurled-up metric dimensions of Kaluza­ passiveeffect can be spacelikecorresponding to superluminalcommunica­ Kleintheory. Finally, "transluminal" signals of the fourthkind occurin a tion,or it can be arrangedto be timelikewith delayed choice in whichthe shadowRiemannian metric of signature++++ leftover from the quantum causeis in the frame-invariantfuture of the effect.Indeed, there is a conflict gravityera of the earlyuniverse (to be discussedfurther in Sec. 2). withthe axiomof