Text Size


Mar 07

What is a quantum? Is it a particle?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

On Mar 6, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"Do you agree that if the zero point free field is to be taken seriously, it should be uniquely determined, and
its physical properties should not depend on the choice of basis functions to be used to represent the
classical free field? "

The whole point of Unruh effect is that virtual zero point photons for a zero g-force non-rotating timelike geodesic LIF detectors look like thermal black body photons of Kelvin temperature hg/ckB where g is the proper off-geodesic acceleration of the detector. The quantum vacua for different g have UERs for their elementary excitations. Ordinary QFT is SEVERELY limited to unaccelerating detectors.

"Maybe I'm just confused, but given the remarks in the Crispino paper about the frame dependence of the
particle content of quantized fields, I'm now having serious doubts about the idea of field quanta as 'particles.'"

Strictly speaking, the qubit spaces are Bohm's (super) quantum potential not the hidden variable particle world lines in ordinary spacetime.

e.g. a*|0> = |1>  1-quantum of sharp momentum in Fock space

that shapes Q not the hidden variable "particle" on a classical path. Same for strings in 10 or 11D spacetime with branes instead of worldlines.

Paul, key point is any tetrad map and any GCT is quantum mechanically a Bogoliubov transformation with UIRs (Unitarily Inequivalent Representations) of the quantum vacua/ground states and their quasi-particle and collective mode elementary excitations. In contrast to special relativity where all mappings between geodesic zero g-force inertial frames INDUCE UER (Universally Equivalent Representations) of QUBITS.

This is the lesson of Hawking-Unruh effect. All GCTs are locally approximated by Rindler special conformal hyperbolic boosts with local thermodynamic horizons - seems to be Ted Jacobson's et-al basic intuition?

