Text Size

Stardrive

Jun 16

Sarfatti's New Futurist Manifesto! ;-)

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Dear Menas & all
If you read my Journal of Cosmology paper Vol 14 April 14, 2011 http://journalofcosmology.com/SarfattiConsciousness.pdf you will see that I agree with you and I say that our entire observable universe inside the causal diamond of our past particle and future dark energy event horizon is a VALIS conscious universe with our teleological final cause Omega 2D surface future horizon hologram screen cosmic computer post-selecting us as retro-causal 3D hologram images. This is essentially Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point view. This is admittedly a crazy idea that may be crazy enough to be true. ;-)
On Jun 16, 2011, at 12:37 AM, Kafatos, Menas wrote:
Now are we ready to go the next step, to go all the way? As I have been saying for many years, the entire universe (ALL of it) is conscious (see "The Conscious Universe"); or as Neil Theise (M.D., NY Albert Einstein Med School) says "sentient"; or as Atilla Grandpierre says "alive". There is just no way to get consciousness out of the picture.
I am now working with M.D.'s, they (some of them of course) see a lot of cases and they also are not bound by physicalism. I am working with well-known neurologist from Harvard Medical school on what the evidence is from neuroscience. Plus of course Hameroff.
I wanted to discuss all this at the USD meeting but I guess the program was full.
I agree with you Jack about Hawking going in the wrong direction. See two articles I wrote with Deepak Chopra posted in Huffington Post criticizing the "Grand Design". The whole multiverse (as well as the older many worlds) has gotten really weird. Trying to keep consciousness out of the picture, one has to perform great acrobatics. Tegmark says "either many worlds or many words". He chooses "many worlds". I would paraphrase him and say, I choose "one world, and yes many words to describe it". This 10^500 universes in a multiverse, or 10^10^10^7 universes in chaotic inflation are just too much.
One last thought: Orthodox quantum theory is right--in the lab for microsystems interactions. Generalization of QT will occur at the interface of physics and biology (or physics and neuroscience). The Bem experiments, Dean's experiments etc. are just the beginning of the new revolution, the next step of development of QT. There will be more.
Exactly what I said in the my Journal of Cosmology article and what I say below.
Menas Kafatos
Fletcher Jones Professor of Computational Physics
Dean
Schmid College of Science, and
Vice Chancellor for Special Projects
Chapman University
Orange, CA 92866

On Jun 15, 2011, at 4:26 PM, alan parker wrote:

Fascinating account of revolving revolver multiple time loops. The future is real now and sometimes via dreams et al it is accessed nonlocally via retrocausality. Fascinating!


I wrote: Now here is the kicker. I woke up this AM with a dream that I had been shot in the face with a revolver. I almost missed Dean Radin's talk. I came in on the end. Dean told the following story shortly after I came in. "My friend collected guns. He was loading a double action revolver. Something told him not to load the sixth bullet - leaving one empty chamber. Several weeks later one of his drunk friends went berserk and picked up that revolver on the table - pointed it at Dean's friend's face at close range pulled the trigger and of course the gun did not fire since the barrel turned to the empty chamber - that's Novikov loop in time inside a Novikov loop in time. Also, Art Altschuler a retired physics teacher told me and Fred Alan Wolf that he dreamed last night that he fired a revolver at close range into someone's face - i.e. a loop within a loop within a loop.




Begin forwarded message:

From: Dean Radin
Date: June 14, 2011 8:42:39 PM PDT
To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: AAAS Retrocausality Meeting at University of San Diego

So Art dreamt that he fired a revolver, you dreamt that a revolver was aimed at you, and I spontaneously decided to tell that story and show the photo of the gun to illustrate presentiment in real life? A genuine three-way entanglement through time. That's a first even for me!

Best wishes,

Dean Radin
Senior Scientist
Institute of Noetic Sciences

On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:33 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:


I was with Henry Stapp today and he and I see eye to eye on the same page.

Henry said he changed his mind in past few months because of Daryl Bem's data.

Henry never even heard of Antony Valentini BTW - he independently now says that Bem's data (and Radin's, Bierman's ...) show violation of "orthodox quantum theory" i.e. what I call "signal nonlocality" and that messages can be decoded nonlocally in the past as I have been arguing.

