At 11:21 PM 10/26/4, Horace wrote: >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://f >aculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/Boskone_0402.ppt > > >Regards, >Horace Smith
Thank you very much for the extremely relevant referances. It will take me a while to digest these, and I have already used up time I did not have just in order to develop the concept. I do have a couple immediate observations however, based on a quick glance at the Ashfar reference. First I note that Ashfar did not in fact tabulate individual photons, but rather he assumed the result would be the same if he did. This kind of distinction may in fact indicate a difficulty with converting the experiment I proposed into a very high baud rate implementation. On the other hand, it highlights a possible result I somewhat expected, and that is that a failure to account for the photons one at a time will lead to a blurring of the interference. It is thus of much scientific interest as to exactly how, experimentally and quantitatively, such blurring comes about as the data rate is increased. Second, I should point out that a complete benchtop analog of the experiment (i.e. of a single channel) that I suggested has indeed already been carried out, as referenced in [1] and [2], with the result that the interference pattern does indeed disappear when Alice uses her detectors, and reappears when the detectors are not in place. The results were accomplished one photon at a time however, not in a manner similar to Ashfar's experiments. >>[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 What I have added to the experiment is merely a change in the relative relocation of three subsets of the components of the experiment to the distant locations Alice, Bob and Charlie. If merely changing the relative distance betweeen the components changes the results, then this would be a major experimental finding in itself. What I have suggested is a rearrangement of component locations that clealy results in FTL signaling unless the results themselves change. For experimental convenience additional mirrors may be required, and/or fiber related components, but there is no reason to expect the results to be changed by either of these additions, especailly if the benchtop results are not changed. If the benchtop results are changed by adding some mirrors, then I would expect that too would be a significant finding. Regards, Horace Heffner