"unitarily inequivalent representations
From Physics wik  Quantum field theory
In ordinary quantum mechanics of systems with finitely many degrees of freedom, the "choice problem", namely choosing a particular representation of the canonical commutation relations, is resolved by the Stone–von Neumann theorem which states that any representation is essentially unique, up to unitary transformations. This is not so for systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom (e.g., Quantum field theories), and the statement is known as Haag's theorem[1]"
If spacetime is a world crystal lattice (Hagen Kleinert), then the number of degrees of freedom is finite ~ 10^122 using hologram idea.
On Mar 6, 2011, at 7:19 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
I think the mode transformation plane waves to spherical harmonics with Bessel function radial dependence - is "unitary," i.e. equivalent vacua both in global inertial frames, no Unruh effect (Bogoliubov transformation) - no change in boundary conditions.
However, any switch to off-geodesic/rotating frames does need a Bogoliubov-Unruh change of creation and destruction operators - change of "quanta" identity (non-unitarily equivalent vacua). I could be wrong about that I need to check. If I am right then from a QM POV quantum gravity is inherently non-unitary.
Spontaneous symmetry breakdown (More is different) vacuum condensation's effect is shown in (4.2) - that is Fourier transform (flat spacetime) of the coherent order parameter that obeys a Landau-Ginzburg equation that under some conditions has no "i" in the time derivative, i.e. non-unitary dissipative dynamics with signal nonlocality in contrast to unitary wave dynamics with signal locality.
How to Build Unitarily Inequivalent Representations in Quantum Field Theory
by T Lupher - Related articles
How to Construct Unitarily Inequivalent Representations ... key to generating unitarily inequivalent representations. 1 Introduction ...
"Following Haag and Kastler's lead, it was claimed by most proponents of algebraic quantum field theory that all physical content resides in a specific class of observables. It is shown in the dissertation that such claims are exaggerated and misleading. UIRs are used to elucidate the nature of quantum field theory by showing that UIRs have different expectation values for some classical observables of the system, such as temperature and chemical potential, which are not in Haag and Kastler's specific class. It is shown how UIRs may be used to construct classical observables. To capture the physical content of quantum field theory it is shown that a much larger algebra than that of Haag and Kastler is necessary. Finally, the arguments that UIRs are incommensurable theories are shown to be flawed. The lesson of UIRs is that the mathematical structures in both canonical quantum field theory and Haag and Kastler's version of algebraic quantum field theory are not sufficient to capture all of the physical content that UIRs represent. A suitable algebraic structure for quantum field theory is provided in the dissertation."
The philosophical significance of unitarily inequivalent representations (UIR)
by TA Lupher - 2008 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
This dissertation gives a general account of the properties of unitarily inequivalent representations (UIRs) in both canonical quantum field theory and ...
"Physical (heuristic) point of view
As was already noticed by Haag in his original work, it is the vacuum polarization that lies at the core of Haag's theorem. Any interacting quantum field (including non-interacting fields of different masses) is polarizing the vacuum, and as a consequence its vacuum state lies inside a renormalized Hilbert space HR that differs from the Hilbert space HF of the free field. Although an isomorphism could always be found that maps one Hilbert space into the other, Haag's theorem implies that no such mapping would deliver unitarily equivalent representations of the corresponding CCR, i.e. unambiguous physical results.
Among the assumptions that lead to Haag's theorem is translation invariance of the system. Consequently, systems that can be set up inside a box with periodic boundary conditionsor that interact with suitable external potentials escape the conclusions of the theorem [5]. Haag [6] and Ruelle [7] have presented a modified ('Haag-Ruelle') scattering theory that allows to circumvent the problems posed by Haag's theorem, but this approach is complicated in practical application and so far it has been applied to a limited set of model systems only.
Ignorance on the part of the QFT practitioner
Most practitioners of QFT appear to ignore the implications of Haag's theorem entirely and prefer to go ahead producing numbers. It is currently unknown why, and under which conditions or limitations, QFT produces accurate numbers in real life situations. In fact, within the canonical development of perturbative quantum field theory — which includes quantum electrodynamics, cited as one of the great successes of modern science — the interaction picture is used throughout."
Haag's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Mar 6, 2011, at 7:11 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
On 3/6/2011 7:10 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Not at all. I never wrote that.
On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
"Are you saying that a unitary relationship between spherical harmonic and plane wave modes of the same
quantized EM field is not guaranteed?"
On 3/6/2011 4:37 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
On Mar 6, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
"Do the number and type of constituent quanta depend on the basis function representation of the field?"
Yes and no because there is missing necessary information - your question not well-posed.
For the special case of expansion in plane waves in infinite space
The c-number mode transformations, e.g. to spherical harmonics should not affect the q-number 2nd quantized operators a & a* - provided there is no change in boundary conditions. As in
Clearly, however, the Unruh effect Bogoliubov transformation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogoliubov_transformation from inertial to accelerating non-inertial frames is a transformation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle is the kind of change you want - in general unitarily non-equivalent ground states have excitations that are not equivalent to each other.
Are there
"spherical wave" quanta, "plane wave quanta", and so on? And to what extent and in what sense are such
representations mathematically or physically equivalent?
For example, given a single quantum spherical harmonic quantum excitation of an EM field, what is the plane wave
quantum content of the field? Do the numbers of quanta agree in the two different representations?
General answer - agreement only when the ground states are unitarily equivalent.
[math-ph/0609065] Existence and non existence of a ground state ... 
by A Panati - 2006 - Cited by 6 - Related articles
Sep 24, 2006 ... We prove that this model does not admit ground state in the Fock ... it does in another not unitarily equivalent coherent representation. ...
arxiv.org › math-ph - Cached
On the Absence of Non-Periodic Ground States for the ... 
by T Matsui - 2005 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
Nov 17, 2004 ... non-translationally invariant ground states of XXZ models. Their construction of non ... unitarily equivalent to the following Hamiltonian: ...
Symmetry breaking - Google Books Result
F. Strocchi - 2008 - Mathematics - 216 pages
Finally, if π is regular, so is πγ by the regularity of γ and therefore the two representations areunitarily equivalent by Von Neumann's uniqueness theorem ...
The dissipative quantum model of brain: how does memory localize ... 
by E Alfinito - 2000 - Cited by 3 - Related articles
The density of the DWQ condensed in the ground state represents the .... Remarkably, it is found that the couple of Eqs. (1) is equivalent to the spherical Bessel ... The generator of such a non-unitary time evolution is found to be ...
[PDF] Broken Symmetry and Spacetime 
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by DJ Baker - 2010 - Related articles
definition of SSB – the existence of a non-invariant ground state – since ..... the conservative-about-states only if unitarily equivalent, they've also ...

On Mar 6, 2011, at 12:31 PM, David Sarfatti wrote:
This is wonderful. Your discussions with Basil Hiley are important for the historical record in physics. Sort of like the Born-Einstein letters.

Yes, I am including it in the new edition of Destiny Matrix. I think I have the closest model to a real understanding of consciousness as a physical process not inconsistent with Vitiello's, but including signal nonlocality not in his model.