Doug Hofstatder wrote that Bem's results turn physics upside down. Bem today said he was not the Copernicus of the new paradigm alluding to Bierman, Radin, Libet ... but I say he is the Michael Faraday of the new paradigm.

Also Russell Targ & Fred Alan Wolf as well as A. Elitzur were there.

Elitzur agrees with me that Hawking was right the first time and should not have caved in to Gerardus 'Hooft and Lenny Susskind. Like me, Elitzur does not believe in unitarity as absolute. Indeed, I told Stapp and Elitzur at lunch today at USD that "unitarity prohibits novelty" i.e. "novelty" as in Henri Bergson as used by Henry Stapp. Elitzur concurred saying "I'll buy that."

Ibison and I had good discussion on the de Sitter boundary issue - we are converging more.

Before I forget - the Bologna cold fusion and Moddell-Haisch zero point battery patent do not look good - this from a reliable source.

Bem should collect the $1,000,0000 from James Randi who I am told keeps changing the rules and is not honest about his "prize."



work in progress

Retrocausation in Physics and Psychology

 

Jack Sarfatti

 

ISEP, Chestnut Street, San Francisco, CA 94133

adastra1@me.com

 

 

Abstract. I comment here on some of the talks and lunch conversations at the second Quantum Retrocausation: Theory and Experiment Workshop at the AAAS June 2011 meeting (University of San Diego). This workshop showed that there is now solid reproducible empirical evidence for strong retrocausation in human consciousness and lower forms of life. That is, locally decodable messages are sent backwards in time from future to past. The evidence here is as good if not better as any evidence found in high energy physics. This means orthodox quantum theory (OQT) is violated in living matter. It then follows that the linearity and unitarity axioms of OQT are not absolute, but are analogous to the fifth axiom of Euclid whose violation led to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Similarly, OQT is only a limiting case, for dead matter, of a General Quantum Theory (GQT). This implies that the ‘t Hooft-Susskind solution of the information loss paradox for black holes may be mistaken.

 

 

Introduction

 

Orthodox quantum mechanics has weak retrocausality in the form of John A. Wheeler’s delayed choice, John Cramer’s transactional interpretation and Yakir Aharonov’s two state reformulation. The no-cloning a quantum theorem and passion at a distance signal locality is obeyed in this limit. That is, for example, we can correctly infer in hindsight, after the fact, that a post-selected future irreversible choice retrocausally interacted with pre-selected past irreversible choice at an intermediate time in a weak measurement, but we cannot, under those conditions, send a useful precognitive message backwards in time. This is weak retrocausality in OQT. I mean OQT in the sense of Henry Stapp’s talk at this conference. Basically it is John von Neumann’s modification of Niels Bohr’s Copenhagen Interpretation. Indeed, Andrew Jordan’s talk Precision Measurements and Weak Values proves the immediate practical technological advantage of Yakir Aharonov’s weak measurement in the detection of very weak signals in strong noise backgrounds in fundamental physics (e.g. gravity waves) as well as engineering (e.g. GPS, spintronics, optical systems). A very good theoretical talk explaining weak measurement was given by Aharonov’s student Jeff Tollaksen Pre and post-selection, weak measurements and the flow of time in quantum mechanics. Alom Elitzur’s talk The Retrocausal Nature of Quantum Measurement Revealed by Partial and Weak Measurements added a new ingredient to the mix that of the partial measurement not to be confused with a weak measurement. Both must be used to reveal counter-intuitive orthodox quantum theory effects of engineering importance that would never be thought of in the conventional retarded causality approach of Michael Nauenberg who, though invited, never showed up to defend his objections to Aharonov’s reformulation of OCT’s weak retrocausality that prohibits signal nonlocality.

 

