Can we evade Stapp's proof of no entanglement signaling?

From: Ruth Elinor Kastner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
To: Jack Sarfatti <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; Paul Zielinski <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Sent: Thu, July 7, 2011 9:24:38 AM
Subject: RE: Ruth's point


JS: "... In the case of the ordinary EPR-spin experiment, there is no ordinary strong measurement that corresponds to the non-orthogonal basis you used."

RK: But the strong measurement made in your proposed experiment doesn't correspond to the Glauber state basis; it corresponds to the which-slit basis.

JS: I do not understand what "which state basis" means in the formalism.  |A1'> and |A2'> are simply markers for two classes of paths for photons in over-complete non-orthogonal Glauber states. The process from emission to arrival on the screen is an indivisible whole.

When I write for the entangled laser beams z(B) & z'(A)


|A,B)> = |z1'(A)>|z2(B)> +| z2'(A)>|z1(B)>

this is a property of the laser beams not of the material of the slits.

<z1'(A)|z2(A)> =/= 0

therefore, Stapp's proof fails if such a state can be made in the lab.

RK: The total experimental arrangement here of detectors and setting is just the 'which slit' observable.

Here I think is the crucial point: for each local slit arrangment, you start with a single Glauber 'eigenstate' heading toward the slits.
At no time was another (non-orthogonal) Glauber eigenstate introduced into the experiment. I don't see us getting a different Glauber eigenstate just by sending a particular Glauber state through some slits. So something is probably wrong with the assumption that z1 and z2 are different Glauber states.

Ruth

JS: I think you are questioning whether

|A,B)> = |z1'(A)>|z2(B)> +| z2'(A)>|z1(B)>

is correct. What math description would you use?

In any case, it's interesting that one can easily construct an entangled state that seems to evade Stapp's proof.

________________________________________
From: Jack Sarfatti [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:49 AM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner; Paul Zielinski

Subject: Ruth's point

"It should be kept in mind that one could use a non-orthogonal basis to compute a partial trace and get apparent FTL signalling for an ordinary EPR-spin experiment."

That simply shows that it's not good enough to make a formal transformation in doing physics. In the case of the ordinary EPR-spin experiment, there is no ordinary strong measurement that corresponds to the non-orthogonal basis you used.

As Bohr said - the choice of basis is not arbitrary like in pure mathematics, but must describe a possible "total experimental arrangement" of detectors and their settings.

Again I have explicitly constructed an entangled state,

|z1)|z'2') + |z2)|z'1')

|z) = Glauber state

that if it can be made in fact would give an entanglement signal.