I am claiming to have essentially solved the mind-matter-consciousness problem as well as the cosmological constant problem using only battle-tested mainstream physics. 
 re: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html
Thanks Basil, so if I understand you correctly, Bohm and you never used it in the way I did with the notion specifically that "feedback control loops" between "mental" Q and the "material" particles (in simplest model) would make Q not "fragile," but robust ("phase rigidity" in P.W. Anderson's sense) allowing specifically "signal nonlocality" violating orthodox quantum theory. Nor did Bohm contemplate the living mind field as a Q for a macro-quantum coherent order parameter from a spontaneous broken symmetry (nonlinear quasi-local Landau-Ginzburg equation in 3D space replacing linear nonlocal Schrodinger equation in 3ND configuration space), nor did he and you specifically define qualia as the excitations of this coherent ground state that is intrinsically "mental" in Chalmers and Stapp's sense?
Of course I only learned about back-action from Undivided Universe I think in 1994 or so - but immediately connected it to signal nonlocality the way Valentini means it today - but independently of him for sure and probably before he did? I only became aware of Valentini's work in maybe 2003 as I recall.
On Mar 6, 2011, at 1:51 AM, Basil Hiley wrote:
On 5 Mar 2011, at 22:02, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
corrected statement
...As far as I know David Bohm never used the term "back-action" or “feedback control loops”  to explain qualia in consciousness, although he did have the back-action idea - I got it from him - he did not connect those two dots in that way. That is my original contribution. Perhaps Basil Hiley can clarify that for the record?
"My discussions with Bohm on "back-action" go back to the 70s and 80s.  I am not even sure if it was "our" idea.  It was a very obvious question that arises if one assumes that the quantum potential gives rise to a Newtonian mechanical force.  Then action and reaction was a necessary consequence of this mechanical picture.  But Bohm had already made strong arguments against a mechanical explanation of quantum mechanics.  In his book "Quantum Theory" in  a footnote on page 167, he writes "This means the term "quantum mechanics" is very much a misnomer.  It should, perhaps, be called "quantum nonmechanics".  The philosophy behind this remark is spelt out in detail in chapter five of his book "Causality and Chance in Modern Physics".
I don't think any of our discussions on "back action" were put into print, essentially because we did not believe that was the way forward for us.  In our book "The Undivided Universe" we did refer to the possibility of including "back action" on page 346, in a chapter entitled "Extensions of ontological theories".  We added the idea in the context of the GRW approach, which was proposed to "collapse" the wave function.  That is certainly a way to go if you believe the "wave" has ontological significance.  Bohm and I did not take up the idea, certainly not to discuss consciousness, because we were exploring a more radical approach using the notion of "active information".  Paavo Pylkkanen and I have several papers on this subject including  "Can mind affect matter via active information", Mind and Matter, 3, (2005) 7-27."
Yes, that's for volition, but the problem I considered was the very opposite of that, can matter affect mind to generate internal qualia (conscious experiences) via direct back-action to the quantum potential Q of some coherent state of bosons (elementary excitations of some kind in the brain) - with signal nonlocality inherent so that entanglement is a stand-alone-command-control-communication system explaining the binding problem - unity of conscious experience.
"The way Bohm looked at this was to assume every process had two sides, a manifest side and a subtle side and these were connected by active information.  When applied to mind, drawing on the word "psycho-somatic", this becomes a somatic side and a subtle (psyche) side.  Bohm introduced a two way process which he described as "soma-significance" and "signa-somatic".  The material (soma) has a significance (thought) and the significance (thought), in turn, has an effect on the material (soma).  Jack, this is a much more general notion of "back action" without actually using this specific phrase.  What would be a very interesting thing to do would be to try to build a detailed mechanical analogue of this process. It would be somewhat limited but it may provide some new insights.  The paper that contains a very clear discussion of these ideas is Bohm, "Meaning and Information" which appeared in "The search for meaning: the new spirit in science and philosophy", ed. Pylkkanen, Crucible, Wellingborough, 1989.  This may be difficult to get hold of but if anyone is interested I could get scanned.

Towler's lectures are very good in spite his "celebrity nutjob" comment. As far as I know David Bohm never used the term "back-action" or "feedback control loops" to explain qualia in consciousness, although he did have the back-action idea - I got it from him - he did not connect those two dots in that way.  That is my original contribution. Perhaps Basil Hiley can clarify that for the record?
Gathering material for 2nd edition of my book Destiny Matrix I found:
The material in this lecture is largely derived from books and articles by David Bohm, Basil Hiley, Paavo Pylkkannen, F. David Peat, Marcello Guarini, Jack Sarfatti, Lee Nichol, Andrew Whitaker, and Constantine Pagonis. The text of an interview between Simeon Alev and Peat is extensively quoted. Other sources used and many other interesting papers are listed on the course web page:

