Quantum Entanglement,

Nonlocality, and
Back-In-Time Messages
John G. Cramer
Professor Emeritus of Physics
University of Washington

Norwescon 33
April 3, 2010
 Causality & Retrocausality
The Law of Causality: A cause must precede its
effects in all reference frames.
In quantum mechanics, there are apparent violations of
this principle. One example is Wheeler’s Delayed Choice
Experiment, in which a photon of light is made to pass
either through one slit or two slits, depending on which
measurement action that is taken after the light has
already passed the slit system. This is called
retrocausality, an effect that appears to precede its cause.

April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 2/28

 Evidence for Retrocausality:
Publicity Precedes the Experiment

New Scientist Seattle Post Intelligencer

April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 3/28
September 30, 2006 November 15, 2006
 … and Even More Evidence

Men’s Journal Seattle Metropolitan Magazine

October, 2007 October, 2007

April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 4/28

 Quantum Entanglement
and Nonlocality
“Spooky Actions-at-a-Distance”
Albert Einstein

April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 5/28

 Entanglement
and Nonlocality
Entanglement: The separated but Measurement 1
“entangled” parts of the same quantum system M1
can only be described by referencing the
state of other part.
The possible outcomes of Entangled
measurement M2 depend of the Entangled photon 1
results of measurement M1, and Photon
vice versa. This is usually a Source Nonlocal
consequence of conservation laws Connection
(conservation of momentum, angular
momentum, energy, …). Entangled
photon 2
Nonlocality: This “connectedness” between
the separated system parts is called quantum
nonlocality. It should act even of the system
parts are separated by light years. Einstein M2
called this “spooky actions at a distance.” Measurement 1
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 6/28
 Interference of Waves

Light travels as a wave, but leaves and arrives as a particle.

(E = h) We can select wave-like behavior or particle-like behavior by
choosing what to measure. Wave-like behavior shows up as interference.

April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 7/28

 One-Slit Diffraction

April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 8/28

 Two-Slit Interference

April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 9/28

 Turning Interference
On and Off
Two-slit
Interference
Pattern

Waves that cannot be distinguished will interfere.

H No Two-slit
Interference
V Pattern

Waves that can be distinguished (e.g., by polarization) will not

interfere.
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 10/28
 Shih Ghost Interference
Experiment (1995)
(a) Two slits

(b) One slit

Note the use

of coincidence
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 11/28
 Klyshko Reflection

April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 12/28

 Dopfer Position-Momentum
EPR Experiment (1998)
LiIO3
Down-Conversion “Heisenberg” Lens
Crystal f = 86 cm “Heisenberg”
Detector D1
UV
Las
Bea er
m 28.2o

Laser Beam
28
.2
o

Stop
f 2f
Auxiliary
Double Slit System Lens Momentum Position
a = 75 m, d = 255 m
Double-Slit
Detector D2
Birgit Dopfer
Coincidence
PhD Thesis
or Circuit
U. Innsbruck, 1998.
f 2f Note the use
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 13/28
of coincidence.
 Detecting Interference

Mach-Zehnder Cramer
Interferometer Half-Slit
Interferometer

MZ Advantages: Interference with full incident beam.

MZ Disadvantages: (1) Extremely difficult to align
(4 reflecting surfaces aligned to wavelength-scale
precision); (2) Path is momentum-independent.

April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 14/28

 Periodically Poled
Nonlinear Crystal
ppKTP = periodically poled KTiOPO4
(potassium titanyl phosphate)

Phase Matching: kP = kS + kI + 2

April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 15/28
 Mark III Nonlocal
Quantum Communication Test
Signal is sent by
moving splitter in/out.
90° 1
Pentaprism APD
In = interference Receive Detectors
2
(wave) Splitter

Out = no interference Half-Slit

Interferometer V The D-mirrors intercept and
(particle) deflect one-half of each of the
APD 3
D-mirror
beams of entangled photons.
Detectors 90° 405 nm
Send Pentaprism Half-Wave Pump Laser
4 90° Crystal Oven Plate
Splitter
In/Out
Pentaprism
Mirror ppKTP Crystal ʘ Sacher TEC-
100-0405-040
810 nm
Half-Slit Vertical
Interferometer H Polarization
810 nm Longpass Hot
Horizontal ʘ Filter Lens Mirror
D-mirror Polarization

90° Aperture
Polarizing
Pentaprism
Splitter Pump
f Beam
Monitor
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 16/28
The Far-Fetching Implications
of Nonlocal Communication:

Faster than Light &

Backwards in Time

April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 17/28

 Faster-Than-Light Signaling
In this test, we would string equal lengths of fiber optics cables
to separate the two ends of the experiment by a line-of-sight
distance of ~1.4 km.
We would then send bits
3 1
at a photon rate of 10 MHz
4 90° 90° 2
over this link. Assuming a 10-
Splitter
In/Out
Pentaprism Pentaprism Splitter photon decoding “latency”,
this would demonstrate a
Send Receive signal transmission speed of
about 5 times the speed of
Mirror
Mirror
light.
90° 90°
Pentaprism Pentaprism
90° 405 nm
1.0 km 1.0 km Pentaprism Half-Wave Pump Laser
Crystal Oven Plate

Mirror ppKTP Crystal ʘ Sacher TEC-

100-0405-040
Mirror Mirror
D-mirror D-mirror
810 nm
810 nm Longpass Hot
Vertical
Horizontal
Polarization
ʘ Polarization Filter Lens Mirror

Mirror
Polarizing Aperture
Splitter
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 18/28
 Back-In-Time Signaling
We would use 10 km of high-quality optical fiber coiled in the corner
of the laboratory. We split the horizontally polarized entangled photon
beam with a D-mirror and pass each of the two paths through 10 km of
fiber coils. The vertically polarized
3 entangled photons have no optical
delay, and the signal is received
4 90°
Splitter Pentaprism
90°
Pentaprism
1
APD as soon as these photons are
In/Out Detectors
2
detected at D1,2, which is about
Send Splitter 50 s before the signal is
transmitted, when the twin
Mirror Receive entangled photons arrive at D3,4.
90° Back-in-time signaling!
Pentaprism D-mirror 90°
10 km 10 km 405 nm
Pentaprism Half-Wave Pump Laser
Crystal Oven Plate

Mirror ppKTP Crystal ʘ Sacher TEC-

100-0405-040
810 nm
Vertical
D-mirror Polarization
810 nm Longpass Hot
Horizontal ʘ Filter Lens Mirror
Polarization
Mirror
Polarizing Aperture
Splitter
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 19/28
 Time-Travel
Paradoxes

April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 20/28

 The Bilking Paradox
Suppose that we constructed a million
connected retrocausal links of the type just
shown (or used 107 km of fiber optics). Then the
transmitted message would be received 50
seconds before it was sent.
Now suppose that a tricky observer receives
a message from himself 50 seconds in the future,
but then he decides not to send it. This produces
an inconsistent timelike loop, which has come to
be known as a “bilking paradox”. Could this
happen? If not, what would prevent it?
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 21/28
 Chronology Protection:
The Hawking Bomb
“The Chronology Protection Hypothesis”, suggested by Steven
Hawking, asserts that, in the context of timelike loops made with
wormholes, the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum should rise without
limit as the timelike loop was about to be produced, smiting the
experimenter and his apparatus and preventing the formation of the
timelike loop. In quantum field theory there are equations that appear
to support this idea.
Thus, retrocausal communication could in principle lead to the
creation of a “Hawking Bomb”, a device that, by approaching the creation
of a timelike loop, causes disruption of molecules, atoms, and
fundamental particles due to excessive vacuum fluctuations. This has
interesting implications - both for hard SF and for the military.
As a working hypothesis in thisa work, we assume that this will not be
a problem, since we see Nature doing retrocausal things all the time in
the quantum domain.
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 22/28
 Anti-Bilking
Discussions of bilking paradoxes have been published
in the physics literature from the 1940s by Wheeler and
Feynman (advanced waves) to the 1990s by Kip Thorne and
his colleagues (timelike wormholes).
The consensus of such discussions is that Nature will
forbid inconsistent timelike loops and will instead require
a consistent set of conditions. Thorn and coworkers
showed that for any inconsistent paradoxical situation
involving a timelike wormhole, there is a “nearby” self-
consistent situation that does not involve a paradox.
As Sherlock Holmes told us several times, “When
the impossible is eliminated, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth.”
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 23/28
 Bilking &
Probability Control
These speculations suggest that equipment failure
producing a consistent sequence of events is more likely
than equipment operation producing an inconsistency
between the send and receive events. The implications of
this are that bilking itself is impossible, but that very
improbable events could be forced into existence in order
to avoid it.
Thus, using the threat of producing an inconsistent
timelike loop, one might “bilk” Nature into producing an
improbable event. For example, you might set up a highly
redundant and reliable system that would produce an
inconsistent timelike loop unless the number for the
lottery ticket you had purchased was the winning number.
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 24/28
 The “Immaculate
Conception” Paradox
The other issue raised by retrocausal signaling might be called the
“immaculate conception” paradox. Suppose that you are using the setup
described above, and you receive from yourself in the future a .pdf file
of a wonderful novel with your name listed as the author. You sell it to
Tor Books, it is published, it becomes a best-seller, you become rich and
famous, and are the Writer Guest of Honor at Norwescon 38.
When the time subsequently comes for transmission, you duly send
the .pdf file back to yourself, thereby closing the timelike loop and
producing a completely consistent set of events. But the question is,
just who actually wrote the novel?
Clearly, you did not; you merely passed it along to yourself. Yet
highly structured information (the novel) has been created out of
nothing. And in this case, Nature should not object, because there are
no inconsistent timelike loops.
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 25/28
 Present Status
 The experiment has been in testing phases since mid-
January, 2007. Our initial attempt to produce down-
converted photons with LiIO3 and BBO and detect them
with a cooled CCD camera or APDs did not work. We
have demonstrated that the production rate is too low
and the detectors too noisy. In 2009-10 we have
substituted a new crystal, laser, and interferometers.
 The experiment was recently moved from the basement
UW Laser Physics Facility to the 2nd Floor Optics Lab,
where we can turn off the lights without interfering with
other experimenters.
 We are now testing the Mark III configuration. Our
main problem seems to be the small quantity of entangled
photons produced. (Zeilinger in Vienna makes 106 pairs
per second with a crystal and laser similar to ours.)
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 26/28
 Conclusions
 There are no obvious “show stoppers” that
would seem to prevent our proposed
measurements. Nevertheless, because of
their implications, the experiment has a low
probability of success.
 We have so far received about $46k in
contributions from foundations and individuals
in support of this work . We have spent most
of this on the Mark III system.
 This experiment is a rare opportunity to
push the boundaries of physics with a simple
tabletop measurement. We are pushing hard.
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 27/28
 The
End
April 3, 2010 Norwescon 33 28/28