the underlying assumptions rig the debate

According to quantum theory, measurements can influence what happens.
...
Stronger than the anthropic principle is what I might call the participatory principle. According to it we could not even imagine a universe that did not somewhere and for some stretch of time contain observers because the very building materials of the universe are these acts of observer-participancy. You wouldn't have the stuff out of which to build the universe otherwise. This participatory principle takes for its foundation the absolutely central point of the quantum:No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon.

At the Cologne symposium [21] Mittelstaedt reviewed the arguments that had been put forward in recent years in order to show that non-local effects in quantum systems with EPR-like correlations can not be used for superluminal communications. He demonstrated that most of these arguments are based on circular proofs. For instance, a “locality principle” can not be used to exclude superluminal quantum signals and to justify quantum causality, since the locality principle itself is justified by either quantum causality or an equivalent “covariance postulate” [32]. In a similar vein, van Enk shows that the proof given by Westmoreland and Schumacher in [33] that superluminal signaling violates the quantum no-cloning theorem is in fact incorrect [34]. Hegerfeld uses the formalism of relativistic quantum mechanics to show that the wave function of a free particle initially in a finite volume instantaneously spreads to infinity and, more importantly, that transition probabilities in widely separated systems may also become nonzero instantaneously [35]. His results hold under amazingly few assumptions (Hilbert spaceframework and positivity of the energy). Hegerfeld observes that, in order to retain Einstein causality, a mechanism such as “clouds of virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations” would be needed.

We presented the first direct time measurement confirming that the time delay in
tunneling can be superluminal, studying single photons traversing a dielectric mirror [6]. Since then, several microwave
experiments have confirmed that the effective group velocity of classical evanescent waves in various configurations
may be superluminal [41-43]. Also, recently a femtosecond laser experiment has confirmed our earlier findings of
superluminal tunneling in dielectric mirrors [44], using classical pulses.

A conference on superluminal velocities took place in June 1998 in Cologne [21]. Theoretical and
experimental contributions to this topic focused primarily on evanescent mode propagation and on
superluminal quantum phenomena. The issues of causality, superluminality, and relativity were also
examined. In the area of electromagnetic propagation, two exciting developments were addressed. Nimtz
reported on experimental measurements of superluminal velocities achieved with frequency band-limited
signals carried by evanescent modes [22]. Specifically, he timed a microwave pulse crossing an
evanescent barrier (e.g., undersized waveguides, or periodic dielectric heterostructures) at 4.7c. He
demonstrated that, as consequence of the frequency band limitation of information signals, and if all
mode components are evanescent, an actual signal might travel faster than the speed of light. Capelas de
Oliveira and Rodrigues introduced the intriguing theory of superluminal electromagnetic X-waves
(SEXW) defined as undistorted progressive waves solutions of the relativistic Maxwell equations [23].
They present simulations of finite aperture approximations to SEXW, illustrate the signaling mechanism,
and discuss supporting experimental evidence.
What are the key arguments put forward against the possibility of superluminal signaling? Chiao and
Steinberg analyze quantum tunneling experiments and tachyon-like excitations in laser media [24]. Even
though they find the evidence conclusive that the tunneling process is superluminal, and that tachyon-like
excitations in a population-inverted medium at frequencies close to resonance give rise to superluminal
wave packets, they argue that such phenomena can not be used for superluminal information transfer. In
their view, the group velocity can not be identified as the signal velocity of special relativity, a role they
attribute solely to Sommerfeld’s front velocity. In that context, Aharonov, Reznik, and Stern have shown
that the unstable modes, which play an essential role in the superluminal group velocity of analytical
wave packets, are strongly suppressed in the quantum limit as they become incompatible with unitary
time evolution [25].
Let us now examine EPR-based superluminal schemes. Furuya et al analyze a paradigm proposed by
Garuccio, in which one of the photons of a polarization-entangled EPR pair is incident upon a Michelson
interferometer in which a phase-conjugation mirror (PCM) replaces one of the mirrors [26]. The sender
(located at the source site) can superluminally communicate with a receiver (located at the detector site),
based on the presence or absence of interferences at the detector. The scheme uses the PCM property that
a reflected photon has the same polarization as the incident photon (contrary to reflection by an ordinary
mirror), allowing to distinguish between circular and linear polarization. In a related context, Blaauboer et
al also proposed [27] a connection between optical phase conjugation and superluminal behavior. Furuya
et al prove that Garuccio’s scheme would fail if non coherent light is used, because then the
interferometer could not distinguish between unpolarized photons prepared by mixing linear polarization
states or by mixing circular polarization states. They admit, however, that their counterproof would not
apply to a generalized Garuccio approach, which would use coherent light states. Finally, in terms of
criticism, let us mention the recent article by Peres [28], where criteria that prevent superluminal
signaling are established. These criteria must be obeyed by various operators involved in classical
interventions on quantum systems localized in mutually spacelike regions.
What are the arguments in favor of superluminal information transfer? Gisin shows [29] that Weinberg’s
general framework [30] for introducing nonlinear corrections into quantum mechanics allows for arbitrary
fast communications. It is interesting to note that, in a recent book [31], Weinberg himself states: “I could
not find a way to extend the nonlinear version of quantum mechanics to theories based on Einstein’s
special theory of relativity ( . ) both N. Gisin in Geneva and my colleague Joseph Polchinsky at the
University of Texas independently pointed out that ( . ) the nonlinearities of the generalized theory could
be used to send signals instantaneously over large distances”.
At the Cologne symposium [21] Mittelstaedt reviewed the arguments that had been put forward in recent
years in order to show that non-local effects in quantum systems with EPR-like correlations can not be
used for superluminal communications. He demonstrated that most of these arguments are based on
circular proofs. For instance, a “locality principle” can not be used to exclude superluminal quantum
signals and to justify quantum causality, since the locality principle itself is justified by either quantum
causality or an equivalent “covariance postulate” [32]. In a similar vein, van Enk shows that the proof
given by Westmoreland and Schumacher in [33] that superluminal signaling violates the quantum nocloning
theorem is in fact incorrect [34]. Hegerfeld uses the formalism of relativistic quantum mechanics
to show that the wave function of a free particle initially in a finite volume instantaneously spreads to
infinity and, more importantly, that transition probabilities in widely separated systems may also become
nonzero instantaneously [35]. His results hold under amazingly few assumptions (Hilbert space
framework and positivity of the energy). Hegerfeld observes that, in order to retain Einstein causality, a
mechanism such as “clouds of virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations” would be needed. To conclude
this review, we note a recent suggestion of Mittelstaedt [36]. If the existence of superluminal signals is
assumed ab initio (viz. [22] and [35]), and consequently a new space-time metric (different from the
Minkowskian metric) is adopted, all the paradoxes and difficulties discussed above would immediately
disappear.

