Quantum Superluminal Communication
Comments of Abner Shimony (Department of Philosophy, Boston University) 2004/7/31
I sympathize with the general ideas of your project: that there is a real inconsistency between SR and QM. You quote me at the beginning of your paper as recommending a "peaceful coexistence" between these two great theories, and indeed at one time I did think so, but now I am skeptical about this coexistence. John Bell argued that superluminal causation that cannot be used to send messages superluminally does not constitute peaceful coexistence, since messages are a very small part of physical causation.
What I don't understand is the detailed procedure you have in mind to determine whether a frame of reference is "preferred". If you can work out the details of the experiment you have in mind, you will be making an important contribution to physics.
Comments of Philippe Eberhard (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California) 2004/4/13
I agree with you that, if you modify quantum mechanics in such a way that an NSDD become possible and if you leave everything else the same, there might be a possibility for superluminal communication. My demonstration assumed orthodox quantum mechanics.
Comments of George Svetlichny (Departamento de Matematica, Pontificia Universidade, Brazil) 1999/6/16
I would agree with at least two points that you make. 1) A dynamical theory of quantum measurements requires a priviledged frame. Though I had always believed this I did not know that any formal arguments for this existed and I am grateful for your pointing this out in your manuscript. 2) Once a privileged frame is allowed awkward causal loops can be avoided and superluminal communication can be a reality. I would find it a formidable task to try to construct a detailed theory and still maintain all the successes of quantum field theory (standard model predictions).