The real bombshell that will turn physics upside down when properly understood was Daryl Bem’s talk Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Human Cognition and Affect followed by Dean Radin’s (et-al) talk Electrocortical Evidence for Retrocausation. They both provided impeccable competent evidence for the reality of precognition in human consciousness as well as in the behavior of lower forms of life. Indeed, Garrett Moddell’s talk Laboratory Demonstration of Retrocausation in a Digital System gave useful references to experiments on lower life forms, e.g. goldfish and finches. The experimental evidence reported by Bem passed the most stringent tests by his colleagues at Cornell and at other equally reputable universities. Therefore, by normal standards we must accept this as a fact of nature. This has long been my position and it is now Henry Stapp’s position in his talk Retrocausal Effects as a Consequence of Orthodox Quantum Mechanics Refined to Accommodate The Principle of Sufficient Reason. Henry stated in his public talk, and later at lunch with me and Alom Elitzur that Bem’s evidence means a violation of OCT with the sending of real retroactive messages back from the future violating the principle of signal locality, i.e. signal nonlocality. Stapp said to me that he did not know who Antony Valentini was and never read his papers on signal nonlocality. In short, not only does God play dice with the universe, he loads the dice with living matter. Whether, signal nonlocality can be achieved in nonliving matter is still an open issue since it seems impossible to eliminate the human link as first propounded by Bohr in his epistemological Copenhagen Interpretation and added to by Fritz London, John Von Neumann and Eugene Wigner. Indeed, Garrett Moddell’s talk addressed this issue with a perplexing decline effect on replicating his first positive results. Henry added that he only recently in the past few months came to the conclusion that OCT is in fact violated because of Bem’s paper. Surprisingly, Elitzur volunteered that he thought Hawking was wrong to cave into Susskind on the information loss black hole problem. In other words the unitarity axiom, conservation of quantum information at the fundamental S-Matrix level is not absolute, but is only an approximation for simple scattering experiments. This has also long been one of my opinions. Henry Stapp is perhaps the deepest thinker alive in fundamental theoretical physics today and he does not speak lightly. He adheres to Wittgenstein’s “whereof you do not know, do not speak” (paraphrase). Henry cited Henri Bergson’s “novelty” in his talk and in later lunch conversations with Elitzur. “Nature’s choices must have novelty.” I interjected that “Unitarity prohibits novelty.” Elitzur responded, “I like that.”

 

Ed May gave a lively empirical strictly phenomenological talk Toward a Classical Thermodynamic Model for Precognition in which objective computer entropy gradients in the target photographs in CIA/DIA/military remote viewing tests were shown to be a useful parameter. Ed May confirmed the Intelligence Community’s interest and financing of this branch of paraphysics since the 1970’s during the Cold War and after. Overt funding has gone black. Significantly, Russell Targ left the conference on his way to Las Vegas to conduct a Remote Viewing Workshop with one hundred US Military personnel active, reserve and retired. My own contact with CIA people on this topic is consistent with Ed May’s talk and my on-going conversations with Russell Targ.

 

York Dobyns gave an impeccably reasoned rigorous talk Retrocausation, Consistency, and the Bilking Paradox giving further support for strong retrocausality violating OCT in Henry Stapp’s sense.

 

Ruth Kastner’s talk The Broken Symmetry of Time was useful since it became apparent that some participants did not know about spontaneous broken symmetry of the ground/vacuum state of complex systems (real and virtual quanta respectively) even though the global dynamical actions of the relevant quantum fields remain fully symmetric. Indeed every day high temperature crystals and ferromagnets correspond to the spontaneous broken symmetry of the spatial translation group T3 and the rotation group O(3) whose Goldstone bosons are phonons and spin waves respectively.  The idea is not only profoundly relevant to the spontaneous broken internal SU2 symmetry Higgs mechanism for the induction of rest masses of W bosons quarks and leptons, or to low temperature superconductors with spontaneous broken electromagnetic internal U1 and atomic Bose-Einstein condensates, but to the most common objects of our classical experience including living matter. Spontaneous broken symmetry always yields an emergent robust macro-quantum phase-rigid coherent off-diagonal long range order parameter in the reduced quantum density matrices whose dynamics are very different from the micro-quantum Schrodinger or relativistic Klein-Gordon equation. Ruth’s talk also brought in the physical relevance of post-selected future final boundary condition constraints on past actualities. Michael Ibison’s talk Cyclical Cosmology on a Mobius Strip also investigated the past influence of final boundary conditions in the block universe picture of physical reality. Aharonov’s theory also has an ultimate post-selected final cosmological boundary constraint, the ultimate “Nature’s choice” in Henry Stapp’s terminology. The Aharonov group speculate that the dark energy accelerating the expansion of our universe is relevant to post-selection, but they do not give as yet a precise model as I do below.  Ken Wharton’s talk Constructing Retrocausal Models: Decision Points and Pitfalls argued that the block universe picture must be used with teleological final cause future cosmological boundary constraints in addition to Bohm’s hidden variables. He also argued for Feynman’s Lagrangian histories approach rather than the Hamiltonian approach since the former is intrinsically pre-and post-selected as the initial and final spacelike hypersurfaces for matter fields. Indeed, Aharonov’s second post-selected destiny vector is already explicit in Feynman’s paper on non-relativistic quantum theory from which Fred Alan Wolf and I got the basic idea whilst we were on the physics faculty at San Diego State in the late 1960’s. Fred Alan Wolf’s talk Causality is Inconsistent with Quantum Field Theory argued that Pauli made an error in his use of Green’s function propagator boundary conditions in his proof of the spin-statistics connection. He claims that the criterion that the spacelike commutator of quantum fields vanish is inconsistent with the existence of Feynman’s conception of anti-matter as negative energy quanta propagating along or inside the past light cone as equivalent to positive energy anti-quanta with opposite internal charges propagating along the future light cone.

