Feyerabend and Crackpot (?) Physics
Jack Sarfatti
Feyerabend by John Horgan.
Popper says theories can never be proved, only falsified.
Let us take Paul Budnik's obsession with "delays" in polarization
correlations. Is his idea "falsifiable"? I think not.
Let's take my obsession "quantum connection communication". Is it
falsifiable, yes, because the idea means that fringes or some other coherent
phenomenon will appear locally at one end of an initially entangled quantum
system controlled from the other end even when the ends are spacelike
separated etc.
By the way, contrary to assertions by Mike Gallis, John Baez and others
there is a unitary transformation that disentangles an entangled state in
the way I originally proposed. The unitary transformation is due to Asher
Peres (p.p.440-440 Vol 480 Ann NY Acad Sci, 1986).
U |1,2> = U{|1+>|2+> + |1->|2->}/rt2 = {|1+> + |1->}|2+>/rt2
U is generated by the hermitian Hamiltonian
H = g(t)(1 - |1+><1+| + |1-><1-|)(|2+> - |2->)(<2+| - <2-|)/2
U = e^-iIntegral(Hdt)/hbar
= I - (1 - |1+><1+| + |1-><1-|)(|2+> - |2->)(<2+| - <2-|)/2
if Integral(g(t)dt) = pi hbar/2
U = U*
i.e., U is both hermitian and unitary.
Therefore, U acts on an entangled pair state in which quantum systems 1 and
2 do not have their own pure states, but are in local mixed states described
by reduced density matrices rho.
For example,
rho(1) = Trace(2){|1,2><1,2|} = {|1+><1+| + |1-><1-|}/2
For a photon this is completely unpolarized light.
In contrast, the final state U|1,2> has 100 % local polarization for both
photons 1 and 2.
In short, the unitary U will disentangle pair light giving each photon
polarization. Acting in reverse it will entangle un-entangled light.
However, H is generally "nonlocal" so we have a nonlocal unitary dynamics
that would permit quantum connection communication within the standard
quantum mechanical formalism.
Horgan writes:
"Lakatos, who contended that scientists ignore falsifying evidence; Thomas
S. Kuhn, who argued that science is a political rather than rational
process."
A good example of the latter in miniature is John Baez's stonewalling of his
error on tachyons in FAQ 6 in sci.physics.
"According to Feyerabend, there are no objective standards by which to
establish truth. 'Anything goes,' he says.
John Baez irrationally contradicts Bennett's abstract in his post which
follows:
Re: Bennett's quantum teleportation[m
Date: 30 Apr 93 04:12:41 GMT
>In article <1roph8$b...@tierra.santafe.ede> joh...@SantaFe.edu (George
>Johnson) writes:
>>Yesterday, Charles Bennett gave a wonderful talk at the Santa
>>Fe Institute on what he calls quantum teleportation (son of
>>quantum cryptography, it seems). Here is an abstract:
>>ABSTRACT Classical information (the kind in newspapers) and quantum
>>information (carried by certain states of elementary particles such as
>>photons) are very different. Classical information can be read, copied,
>>and transcribed into any medium, but it cannot be sent faster than the
>>speed of light. Quantum information cannot be read or copied without
>>disturbing it, but in some instances can propagate instantaneously or even
>>backward in time. Quantum teleporation is a newly discovered means whereby
>>the complete information in an unknown quantum state can be separated into
>>purely classical information and purely quantum Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
>>correlations, transmitted through two separate channels to a new location,
>>and recombined there to produce a perfect reincarnation of the original
>>state which was destroyed in the sending process.
>>I think it would be interesting to hear comments on this from
>>John Baez, Paul Budnick, and the other authorities on quantum
>>theory.
>If Budnik and I are both authorities on quantum theory, the theory is in
>deep trouble, since we disagree about everything - including about
>whether the theory is in deep trouble!
>Anyway, the paper is
>Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and
>Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels, Phys Rev Lett 70 (1993), 1895
>by Bennett and a slew of other folks. For starters, let me note that I
>think the language in Bennett's abstract is deliberately provocative.
>The article itself is much more careful. For one, it emphasizes that
>this new "quantum teleportation" trick can NOT occur over spacelike
>intervals. From my few conversations with Bennett and reading his work
>on quantum cryptography and logical depth, it's clear that he's a sharp
>character. Anyone interested in the bizarre tricks one can REALLY do with
>quanta (as opposed to superluminal ledgermain) should read his stuff.
Now compare Baez's
> it emphasizes that this new "quantum teleportation" trick can NOT occur
>over spacelike intervals. ... Anyone interested in the bizarre tricks one
>can REALLY do with quanta (as opposed to superluminal ledgermain) should
>read his stuff.
with Bennett's alleged words
>>Quantum information cannot be read or copied without disturbing it, but
>>in some instances can propagate instantaneously or even backward in time.
Horgan writes:
".. the human compulsion to find absolute truths, however noble, too often
culminates in tyranny of the mind, or worse."
Good examples of this are the snide attacks of Baez, Gallis, Weiner, and to
some extent Bass, though he is more good humored generally, on me personally
for daring to advocate discussion of "crackpot" quantum connection
communication which is not really as "ledgermain" as these pundits would
have us believe.
Horgan writes:
"Science provides fascinating stories aboutthe universe," he remarks. In
fact, he asserts, modern scientists are everybit the equal of such ancient
entertainers as myth-tellers, troubadours and court jesters.
Feyerabend and I have in common that we both performed in opera while
growing up.
Horgan writes of Feyerabend's remark. "Truth itself is a rhetorical term..
Jutting out his chin, he intones mockingly, "I am searching for the truth.!
Oh boy, what a great person." ..... I was a vigorous athiest, but now my
philosophy has a different shape. It can't be that the universe just goes
'boom!' and develops. Is there something else? There should be!"
The something else is quantum connection communication from the future, that
like the Hand of God in Michelangelo's painting of the ceiling of the
Sistine Chapel (note role of Samuel Sarfatti in that), reaches backward in
time, from the far future, to create Man in order that Man will evolve to
God (in self-consistent Feynman histories around closed loops in spacetime).
lrud...@vax.clarku.edu
Feyerabend, quantum antics, and so on, concluding with the paragraph:
>The something else is quantum connection communication from the future, that
>like the Hand of God in Michelangelo's painting of the ceiling of the
>Sistine Chapel (note role of Samuel Sarfatti in that), reaches backward in
>time, from the far future, to create Man in order that Man will evolve to
>God (in self-consistent Feynman histories around closed loops in spacetime).
.. which finally provides me with the context I've been looking for for
years, in which to point out that Michelangelo's painting clearly shows that
GOD IS A DIGITAL WATCHMAKER
--thanks, Jack. A straight man is good to find.
Lee Rudolph
Jack Sarfatti
God is a little Chinese man working in a digital watch shop in
San Francisco's China Town. I meet with him every day for tea
and black bean biscuit.