Text Size


Apr 25

Tegmark's Many World's Survey

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

My answers

 The controversy shows no sign of abating, as evidenced by the results of the following highly unscientific poll carried out by the author at the Perimeter Institute “Everett@50” Conference 9/22-07:

1. Do you believe that new physics violating the Schr ?odinger equation will make large quantum computers impossible? (4 Yes/ 29 No/11 Undecided)

Undecided - says Jack

2. Do you believe that all isolated systems obey the Schr ?odinger equation (evolve unitarily)? (17 Yes/10 No/20 Undecided)

Undecided - says Jack
3. Which interpretation of quantum mechanics is closest to your own?

• 2 Copenhagen or consistent histories (including postulate of explicit collapse)
• 5 Modified dynamics (Schrdinger equation modified to give explicit collapse)
• 19 Many worlds/consistent histories (no collapse) • 2 Bohm • 1.5 Modal • 22.5 None of the above/undecided

Bohm - says Jack

4. Do you feel comfortable saying that Everettian parallel universes are as real as our universe? (14 Yes/26 No/8 Undecided)

No -for Level III, yes for Levels I & II

to be continued - under construction


Apr 24

Tetrads, Spinor QUBITs Emergent Gravity

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Subject: Re: it's physically obvious why our future dark energy horizon is the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber.
Tamara Davis PhD Fig 1.1

"the gravitational field. We compute the particle production in a time-dependent gravitational field induced by an expanding mass shell"
I have made two intuitive leaps that I have not yet been able to prove rigorously, but I bet will prove correct.
1) The observer-dependent dark energy future event horizon is the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber. This needs the hologram Ansatz that the interior 3D + 1 bulk is a retrocausal hologram image of the 2D + 1 surrounding event horizon surface where our future light cone intersects it.
2) Roger Penrose's "spin frame" has two QUBIT spinors, which in the case of the null light cone tetrads of Einstein's gravity field, l, n, m & m* are advanced and retarded spinors with support on the past and future local light cones respectively. Note that the usual tetrads where the time component is along the world line of the observer-detector and a spacelike triad, consist in form of the Bell pair states of spinor QUBITs used all the time in quantum information/computer theory. This is why I use Wheeler's "IT FROM (Q) BIT."

Similarly, time reverse particle absorption.
~ = photon
X = gravity field fluctuation
the classical stretching of the photon wavelength in accelerating expanding space can be pictured at the quantum level as a sequence of photon absorptions and re-emissions by the gravity field whose statistical mean value obeys the Einstein GR prediction.
i.e. "Feynman diagram"
~X~X~X~ .....
A note on tetrads & Penrose's spinor QUBITs
In an LIF we have e^I for an "observer" and e^U in a locally coincident accelerating LNIF.
e^I = e^IUe^U
Note that these are Cartan 1-forms not 4-vector components - that's why I use CAPS, small letters i, u etc. are for the usual tensor indices.
Since Newton's gravity field ~ guv,w is eliminated at the origin of the LIF, the e^I are the same as what they are for inertial frames in special relativity (EEP). However,
e^U(LNIF) = e^U(LIF) + B^U(LNIF)
B^U(LNIF) is Paul Hill's "acceleration field" analogous to the electromagnetic vector potential A for the U1 group. However, B^U(LNIF) is the local gauge compensating potential for the T4 translation group.
A = Audx^u   Cartan 1-form
B^U(LNIF) = B^Uudx^u    Cartan 1-form
i.e. a set of four 1-forms like a Yang-Mills field with an internal charge.
The EEP says that the universal minimal coupling of the EM field to the gravity field for the accelerating LNIF observer is simply to replace all LIF electromagnetic potential Cartan 1-forms A(LIF) by
A(LNIF) = A(LIF) + B^U(LNIF)PUA(LIF)   Cartan 1-forms
P^U are the 4-momentum generators of the T4 group.
before constructing the dynamical action S for the Feynman amplitudes e^iS.
So it's obvious it looks like a direct coupling of spin 1 (Lorentz group) GMD with EM fields.
Rovelli in Ch II of his Quantum Gravity gives details for spinor & Yang-Mills matter fields.
Next IT FROM QUBIT - in the special case of the NULL LIGHT CONE tetrads, for the GMD field
B^Uu = (Newman-Penrose coefficients)^Uu^j^k(Advanced QUBIT spinor)j(Retarded QUBIT)k
(using quasi Penrose abstract index notation)
This is an entangled quantum pair state on RHS of QUBITs.