 

 

 


I was with Henry Stapp today and he and I see eye to eye on the same page. Henry said he changed his mind in past few months because of Daryl Bem's data. Henry never even heard of Antony Valentini BTW - he independently now says that Bem's data (and Radin's, Bierman's ...) show violation of "orthodox quantum theory" i.e. what I call "signal nonlocality" and that messages can be decoded nonlocally in the past as I have been arguing.

Doug Hofstatder wrote that Bem's results turn physics upside down. Bem today said he was not the Copernicus of the new paradigm alluding to Bierman, Radin, Libet ... but I say he is the Michael Faraday of the new paradigm.

Also Michael Ibison, Russell Targ & Fred Alan Wolf as well as A. Elitzur were there last two days.

Elitzur agrees with me that Hawking was right the first time and should not have caved in to Gerardus 'Hooft and Lenny Susskind. Like me, Elitzur does not believe in unitarity as absolute. Indeed, I told Stapp and Elitzur at lunch today at USD that "unitarity prohibits novelty" i.e. "novelty" as in Henri Bergson as used by Henry Stapp. Elitzur concurred saying "I'll buy that."

Ibison and I had good discussion on the de Sitter boundary issue - we are converging more.
Before I forget - the Bologna cold fusion and Moddell-Haisch zero point battery patent do not look good - this from a reliable source.

Bem should collect the $1,000,0000 from James Randi who I am told keeps changing the rules and is not honest about his "prize."


Now here is the kicker. I woke up this AM with a dream that I had been shot in the face with a revolver. I almost missed Dean Radin's talk. I came in on the end. Dean told the following story shortly after I came in. "My friend collected guns. He was loading a double action revolver. Something told him not to load the sixth bullet - leaving one empty chamber. Several weeks later one of his drunk friends went berserk and picked up that revolver on the table - pointed it at Dean's friend's face at close range pulled the trigger and of course the gun did not fire since the barrel turned to the empty chamber - that's Novikov loop in time inside a Novikov loop in time. Also, Art Altschuler a retired physics teacher told me and Fred Alan Wolf that he dreamed last night that he fired a revolver at close range into someone's face - i.e. a loop within a loop within a loop.

Elitzur prefers becoming to the being block universe in order to explain his new experiments.


Elitzur says Einstein would never have invention special relativity if he bought Bohr's complementarity in 1905.