www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/∼mdt26/pilot waves.html
Living matter and back-action In certain dark corners of the internet, can find speculation of the following nature:
• Propose the wave function/pilot wave is intrinsically ‘mental’ and capable of qualia. • Equate the pilot wave with the mental aspect of the universe, generally: the particles are ‘matter’, and ‘mind’ the pilot wave. OK, who cares, except..
• ‘Mental’ aspect of universe upgradeable to life/consciousness by self-organization. Happens when a physical system uses its own nonlocality in its organization.
• In this case a feedback loop is created, as follows: system configures itself so as to set up its own pilot wave, which in turn directly affects its physical configuration, which then affects its non-local pilot wave, which affects the configuration etc..
• Normally in QM this ‘back-action’ is not taken into account. The wave guides the particles but back-action of particle onto wave not systematically calculated. Of course, the back-action is physically real since particle movement determines initial conditions for next round of calculation. But there is no systematic way to characterize such feedback. One reason this works in practice is that for systems that are not self-organizing the back-action may not exert any systematic effect.
Well, it’s not obviously wrong..!
Two-way traffic
Important to note that pilot-wave theory does not take into account any effect of individual particle on its own quantum field (though Bohm and Hiley briefly sketch some ideas about how this might happen, see e.g. Undivided Universe pp. 345-346).
• Idea that particles collectively affect quantum field of a single particle is contained in the standard notion that shape of quantum field of a particle is determined by shape of environment (which consists of many particles, and is part of the boundary conditions put into the Schrodinger equation before solving it, even in conventional QM).
• Celebrity nutjob Jack Sarfatti (see e.g., er.. http://www.stardrive.org) in particular has emphasized the need for an explanation of how the individual particle influences its own field and has proposed mechanisms for such ‘back-action’, also emphasizing its importance in understanding the mind- matter relationship and how consciousness arises (see earlier slide).
• Assuming that notion of such an influence of the particle on its field can be coherently developed, we can then have two-way traffic between the mental and the physical levels without reducing one to the other. Role of Bohm’s model of the quantum system then would be that it provides a kind of prototype that defines a more general class of systems in which a field of information is connected with a material body by a two-way relationship.
• Quantum theory is currently our most fundamental theory of matter and Bohm suggests that, when ontologically interpreted, it reveals a proto-mental aspect of matter. This is the quantum field, described mathematically by the wave function, which is governed by the Schrodinger equation. Bohm’s suggestion is known as panprotopsychism.. so at least you learned a new word today..!

Mar 04

Subject: Re: interstellar travel limits - incentives for financing 100 year starship

Bottom line is that this is unworkable practically, psychologically, politically because if we managed to build a ship at 1g and survived the blue shift problem from stuff moving slow in the Hubble flow - there is no effective return to Earth - about 200,000 years pass on Earth for 25 year round trip ship time across our galaxy. In generally anyone you knew on Earth is dead before you get back from any Earthlike exoplanet. Without dark energy stabilized wormholes there is little incentive for billionaires today to invest since most of them only see what the next few financial quarters will bring. That's where the UFO data comes in, if they are real, then they have star gate technology - and only then is there is hope.

On Mar 4, 2011, at 11:10 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

T = ship time

t = time back on Earth

Time dilation factor is t/T = Earth Time/Ship Time
    T          t         d          v                γ
    1 year    1.19 yrs  0.56 lyrs  0.77c                 1.58 
    2         3.75      2.90       0.97                  3.99
    5        83.7      82.7        0.99993              86.2
    8     1,840     1,839          0.9999998         1,895
   12   113,243   113,242          0.99999999996   116,641

sh is hyperbolic sine

ch is hyperbolic cosine



On Mar 3, 2011, at 5:13 PM, Kim Burrafato wrote:

Using these, the rocket equations are

t = (c/a) sh(aT/c) =  sqrt[(d/c)2 + 2d/a]

d = (c2/a) [ch(aT/c) - 1] =  (c2/a) (sqrt[1 + (at/c)2] - 1)

v = c th(aT/c) = at / sqrt[1 + (at/c)2]

T = (c/a) sh-1(at/c) = (c/a) ch-1 [ad/c2 + 1]

γ = ch(aT/c) = sqrt[1 + (at/c)2] = ad/c2 + 1

These equations are valid in any consistent system of units such as seconds for time, metres for distance, metres per second for speeds and metres per second squared for accelerations.  In these unitsc = 3 × 108 m/s (approx).  To do some example calculations it is easier to use units of years for time and light years for distance.  Then c = 1 lyr/yr and g = 1.03 lyr/yr2.  Here are some typical answers for a = 1g.