This is why I like the tetrad formalism because then the electro-gravitic coupling is simply that between two spin 1 vector gauge fields one for internal U1 the other for space-time de Sitter group with Einstein's cosmological constant positive not equal to zero. The coupling is simply given by the Einstein equivalence principle. Very neat and pretty.


Then from Penrose each tetrad is an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen quantum entangled state of pairs of spinor QUBITS! There are two kinds of QUBITS the advanced destiny QUBITs with support on the past light cone, and the retarded history QUBITS with support on the future light cone all set up for the Wheeler-Feynman POV with the future boundary dark energy event horizon in effect the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber only when / > 0. Since we are retrocausal hologram images from our future boundary - the 2D Quantum Field Theory on our event horizon is the Omega Source of the quantum gravity fluctuations making inelastic collisions with real photons - the mean values (Ehrenfest's theorem) giving the classical cosmological stretch of the photon wavelength with the FRW scale factor a(t).
I meant dark energy density / accelerating space is the absorber! If the cosmological constant / is zero my picture might not work.

The acceleration c^2/^1/2 compared to / = 0 case (first order perturbation theory) means accelerating space's geometrodynamic field is like a black body cosmological fluid (Unruh effect).

On Apr 23, 2010, at 1:24 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Think of Ehrenfest's theorem. The photon is represented by a probability wave. What we have is a coupling between the EM and time-changing gravity cosmological field. In the usual collapse picture (for now) a random collapse happens where the photon is absorbed by a quantum fluctuation in the dynamic gravity field and then re-emitted at a lower frequency - in such a way that the statistical mean obeys the classical redshift picture. After a finite distance at the de Sitter horizon there is no photon left at all (infinite stretch of wavelength in finite distance) - so in each individual photon case Cramer's return waves happen randomly in each inelastic collision with the time-varying gravity field. Time-varying gravity fields can emit and absorb particles. I think my intuitive picture can be made to work even in the absence of electrons and ions - expanding space itself is an absorber.

On Apr 23, 2010, at 12:12 AM, james f woodward wrote:

"Well, you know that I think the WFHNC action at a distance picture is the correct one.  And that accelerating expansion solves the cut off problem. So, I must admit that I am sympathetic to your proposal.  But you must admit that it's a stretch to call stringing out photons absorption that triggers an advanced response.  :-)"

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:33:10 -0700 JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
When a real photon is absorbed it disappears  - in effect  w = k = 0 after absorption. OK we shine a light into the sky - that light will shift down to w = k = 0 in a finite distance from us because space has stretched in an  accelerating way. The gravity field itself adiabatically absorbs the  photon energy! We don't need no damn atoms any more than we need badges! ;-)
Hence it will trigger a return Cramer wave back to us in time with compensating blue shift. This is completely obvious to me at least.


"Post-Quantum" Cryptography

In quantum key distribution schemes, Alice and Bob exchange quantum and classical information in order to generate a shared secret key. There are several well-known schemes, which are provably secure against eavesdropping, so long as quantum theory is correct. But what if quantum theory isn't correct? This might seem a rather academic question, since quantum theory has been confirmed in an impressive range of experiments since 1926. But cryptologists are supposed to examine their assumptions carefullyPhysical theories have been superseded in the past, and there's no strong reason to think it won't happen again. (And in fact, although it's a minority view, there is a very respectable case for believing that the lingering conceptual problems in interpreting quantum theory point to some subtle defect in the theory itself.) You can't prove anything secure without making some assumptions, and in particular you can't prove any physics-based cryptography scheme secure without making some assumptions about physics. But Jonathan Barrett, Lucien Hardy and I were recently able to show that a quantum key distribution scheme can be proved secure even if quantum theory is incorrect, so long as we assume that (as special relativity suggests) it is impossible to send signals faster than light. The scheme is, admittedly, very inefficient, but it's at least a proof of principle that security guarantees can be based on either of two independent theories (quantum mechanics and special relativity), rather than on one alone. It would be very interesting to know if significantly more efficient schemes exist, or indeed if the security of standard quantum key distribution schemes can also be based on relativity. There's a popular account of this work in Physical Review Focus, linked here.  ... Bit commitment is one of the main primitives of mistrustful cryptography, the branch of cryptography dealing with parties who need to exchange or process information but cannot rely on each other's honesty. ...  It turns out, though, that secure (and practically feasible) bit commitment protocols can be implemented if Alice and Bob use separated sites and take account of the impossibility of signalling faster than light. "

Of course Adrian Kent's's result above is kind of obvious, but it's always good to prove things rigorously when you can. The fact of the matter, however, in my opinion, is that all living matter is able to in effect send signals faster than light because the very essence of life is sub-quantal non-equilibrium of the Bohm hidden variable matter degrees of freedom.