partial measurements =/= weak measurements
both useful
both spatial and temporal nonlocality
Schrodinger Cat is a delayed choice experiment.
Time-reversed EPR experiment Elitzur, Solev, Zeilinger 2001 using Hanbury-Brown-Twiss intensity correlation
entangling event is in the future here not in the past
one photon comes from two sources we don't know which
quantum liar paradox
test two Hardy atoms for Bell inequality
use spin measurements in 3 direction 0, 30 deg & - 30 deg
for 0 do which box? measurement allows only one history for the photon
but in 30 or -30 on right atom emitter
one atom blocked photons path
it could not interact with other atom
.... see  Zoller & Cirac
Not entangled known via entanglement --- a paradox
[PPT] INCONSISTENT HISTORIES REVEALED BY QUANTUM MEASUREMENT: A NEW ...
File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - Quick View
The Quantum Liar Paradox. Time-Reversed EPR (Elitzur, Dolev & Zeilinger 2001). Two Hardy atoms in x-spin superposition (but not entangled) ...
a-c-elitzur.co.il/uploads/articlesdocs/Subtle.ppt
TalkMiner - TEDxTalpiot - Avshalom Elitzur - Too Beautiful Not To ...
Mar 23, 2011 ... Abstract: Avshalom Elitzur takes us deep into the riddles of QuantumMechanics, and shares his recent discovery, the Quantum Liar Paradox. ...
www.talkminer.com/viewtalk.jsp?videoid=SOOn_vEFKaY&q= - Cached
Repeated sequence of partial measurements on entangled systems yield new insights on the quantum liar paradox.
particles keep talking to one another
erasure more straight forward
proof that erasure operates nonlocally!
Partial and weak measurements mutually corroborate.
This is important for quantum cryptography!
retrocausal time order of measurements and unmeasurements - use John Cramer's transactions - Feynman zigzag
hybrid delayed choice EPR weak and partial measurements - new experiments in Israel - who will have jump on quantum cryptographic tapping - my comment not Elitzur's
Elitzur ends talk with discussion of Beria - 1984 rewriting of history - Nature does something similar says Elitzur
"What is time?"
Einstein-Besso --> Carnap - give up the "now"
do events come and go or
this gets us to my breakfast conversation with Russell Targ on CIA experiments in remote viewing with precognition - field operations.
All events co-exist along time says Elitzur.

Andrew Jordan  (AJ) University of Rochester
mentions negative pressure from Phys Rev editors re: retro-casual interpretation
Tollaksen is here BTW but Nauenberg did not make it - too bad.
Menas Kafatos also here
ABL 1964 both past and future boundary condition of pre & post-selection - time symmetric
weak value have both pre and post selection constraints.
See my Journal of Cosmology Vol 14 April 2011 paper for the math - free online (edited by Penrose and Hameroff)
weak value WV can exceed eigenvalue range (i.e. negative probabilities weighting the eigenvalues) and need not not be real number, can be a complex number
Stern-Gerlach test of WV actually carried out at University of Rochester with DARPA & NSF funding.
pre-selection
weak splitting in z
strong splitting in x
post-selection in x
record the z-delection

<history|A|destiny>/<history|destiny> = <A>weak

If <history|destiny> ---> 0 you exceed eigenvalue range but with small probability

weak measurement experiments in solid state quantum hall effect relevant to quantum computers
also optical systems

Optical telecom for super internet can use weak measurements with value added.

There is technological spin-off not just idle theory. Obama gave Yakir Aharonov a medal for this work.

Spin Hall Effect of Light via Weak Measurements - spintronics

Weak measurement technology/protocol way of measuring tiny signals in large noise fields.

Ultrasensitive beam deflection measurement via interferometric weak value amplification.

Nature 463 Feb 2010 Aephraim Steinberg "Light Touch"

Sagnac effect weak measurement - which path photon took CW or CCW on rotating interferometer?

this can measure very small shifts in optical parameters using both pre and post-selection technique.

560 femto-radian deflection signal i.e width of human hair on Moon can be seen from Earth

So for GPS Drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan - amazing resolution for military operations against terrorists for example.

Also for seeing exo-planets in 100 year Star Ship Study (NASA/DARPA)

Weak value precision phase measurements! For Kip Thorne's gravity LISA/LIGO detectors of big bang inflation physics.

pico-radian measurements with only few hours of integration time.

They have a patent!

Measurement Contextual Values (MCV aka POVM) - new interpretation of QM. PRL 104, 240401 (2010) avoids negative probabilities - more palatable for orthodox thinkers

get averages of operator moments, also find conditioned averages

include post-selection and any measurement interaction strength

weak measurement is a practical tool for precision measurements in optical, solid state et-al systems
Ken Wharton SJSU says causes are best modeled by boundary condition. I like that.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4273
if hidden variables HV the boundary condition is only a partial constraint
Bell's theorem does not apply in retrocausal RC theory
if no HV then over-constrained system with a final future boundary condition
RC with HV prevent free-will weak paradoxes
Doubling BC's past and future needs doubling parameters of the 1-particle state,
i.e. history and destiny state vectors of Aharonov & Co is one approach among several
found Phys v37 (2010) p. 313
Ken uses relativistic Klein-Gordon not Schrodinger non-relativistic eq.
future-past Lagrangian action principle is the most fundamental
has both efficient (retarded history) and final (teleological destiny) causes.
Feynman path integral is way to go.
Born rule & unitarity are not fundamental.
deterministic forward in time only Hamiltonian picture not fundamental in Ken's scheme.
No classical path of constructive interference in many cases?
Start with time symmetry ---> retrocausality with Block Universe - unknown territory

