relativity hold a place for non-signaling nonlocal correlations?
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:08:14 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Nicolas Gisin <email@example.com>
CC: Hugo Zbinden <Hugo.Zbinden@physics.unige.ch>,
Wolfgang Tittel <Wolfgang.Tittel@physics.unige.ch>,
Valerio Scarani <Valerio.Scarani@physics.unige.ch>,
Antoine Suarez <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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.
Merry Christmas and all the best wishes for Hanukkah.
[Ref. 1] Nicolas
Gisin, Can relativity be considered complete?
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).
Subject: Re: The
clever local hidden variables (if any)
Thank you for your reply.
I looked at your web site at geocities.com, 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.