Subject: Does relativity hold a place for non-signaling nonlocal correlations?
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:08:14 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Nicolas Gisin <>
CC: Hugo Zbinden <>,
     Wolfgang Tittel <>,
     Valerio Scarani <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
     Antoine Suarez <>

Dear Dr. Gisin,

I hope my email messages sent to you and your colleagues in the past four years have been safely received.

Regarding the question in the subject line and your recent quant-ph/0512168 v1 [Ref. 1], may I suggest the following: Correlations can indeed be explained by common causes, since what you call "quantum information" can be simultaneously everywhere, in all reference frames, like a transcendental tachyon. I call it 'potential point(s)',

Please don't take this as some paternalist attitude [Ref. 1], but I believe the only way to explore quantum entanglement by *non-signaling* nonlocal correlations is with your brain(s),

If you use *any* kind of signals, it isn't secure, and cannot be secure.

Forget it.

Merry Christmas and all the best wishes for Hanukkah.

Dimi Chakalov

[Ref. 1] Nicolas Gisin, Can relativity be considered complete?
quant-ph/0512168 v1.

Footnote 2: "This referee considered his paternalist attitude so constructive that he declared himself to me: "look how helpful I am to you" (admittedly, he was politically correct).
"How can these two space-time locations, out there, know about what happens in each other without any sort of communication ?. I believe that this is an excellent question! I have slept with it for years [28].
"Entanglement describes correlations without correlata [31] in a holistic view [32]. In other worlds, *a quantum correlation is not a correlation between 2 events, but a single event that manifests itself at 2 locations*.
"Hence, let’s face the situation: Nature is able to produce nonlocal data without any sort of communication.
"And relativity, can it be considered complete? Well, if nonlocality is really real, as widely supported by the accounts summaries in this article, then all complete theories should have a place for it. Hence, the question is: "Does relativity hold a place for non-signaling nonlocal correlations?"


Subject: Re: The clever local hidden variables (if any)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:44:56 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: ken williams <>
CC: Larry Horwitz <>,
     Andrei Khrennikov <>,
     Diederik Aerts <>,
     Chris Isham <>

Dear Ken:

Thank you for your reply.

I looked at your web site at, and noticed that some of the links do not work (cover.JPG, firstreport1.JPG, firstreport2.JPG, etc.).

> late January.

No rush. With eleven years in academics and two in postdoctoral research, I'm sure you can swallow my web site.

> But I must warn you that unlike yourself I am not a speed-reader.

I'm not a speed-reader either, and have only glanced at your quant-ph/0512052, quant-ph/0512050, and quant-ph/0512053. RE the reality of unobserved phenomena (quant-ph/0512050, p. 37), please see the discussion of QM & STR at

Q: Once we make the "collapse", can we trace back the instant/entry point at which the quantum beast could have entered our light cone?

My answer is in the negative, because we cannot shrink the time-of-arrival to a "point",

By eliminating the possibilities which don't work, whatever remains, however strange it might look at first glance, should be the truth. The way I see the puzzle, the only remaining possibility for the "entry point" is the apex of the cone,

Hence we need quantum gravity to understand QM & STR.

Best wishes for 2006.