On Jun 13, 2011, at 9:09 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:


http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/PotBP10/PotBP%20announce.pdf
www.boundaryinstitute.org





http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wharton_UltimateExperiment2.pdf
www.fqxi.org



at retrocausal conference Ken Wharton giving first talk had good discussion with Russell Targ at breakfast on CIA operational work. Ed May also there.
9 minutes ago · Like ·

Ken argues for block universe  http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4273

Susskind wrote:
"Gerard and I had been talking on and off about black holes for a number of years by 1994. He and I seemed to be the only two people who were completely convinced that the basic quantum laws of information and entropy must be respected by black holes. Although I am sure we agreed about the substantive issues, we tended to think a little differently. Gerard wanted to think about it from an S-matrix point of view like in quantum field theory. He wanted to construct a unitary S-matrix that would evolve an in-going state to an out-going state on the horizon of a black hole. I certainly agreed that an S-matrix should exist but it seemed to me hopeless to actually compute it. I thought that trying to construct an S-matrix would be a lot harder than discovering the underlying microstructure. I had formulated the idea of Black Hole Complementarity which stated that from the outside perspective, the (stretched) horizon of a black hole is composed of microscopic degrees of freedom that absorb, thermalize, and re-emit all information. But I had also argued that from the infalling point of view, the horizon was just empty space with no special properties. Think of an observer in a free falling elevator: as long as the elevator is freely falling, and up till the point when it hits the ground, she won’t be able to tell the difference between the laws of physics inside the small elevator and those inside a space-ship out in space. So will, for an observer who is freely falling into a black hole, and up till the point when she is crushed by tidal forces or absorbed in the singularity, the physics around her be the physics of empty space. Yet we know that for an observer who stays outside or is trying to escape from the black hole – like in an accelerator that is going up –, the region near the horizon is strongly gravitating and in fact it has membrane-like properties like an electric surface resistivity of 377 ohms and viscosity. I argued that the discrepancy of the two different descriptions is only apparent – only in the case that we think in terms of some superobserver, who somehow has access to both the freely falling and the accelerated system near the black hole, do we get any contradictions. That such a description should be precluded is what I called Black Hole Complementarity. Like in quantum mechanics, where we can’t measure both position and momentum at the same time without disturbing the system, we can’t measure both the inside and the outside of the black hole without using signals of an energy of the order of the Planck scale. This way Black Hole Complementarity argues that the two seemingly contradictory views can be reconciled, if we just agree on which observable we decide to measure."
OK, at first sight the above is very plausible. However, there are some conceptual problems.
1) Alice is LIF (Frefo) and Bob is hovering static LNIF (Fido) and they are momentarily locally coincident just outside the horizon of a simple SSS black hole.
Alice is freely floating on a timelike geodesic with zero covariant tensor 4-acceleration.
Bob has his rocket engines firing and is standing "still" in curved spacetime with a g-force
g(r) = (c^2rs/r^2)(1- rs/r)^-1/2 ---> infinity as r --> rs+
r = rs + &r
&r/rs << 1
Bob sees blackbody radiation at Unruh temperature
T(r) ~ hg(r)/ckB
Indeed, Bob will catch fire from the intense heat.
Suppose Alice is very close, won't she catch fire also - I mean with a substantial probability the closer she is to Bob?
Of course Alice will see tensor fields that won't vanish if they don't vanish for Bob.
Alice sees tensor/spinor fields that are the tetrad map image of Bob's tensor/spinor fields.
Therefore, what Lenny says that Alice will only see empty space may not be true at all!
Einstein's Equivalence Principle does not demand that Alice see nothing unusual at the horizon. She will see Bob catch fire and die. She may catch fire herself.
She may never be able to pass through the event horizon at all? - we need to study this more carefully.
Suppose the virtual electron-positron plasma is stuck to the event horizon like so many tiny FIDOs they will then see Unruh radiation enough to make them jump from virtual to real pairs in a real electron-positron plasma that obviously Alice will also see.

