Dionysus

Hi all, Please click on attached files to read question and see figures.

the 'nonsense' result is not guaranteed to occur.......there is no energy/momentum transferred here, so who says that we are in a relativistic domain? It may very well be that the nonlocality of entangled particles lies outside the purview of relativity. In that case, whoever makes the measurement 'first' (in an 'absolute' sense) is the sender, and the entangled state is 'projected' onto a definite state in just the same causal order as in any subluminal information-exchange scenario.......the 'signal' (if it even exists) may be instantaneous or superluminal-but-finite, only experiment or further theoretical discoveries will tell us that.

Abstract. Kennedy [Philosophy of Science 62, 4 (1995)] has argued that the various quantum mechanical no-signaling proofs formulated thus far share a common mathematical framework, are circular in nature, and do not preclude the construction of empirically testable schemes wherein superluminal exchange of information can occur. In light of this thesis, we present a potentially feasible quantum-optical scheme that purports to enable superluminal signaling. FTLSDemon.docx

Hi to all, My paper will be published in Pramana, the respected and highly mathematical peer-reviewed journal of physics of the Indian Academy of Sciences. The accepted version is attached and all comments, thoughts, questions, and criticisms are welcome. I look forward to input and discussion regarding the argument presented. FTLSDemon.pdf

Hi to all who might respond,Consider the 'peculiar' double-slit setup below.There is a double-slit configuration such that the two slits are never open at the same time. That is: whenever the top slit is open for a certain interval, Ts, the bottom slit is closed for the same interval and vice versa; the configuration toggles continuously between these two states. Lets assume that we have a pulsed sub-single-photon source whose broad-band pulse coherence time, Tp, is much less than Ts. The source targets the double-slit in the following manner: it splits each pulse (which contains at most one photon) into two time bins, synchronized with the opening/closing of the slits, separated by an interval Ts, such that the first time-bin pulse passes at the half-time of when the top slit is open while the second time-bin pulse passes at the half-time of when the bottom slit is open. Thus, a photon never experiences both slits open. Suppose that, just before the detection screen, we place a narrow-band spectral filter such that the coherence time of photons that pass the filter, Tf, is much larger than the slit toggling interval Ts.......Will we see an interference pattern, since now it is impossible, even in principle, to determine through which slit a photon passed? Does this gedanken experiment have any implications (positive or negative) pertaining to the 'Standard' or the 'Bohmian' interpretations of QM?Demetrios