Transferring the properties of light particles over certain distances onto other light particles, with no time delay. The procedure is based on phenomena which exist only in the quantum world, and is known as "quantum teleportation."

Theoretically yes. The effect has so far been proved across a distance of a hundred kilometres. The amazing thing is that there can be no exchange of information between the two particles. They react absolutely in synch, although they could could never know anything of each other's existence.

The spooky effect at a distance is a process outside time and space that even I can't really imagine. But I believe that quantum physics tells us something very profound about the world. And that is that the world is not the way it is independently of us. That the characteristics of the world are to a certain extent dependent on us.

Other scientists dispute Chiao's conclusions.Several European teams have been experimenting with more intense photon sources and thicker barriers. Their results indicate that the tunneling time for a particle becomes "saturated" or reaches an upper limit. If a particle can "borrow" energy, quantum mechanics does not permit it to do so indefinitely.Once the limit is reached, the particle will tunnel through the barrier in the same time, regardless of whether its thickness is two meters, two kilometers or 2,000 kilometers--if, of course, such an experiment could ever be carried out!Last year, New Scientist reported the extraordinary findings of a German research team headed by Nimtz, who was attending a conference organized in Snowbird, Utah:"Attending the meeting were some of the leading researchers in this field of faster-than-light quantum phenomena. To an astonished audience, Nimtz announced that his team in Cologne had not only measured superluminal speeds for their microwaves, but had actually sent a signal faster than light. The signal in question was Mozart's 40th Symphony...."According to Nimtz, Mozart's 40th Symphony hopped across 12 centimeters of space at 4.7 times the speed of light. What's more, Nimtz actually had a recording to prove it. To his now bemused audience, he played a tape in which among the background hiss strains of Mozart could be heard. This was the 'signal' that had traveled faster than light."A vigorous debate ensued as to whether or not a piece of music could be considered a signal. According to Einstein, a signal traveling faster than light would effectively be traveling back in time. The ability to send information back in time would violate the scientific conceptions of cause and effect: the results of an experiment could be influenced after it had happened!Few scientists accept Nimtz's claim that a signal can be propagated faster than the speed of light. However, the experiments by Nimtz, Chiao and others point to the limitations of the existing theories of physics and add a further spur to the quest for a unified theory embracing quantum mechanics and the theory of general relativity.

In Italy, another group of physicists has also succeeded in breaking the light speed barrier. In a recently published paper, physicists at the Italian National Research Council described how they propagated microwaves at 25% above normal light speed. The group also speculates that it could prove possible to transmit information faster than light.

I have already explicitly stated that according to your sources if the path information is knowable the superposition is collapsed. Thus the photon is forced to follow a single path.

Your view requires that a path a photon takes can be changed, retroactively, even when the path information is knowable.

As I keep having to repeat the only change available is the change from a superposition of states to a single state, a changee that can only be reversed by erasing the information that would allow us to know the collapsed state .

You need a change from a collapsed state to a different collapsed state,

You can get a different result only if you eliminate the information that would let you know the first result.

You were claiming that the past is completely fluid.

erasers - or rather the need for them - are a big problem for you.

So is the idea that the knowability of a photon's path - rather than actual observation - produces a collapse. Both of these make the past more difficult to change

Then is it fair to claim the Bible is a record of the system change?

. But NOTHING ACTUALLY CHANGES. Wheeler does not believe the wave-function is changed. You seem to be confusing "wave" with "wave-function"... these are very different.

NO. Wheeler said Observership. This can be by anything. It is interaction with other wave-functions. We call this decoherence. You do not need a conscious observer to create de-coherence (what you would call collapse).