Horace, This paper might throw a monkey-wrench in your FTL Draft http://www.irims.org/quant-ph/030503/
Below is a presentation outlining the devastating blow that Ashfar experiments deal to some interpretations of QM. <http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/Boskone_0402.ppt>http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/Boskone_0402.ppt Regards, Horace Smith At 15:50 2004.10.25, you wrote: >Nothing signifcantly new below, just improved form. There still seems to >be something of substance to this idea. > > > FTL by Down-converting (DRAFT #5) > >A method is proposed here to achieve faster than light (FTL) communication >by the use of down-converters. A down-converter splits a photon into two >photons each having half the energy of the original photon. > >Suppose we have a sender Alice, a receiver Bob, and an intermediary >facilitator Charlie. Charlie uses a beam splitter to create two beams of >laser light: L the left beam and R, the right beam. Charlie then >down-converts the L beam to create beams L1 and L2, and similarly creates >beams R1 and R2 from the beam R. Beams R2 and L2 are normal path or >"signal" photons through the down-converter, while beams R1 and L1 are >called "idler" photons. "Beam"here means a flow of individually detectable >photons sent in very short intervals so as to provide a useful rate of >communication. Charlie directs beams L1 and R1 to Alice and beams R2 and >L2 to Bob. The corresponding photons arrive at both Bob and Alice at >nearly the same time, but here assume Alice receives hers first, but just >barely before Bob. > >Bob directs beams R2 and L2 such that they can create an interference >pattern in a set of detectors arranged so it is feasible to rapidly and >with high probability determine whether an interference pattern is present >or not. The signal photon beams R2 and L2 can create such an interference >pattern because they are the two paths from a beam splitter. > >Bob will in fact see such an interference pattern provided Alice does not >put detectors in idler beams R1 and L1.[1] If Alice does place detectors >in both her beams, then this is equivalent to knowing which path each of >Bob's photons have traveled, and thus Bob can observe no interference >pattern. This known-path-no-interference result has been characteristic of >numerous versions of the two slit or two path interference experiments.[2] >If Alice sees an idler she knows which path the corresponding signal photon >took to Bob, and the interference wavefunction instantly collapses. Bob, >when his photons arrive shortly after Alice's corresponding photons, knows >the current state of Alice's detectors by whether he sees an interference >pattern or not. > >Since Alice and Bob could be light years away from each other, and since >Alice thus might have years from the time Charlie released the photons to >make the choice to detect or not detect her photons, faster than light >communication from Alice to Bob is clearly a possible result. It might be >said that the communication can not be verified for years, but such >verification is in this case is not necessary. Bob does not require >verification or comparison to Alice's results to know the immediate state >of Alice's detectors, or to immediately detect a change of state of those >detectors, with sufficient speed and reliability to establish a practical >communication channel. Further, a similar channel can be established from >Bob to Alice, thus permitting immediate error detection and correction or >retransmission. > >Assuming that beams adequate for fast communication can be generated and >the resulting interference detected sufficiently fast, achieving high data >rate FTL communication at short range then primarily boils down to how fast >Alice can switch from a detecting mode to a non-detecting mode. This might >be as simple as her redirecting beams R1 and/or L1, or by switching on and >off the information from her detectors. This experiment then, in addition >to achieving FTL communication, may be useful for determining exactly of >what an observation consists. > >An experiment requiring the simplest possible message would involve sending >a data bit (actually only a change of state) via a one-way FTL >communication channel and returning it via a second one-way return FTL >communication channel, and repeating this process to establish an >oscillation. A fiber pair from Charlie to Bob and Charlie to Alice could >be used, if desired, to create a single FTL communication channel. A >similar set of fiber pairs would be used for the return channel. To >demonstrate FTL communication it is then necessary to transmit over a >sufficient distance D that the oscillation frequency, f, is faster than the >oscillation frequency F = c/D that can be achieved by light. A 10 km >communication link (each way) need only cycle faster than about 15 kHz to >break the light speed barrier. Assuming a sample of 100 photons to be >sufficient for determining interference, a photon transmission and >detection rate of 1.5 million photons per second is required. However, it >is not known what precisely constitutes an observation. It may be that >individual photon detection is not even necessary, but rather mere beam >intensity determination. > >References: > >[1] Kim et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol 84, no. 1, pp 1-5 >[2] Brian Green, *The Fabric of the Cosmos*, (New York, Alfred A Knopf, >2004), pp 193-197 > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner
