“I stand behind my claim.” Which claim is that? That the first law is violated? That detectors are unnecessary? That beam splitters are unnecessary?

I think you are safe with the claim that quantum teleportation has theistic implications. Claim away. Proclaim. Declaim.

Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm

As well you have no excuse for ignoring a transcendent origin of the universe:

Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete – Borde-Guth-Vilenkin – 2003
Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” Alexander Vilenkin – Many Worlds In One – Pg. 176

As well methodological naturalism is itself shaken to its core since information “runs the show” for reality.

Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.” Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
http://www.metanexus.net/magaz.....fault.aspx

Thank you for highlighting the relevant portions. You would do well to compare across all three documents we have been discussing. You will see that the beam splitter occupies the spot labelled ‘scan’ on the IBM Research web page, a page you brought forward as authoritative.

It is a complete about face for you to now, after many previous claims to the contrary, try to save face by claiming teleportation takes place at the detector. But according to you, if the photon is teleported, it is not there to be detected, but if it is detected, it has not been teleported.

Bottom line: after shouting “Rabbit Season” interminably, you are now shouting “Duck Season”. Well, if you say so…

“In the first Braunstein paper, the teleportation occurs at the beam splitter labeled ‘bs’, the detection at det1, det2.”

For the experiment is actually exactly as such:

Excerpt Braunstein:

Our protocol is as follows: EPR beam 1 (Fig. 1) propagates to Alice’s sending station, where it is combined at a 50/50 beam splitter with the unknown input state xxxx, which is a coherent state of complex amplitude vin [ xin1 ipin. Alice uses two sets of balanced homodyne detectors (Dx, Dp) to make a “Bell-state”
measurement.

Thus Nak since you so willfully distort where teleportation actually took place (you said beam splitter), why should I not think you are completely disingenuous to what the results clearly indicating no matter what I point out to you? As far as I can tell you only want to see what you want to see in the experiment and are not looking for what the experiment is actually telling us of reality. i.e. You “don’t want” the experiment to be true!

Not close, and no cigar. The quantum teleportation does not take place upon detection, as you can tell from examining the figures in any of the web pages or scientific papers we have been discussing.

On the IBM web page, the teleportation occurs at ‘scan’, the detection occurs at ‘disrupted original’. In the first Braunstein paper, the teleportation occurs at the beam splitter labeled ‘bs’, the detection at det1, det2. In the second Braunstein paper, the beam splitter is the heavy vertical line in the schematic where the two photon beams cross, the detectors are labeled Dx, Dp, etc.

I have to admit that I am afraid your reading of these papers is shading over from casual misinterpretaton to wilful misinterpretation.

Seversky, Let’s try to make this real simple; Photon a disappears with no measurement of energy dispersal, it is quantum mechanically annihilated into a “vacuum state”.

That’s right. It gets annihilated when it hits the photon detector. Just like the photons that are smacking into the back of your eyes right now.

Or the photons focused by the magnifying-glass which can burn holes in things.

Ever think that wouldn’t happen if photons disappeared into nothingness rather than their energy being transferred to whatever they hit?

The entire information content of photon c is transcendently displaced from the material universe when it instantaneously becomes Photon a, since there is no “material quantum state” for photon c to reside in.

What evidence and measurements do you have to support such a claim? Just sprinkling the word “transcendently” around the text adds nothing to our understanding if you do not describe what is being transcended and how.

To make it even more clear, You have absolutely no measurement to back up your assertion that photon a was “destroyed by energy dispersal”, thereby maintaining the first law to the materialistic point of view,

That is probably because:

a) I did not say that photon a “was destroyed by energy dispersal”

b) I was not conducting the experiment so I have no measurements one way or the other

c) The people who were conducting the experiment were trying to demonstrate the phenomenon of teleportation not testing for violations of the First Law.

whereas I have direct empirical evidence that photon c was “transcendently displaced” from the “material” realm by photon a, thereby violating the first law.

No, you do not. You have an experiment demonstrating how the quantum states of one photon can be transferred to another by a process misleadingly called “teleportation”. It was testing a prediction of the extremely well-established quantum theory not some wild speculation about ‘transcendental displacement’.

The experimenters did not test for violations of the First Law because they had no reason to suspect one might occur. If they had discovered such a violation it would have been a discovery of far greater magnitude than what was actually shown, eminently worthy, as others have pointed out, of the Nobel Prize.

You can jump up and down all day long saying the first law was not violated but until you provide a measurement of some type to explain what the evidence currently indicates you are merely trumpeting your personal beliefs of what reality should be (materialistic) over what reality is actually telling us in the experiment (theistic).

I am not the one being exercised by a delusion that I have found evidence for my ‘borne-again’ theistic beliefs which I feel compelled to trumpet all over the blogs.

The fact is that neither of us are quantum mechanics – we are not even the oily rags – so if you really believe you have spotted a phenomenon of such ground-breaking proportions that was missed by professional physicists, then you should at least contact the researchers to ask them to re-examine their work and see if it supports your claim.

If you really believe what you are saying, that is.

What serious philosophical issue is he talking about Nak? Since materialism is the only philosophy that could possibly be threatened by such findings,(I surely can think of no other) it must be materialism he is talking about? Don’t you agree? Or are you going to dodge this question as well?

Nak the reason I know for a fact the first law was broken ,as far as your materialistic framework is concerned, is because I understand that all the photons of the universe, originally created in the Big Bang, were created by a completely transcendent entity, since no time nor space existed before the big bang. Thus whatever created energy must of necessity possess transcendence as its primary quality! Since the “information” displayed in entanglement and teleportation (and “information” is EXACTLY the word call it) is the ONLY entity to display complete transcendence of time and space in this universe, thus it (information) is the ONLY entity that is even candidate to create the energy/photons of the Big Bang! From that understanding of basic physics, it is simple to realize that since they are in fact subtracting the ENTIRE “infinite” information content of a photon and giving the entire information content to another photon, with the entire information content of a photon being displaced in the process, Then it is simple to see a photon cannot exist without any information and the first law is violated. i.e. the photon is destroyed when its information is removed!

Read this again Nak:

Excerpt: In brief, they found a way to scan out part of the information from an object A, which one wishes to teleport, while causing the remaining, unscanned, part of the information to pass, via the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect, into another object C which has never been in contact with A. ,,,, A itself is no longer in that state, having been thoroughly disrupted (annihilated, destroyed) by the scanning, so what has been achieved is teleportation, not replication.
http://www.research.ibm.com/qu.....portation/

You persist in confusing our knowledge of a quantum state and physical existence. The diagram I referred you to was in an article you appealed to. Had these scientists not needed the detectors shown, they would have had a result (the result you believe) that would have earned them Nobel prizes. However, they did need those detectors, as did the previous experiment whose annihilation to the vacuum state you trumpeted but have conveniently forgotten now that the issue of reading comprehension has been raised.

The direct empirical evidence you request is contained in Fig. 2 A on p 708. This a measurement of the photons at Dx after the act of quantum teleportation has taken place. In fact, the experimental protocol requires these measurements.

Given Alice’s measurement of (x(V), p(V)), the next step in the protocol is for her to send the (classical) photocurrents (ix(V), ip(V)) to Bob, who uses this information to generate a displacement (a coherent modulation at V) of the field in beam 2 by way of the modulators (Mx, Mp) and the mirror mBob.

I hope this direct emprirical evidence which you requested will help you revise your notion of quantum teleportation violating the first law.