Thursday, March 15, 2012

'Designer' graphene makes its debut -

'Designer' graphene makes its debut -


Begin forwarded message:

Subject: Fwd: [Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars] Re: My original density matrix trace calculation for the entanglement signal still looks OK
Date: March 15, 2012 11:06:48 AM PDT
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner <>
Cc: David Kaiser <>, Saul Paul Sirag <>

Ruth Fig 16 clearly shows phase control that can be used to modulate a message
The issue is the time order between the modulation and the detection
Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

Date: March 15, 2012 2:49:09 AM PDT
Subject: [Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars] Re: My original density matrix trace calculation for the entanglement signal still looks OK

This is not a pre-post selected correlation but a local signal without a classical signal key to unlock it like in quantum teleportation.

The 2003 Rev Mod Phys paper by Leibfried on trapped ions has the entanglement coherent phase signal I calculated in general in my three talks 10-1-11 DARPA-NASA Star Ship Orlando Hilton, 11-1-11 SLAC APS Stanford University, & 2-27-12 Boston APS. However, both the sender and receiver are Siamese Twins, i.e. the phase coherent center of mass motion of the trapped ion as the sender and an internal qubit of the same ion as the receiver. Nevertheless,  orthodox quantum theory says the signal output of the qubit should be uncontrollable random noise 1/2 in proper units. In fact there is a non-random signal in the real data that obeys my general equation! So it's a first step. We may need to use quantum teleportation to get the sender and receiver spatially separated - another problem. Also, even if the sender and receiver are on the same ion can the sender act back from the future on the receiver as in the brain presponse reported by several independent people Libet -> Radin -> Bierman -> Bem.

Therefore, it still looks to me that the Born probability rule breaks down completely for entangled Glauber states as I originally said.

So I still expect that the results below are actual LOCAL data not correlation computations. However, Ruth is correct we need to check with the people who did the experiment.

On Mar 15, 2012, at 12:39 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

I just quickly checked it with pencil and paper - it looks OK

Will do it in detail in math type in morning with every term shown

On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:30 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

That would explain it I agree if I find that I made an error in the trace calculation. However, their paper is quite complicated and this key point is not obvious. I will contact them after I have a chance to digest more of it. I only saw it for the first time yesterday.

On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:20 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

Yes I do think there is a post-selection going on and their graph just reconstructs the data using the correlations.
But I would ask the authors to be sure. RK
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:16 AM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Re: Leibfried trapped ions Rev Mod Phys 2003

On Mar 14, 2012, at 10:58 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

Thanks Jack. It looks like the detection method has to image the ions ('detect the ion itself") and this would probably project them into a definite motional state, i.e. collapse the coherent state into a Fock state. This is analogous to detecting an electron in a position sense: you lose all information about its momentum.  This would imply that you need to do a correlation analysis: each detected internal state lines up with a definite (i,e no longer coherent) state of motion of the ion in the trap.

I don't know this for sure but it's my impression from the article. This might be something that the authors could confirm or deny.