Apr 17

Emergence of Consciousness in the Brain

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

On Apr 17, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Gary S Bekkum / STARpod.org wrote:

Jack notes that I understand his ideas better than Dan. I agree with Jack.

I have come to a different point of view than Jack re: signal non-locality.

I now attribute the data to non-computability in human consciousness.
Tony Valentini's signal nonlocality is the mechanism for Penrose's non-computability!

I also suggest non-computability may resemble time machine physics in some cases where predictive information simulates an effective alternative future.
Signal nonlocality allows retro-causal precognitive remote viewing!

Although this is less rigorous than Jack's idea of a physical signal between locally non-causally interacting regions of spacetime, I disagree there is definitive evidence for any kind of 'signal' in a causal sense.


Without signal nonlocality telepathic images in the mind are impossible. All you would see would be random noise - white noise - nada! Indeed, it's worse than that - you could not have any consciousness at all! No non-random qualia of any kind! You would be only a Zombie - a machine with classical AI - no inner life at all - not even ordinary consciousness.
Get it?

(On the other hand Kit Green claims evidence for E/M signals affecting the brain.)

But since these are murky waters at best it is hard to say for certain what is swimming underneath the waves. 


Note added May 15, 2010
I disinvited myself from this meeting because Michio Kaku and other physicists decided not to come and I would have been the only physicist there with New Age speakers on topics I am not interested in. 
This workshop will take the listener on a whirlwind tour beginning with the foundational principles of David Bohm’s implicate order, and how that relates to the quest for finding a grand unified theory, or a “theory of everything” as in Hawking’s Mind of God. We will then build on these principles of quantum theory to explore  some original conceptions of the cosmology of time, and make a compelling scientific case for the possibility of time travel, to the future, and/or the past (retrocausality).  We will show that faster than light phenomenon may be possible through warping spacetime, and delve into the possible reality of parapsychological phenomenon, including an explanation of UFOs as terrestrial timeships from our own future. 
Jack Sarfatti, theoretical physicist, co-founder of the legendary Physics Consciousness Research Group, and student/research fellow of David Bohm, is the author of several books, including Space Time and Beyond: Toward and Explanation of the Unexplainable (with  Fred Alan Wolf and Bob Toben); and Super Cosmos, Destiny Matrix, and Space Time and Beyond II. Sarfatti presents original ideas on the frontiers of modern science, and is one of few highly credentialed physicists who has the courage to take on paranormal issues, such as time travel, psychic phenomenon, and UFOs while remaining in the framework of established relativistic and quantum theory. 
Glenn Aparicio Parry
Chairman of the Board
SEED Graduate Institute
119 Quincy St NE Ste W
Albuquerque, NM 87108


Apr 17


Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

 l is the destiny/advanced back-from-the-future spin 1 gravity field null past light cone / IT tetrad and n is the time-reverse history/retarded past-to-future light cone / null IT tetrad quadratic in the spinor (spin 1/2) Q-BITS.

Note that m & m* are products of past and future spinor Q-BITS.
The metric tensor gravity field of Einstein's gravity field are, in fact, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen entangled four Q-BIT strings.

The 2-component spinors are Q-BITS in the sense of quantum information theory. We see there are two kinds, advanced and retarded corresponding precisely to Aharonov-Vaidman's pair of destiny and history state vectors in Hilbert space growing out of Wheeler-Feynman's 1940 papers on classical electrodynamics and the Dirac radiation reaction enigma explained by Hoyle and Narlikar in numerous publications largely ignored in mainstream theoretical physics.

Indeed, the Q-BIT spinors may correspond to the 2D "cellular automata" on thermal (observer-dependent) cosmic (& black hole observer-independent) event horizon null geodesic congruence hologram computing screens of Gerard 't Hooft's "dimensional reduction".

Obviously the AdS/CFT correspondence is a part of a more general principle even if Ed Witten, Lenny Susskind & Co cannot yet prove it mathematically - someone will.

I simply assume intuitively for sake of argument a dS/CFT duality  (Gauss's theorem essentially) where CFT is on a 2D thermal horizon of any kind and dS is in the interior 3D bulk. Don't need 5D yet.