Begin forwarded message:
From: JACK SARFATTI Date: June 3, 2011 1:08:50 PM PDT
To: nick herbert Subject: Re: James Randi and Joy Christian (Dr. Quantum)
The problem with Joy's paper is that it is not at all clear how his abstract math model applies to quantum theory as commonly understood. At least it's not clear to me what his motivation-physical picture is. Sascha's point that if Joy is correct then a classical computer can simulate quantum processes is a good one and it contradicts Roger Penrose's and Richard Feynman's positions. I don't think Joy is correct of course that local realism is consistent with orthodox quantum theory.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:56 PM, nick herbert wrote:
Sascha Vongehr--a German.
Great sense of humor and very smart.
I mistakenly thought this challenge was from Randi.
But it's Sascha's way of telling Joy Christian
to "put up or shut up."
On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:35 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Who is the main blogger? He is very funny and clever.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:51 AM, nick herbert wrote:
This is hilarious, Jack. Thanks for the Randi link.
Randi is challenging anyone who believes in (Joy) Christian's local model of reality
to write A LOCAL COMPUTER PROGRAM that simulates the EPR result at three angles (0, 30. 60).
Has Randi been reading Quantum Reality in which Nick Herbert
(who boiled Bell's original proof down to four lines) shows such a computer is impossible?
Nick's definitely on Randi's side on this one.
Nick Herbert
http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com
On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:12 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
I just received this bizarre link
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/quantum_crackpot_randi_challenge_help_perimeter_physicist_joy_christian_collect_nobel_prize-79614

Jun 03

Q-Clearance & Roswell 1947

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

On Jun 2, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Lemke, Lawrence G. (ARC-RD) wrote:

In the previous post, I argued that if Alfred O’Donnell was truthful in saying that the AEC fed him the SMH story then the simplest explanation for that is that it was a cover story.  Why would it be necessary to give Alfred a cover story?  Wasn’t he an AEC insider who could be trusted with the truth?  I can think of two explanations, and don’t have enough information about Alfred to choose between them.  One possibility is that, with only a Q clearance, he would not necessarily have been cleared for sensitive compartmented information, which the true Roswell story would certainly have been.  Many people mistakenly think that possessing a Q clearance places one at the apex of the classified atomic energy community.  Not so.  The Q clearance is actually a “package” consisting of two components.  One component (contributed by the Department of Defense or other Executive Branch authority) is referred to as Top Secret—collateral. That means a “generic” Top Secret clearance without access to codeword protected information.  The other component (contributed by the Atomic Energy Commission or successor organization) can be Secret Restricted Data or Top Secret Restricted Data (SRD or TSRD).  An individual possessing a TS—collateral clearance can be granted an SRD with no further background investigation. Whether he/she can also be granted a TSRD, I don’t know. Together, this package of clearances allows the holder to work on combined DOD-AEC projects that do not involve compartmented information. Higher, more restrictive AEC classifications than Q do exist. Thus, Alfred may not have had access to compartmented information.  I can absolutely aver, from personal experience, that an individual with a clearance no higher than TS/SRD will not have any greater access to sensitive compartmented or special access information than a random man on the street. 

On the other hand, even if he was cleared for access to codeword protected information, he may have been given a cover story, anyway.  This is not uncommon in the compartmented world—not everyone in the compartment gets the same story or the full story.  This practice serves two functions.  One is the usual function of diverting public attention away from the real, and classified story if the cover story is revealed publicly. Arguably, the current public debate following Alfred’s leaking of the story is now performing exactly that function.  To do this, a cover story must provide a false explanation for why someone did what they did but, it can’t actually reveal any classified information. Alfred’s comments to Annie (before the book was published) and to Anthony Braglia (subsequently) depict an individual who took his secrecy oaths seriously in the past and still does in the present.  If the SMH story is a cover story, then his telling it won’t actually be revealing Restricted Data.

Cover stories can have a secondary function of allowing the tracing of a leak to the clandestine intelligence agencies of foreign powers.  Because the counterintelligence office associated with a compartmented program knows who in the compartment was told which version of the story, they can figure out where a leak came from, depending on which version of the story shows up in the possession of a foreign intelligence service.

So far, I haven’t found an internal inconsistency in Alfred’s story that would make it unquestionably false.  By itself, that doesn’t make it unquestionably true, of course.

We could probably make more progress on this if Alfred would consent to some additional dialogue.  Does anyone on this list know if that would be possible and, if so, how to arrange it?