AdS /zpf < 0 models dark matter from virtual fermion-antifermion pairs (isolated closed vacuum loops that gravitate from the SEP).

dS /zpf > 0 models dark energy from virtual bosons that anti-gravitate from the SEP.

It's a matter of scale "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) - we do not yet have an adequate physics of the vacuum yet, but it is obvious that we have dark matter when the short-scale density of virtual fermion closed loops in the interior retro-causal hologram image bulk exceeds the density of virtual bosons and that the large-scale dark energy exotic vacuum phase is the opposite. Therefore, looking for real dark matter particles on mass shell in LHC, in underground mines etc. is like looking for the Earth's motion through the mechanical Victorian aether - is my prediction for the record.

Apr 15


Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

The deep Newman-Penrose spin-frame structure of Wheeler-Feynman ---> Hoyle-Narlikar ---> Cramer ---> Aharonov-Vaidman

There are two kinds of Wheeler-Feynman QUBITs - advanced back from the future (support on local past light cone of emitter) & retarded past to future (support on future light cone of the emitter). Einstein's IT geometrodynamic field is an entangled 4 QUBIT STRING (In sense of quantum information theory) - note each term in the gravity metric tensor is a quartic product of advanced with retarded qubits -- similarly on the quadratic null light cone tetrad level.
See the pdf in Resources Physics

Note c^2(area of future horizon)^-1/2 ~ 10^17/10^26 ~ 10^-9 meters/sec^2

Hence their conclusion below is puzzling in my opinion.



Influence of global cosmological expansion on local dynamics and


Matteo Carrera*

Institute of Physics, University of Freiburg, Hermann-Herder-Straße 3, D-79104 Freiburg,


Domenico Giulini

Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Hanover, Appelstraße 2, D-30167 Hannover,


Published 28 January 2010

"Attempts to estimate the influence of global cosmological expansion on local systems are reviewed. Here “local” is taken to mean that the sizes of the considered systems are much smaller than cosmologically relevant scales. For example, such influences can affect orbital motions as well as configurations of compact objects, like black holes. Also discussed are how measurements based on the exchange of electromagnetic signals of distances, velocities, etc. of moving objects are influenced. As an application, orders of magnitude of such effects are compared with the scale set by the apparently anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts, which is 10^−9 m/s2. There is no reason to believe that the latter is of cosmological origin. However, the general problem of gaining a qualitative and quantitative understanding of how the cosmological dynamics influences local systems remains challenging, with only partial clues being so far provided by exact solutions to the field equations of general relativity."

DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.169

This paper is not easy reading, but goes into the nitty gritty details on the complex kinematics of how to relate the abstract formalism of GR to real life NASA radar, Doppler measurements.

We think it is fair to say that there are no theoretical
hints that point towards a dynamical influence of cosmological
expansion comparable in size to, say, that of the
anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecrafts.
There seems to be no controversy over this point,
though for completeness it should be mentioned that
there exist speculations Palle, 2005 according to which
it might become relevant for future missions. But such
speculations are often based on models which are not
easily related to the intended physical situation, like that
of Gautreau 1984. Rather, as the a¨ /a-improved Newtonian
analysis in Sec. III together with its justification
given in the subsequent sections shows, there is no genuine
relativistic effect coming from cosmological expansion
at the levels of precision envisaged here.

On the other hand, as regards kinematical effects, the
situation is less unanimous. It is important to unambiguously
understand what is meant by “mapping out a trajectory,”
i.e., how to assign “times” and “distances.”

Eventually we compare a functional relation between
distance and time with observed data. That relation is
obtained by solving some equations of motion and it has
to be carefully checked whether the methods by which
the tracking data are obtained match the interpretation
of the coordinates in which the analytical problem is
solved. In our way of speaking, dynamical effects really
influence the worldline of the object in question whereas
kinematical effects change the way in which one and the
same worldline is mapped out from another worldline
representing the observer. Here we have derived exact
results concerning the influence of cosmic expansion on
this mapping procedure, which allow one to reliably estimate
upper bounds on their magnitude. They turn out
to be too small to be of any relevance in current satellite
trackings, which is in accord with naive expectation but
in contrast to some statements found in the literature."

Click here.

Oddly enough 't Hooft does not appear to be aware of the work of Antony Valentini on signal nonlocality. Another Nobel physics Laureate, Brian Josephson disagrees with 't Hooft on this issue.