Text Size

Stardrive

Mar 31

Why we exist as classical objects

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
Here is what you learn in school.

All observables A must be Hermitian operators with real eigenvalues ai and orthogonal eigenfunctions |ai>. Using summation convention on repeated upper and lower indices and Dirac’s |ket>
A = a^i |ai>
= 0 if i =/= j  orthogonality

for a general state

|Psi> = c^i|ai>

c^i are complex numbers

If the general state is normalized

= 1

therefore

cic*i = 1

The Born ENSEMBLE probability for a strong Von-Neuman measurement of real eigenvalue ai is

p(ai) = |ci|^2

In terms of the density matrix rho

p(ai) = Trace{|ai>
The orthogonality

= 0 if i =/= j  

is key.

If it is violated, then for example, if we have a single q-bit with eigenvalues “0” and “1"

|Psi> = c0|0> + c1|1>

rho = |Psi><0| 1=""><1| 0=""><1| 1=""><0|

p(0) = Trace{|0><0rho}

= |c0|^2 + |c1|^2|<1|0>|^2 + c0*c1<1|0> + c1*c0<0|1>

assuming = 1, which is true for the over-complete non-orthogonal macro-quantum coherent physically important Glauber states that are eigenstates of non-Hermitian quantum field creation and destruction operators.

The classical world only exists because of “More is different” (P.W. Anderson) emergent Glauber states of both real and virtual bosons in Higgs-Goldstone-Brout-Englert-Anderson ground and vacuum states with spontaneous broken Lie group symmetries of various kinds.

As shown by Antony Valentini this also leads to entanglement signaling.


Mar 30



Subject: Interviews on Merging Spirituality and Entertainment From The Gate 2 Event - The Huffington Post
Date: March 30, 2012 6:46:52 AM GMT+01:00

Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D., physicist and author (aka Dr. Quantum) has appeared in many national films, including, "What The Bleep Do We Know?" and "The Secret," and he commented:
"From a quantum physics point of view, there is something going on that filmmakers are beginning to recognize; the medium is not only the message, it is also the massage. That means we are recognizing that what people are doing when they are watching a movie is experiencing their own lives as if they were projected from movie screens. We are experiencing life as if we are characters in a movie. Amazingly, the latest theory merging quantum physics and gravity, called the holographic principle, seems to confirm that a similar projection is going on in the whole universe -- the universe is a 3-dimensional projection from 2-dimensional "screens" situated at both the beginning and ending of time itself. When we recognize that we are in this sense actors on a cosmic stage, we can also make our lives a lot more fun by learning to direct as well as write our own personal screenplays. We can really get inspired and inspire each other. I call this developing a true cosmic humility, where you can laugh at yourself and others, but not at their expense. Instead we surrender to a universal laughter recognizing the shared compassion we all have with others.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/stacey-nemour/gate-2_b_1269318.html

Fred is saying essentially the same thing I am saying about hologram universe from both our pre-selected past history and future post-selected destiny cosmological horizon computing screens. It's only a conjecture of course, but one that has some memetic power in Beverly Hills.
Sent from my iPhone in London W8 Kensington, England
Goodbye and good luck.
Stay calm and carry on.
Mar 29

Quantum Computing & Entanglement Signals

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
Sharpening Occam's Razor with Quantum Mechanics
Mile Gu, Karoline Wiesner, Elisabeth Rieper, Vlatko Vedral
(Submitted on 9 Feb 2011 (v1), last revised 9 Aug 2011 (this version, v4))

Mathematical models, algorithms that encapsulate the behaviour of systems of interest, underpin the heart of quantitative science. They output the future behaviour of the system, when fed knowledge of its initial conditions. In the spirit of Occam's razor, simpler is better; should two models equally simulate the future, the one that requires less initial data is preferred. For almost all stochastic processes, even the provably simplest classical models have room for improvement. For each bit of predictive output, they generically require more than a single bit of input. We show that by encoding possible initial conditions into non-orthogonal quantum states, we can systematically construct predictive models that break this classical bound. This indicates that the device of minimal entropy that exhibits such statistics must necessarily feature quantum dynamics, and that certain phenomena could be significantly simpler than classically possible, should quantum effects be involved.

Comments: 6 pages, 3 figures
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Statistical Mechanics (cond-mat.stat-mech)
Cite as: arXiv:1102.1994v4 [quant-ph]
· ·
Jack Sarfatti Note non-orthogonal states same as in my entanglement signaling scheme.2 seconds ago ·
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120321-searching-for-a-starship/1

While some of you have seen my actual DARPA paper apparently some of you have not.
So once again.

On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Jeremiah Hansen wrote:

While Einstein has a powerful methodology, it doesn't describe everything we know, or think we know. Jack, or a qualified contemporary, should work on describing some experiments as they are necessary to prove or disprove and move us closer to our goal.


I replied:

More than one qualified contemporary needs to work on it - dozens do, hundreds do. ;-)
Since special meta-materials need to be developed this is a major project over many disciplines.
As I said one lab is working on a project that seems to them to be possibly related to my proposal. I have been asked not to jump their gun. It’s up to them to disclose.

Jim Woodward’s description below of my idea is very good. Now if he would only be as clear on his own original theory. ;-)

Please note, I got to this idea by thinking suppose flying saucers are real? How could they possibly work? This strategy was shouted down by Eric Davis and Mark Millis and I think it was Ken Olum and another sci-fi writer at the 100 year Star Ship meeting when I proposed it. Only Doug Trumbull (2001 etc) supported it the next day at the closing meeting. Of course that was bizarre since Millis received $ from Joe Firmage’s ISSO and Eric Davis is a well known expert in saucers working for both Bob Bigelow and Hal Puthoff. Indeed, Eric wrote a paper on “high strangeness” with UFO investigator Jacques Vallee.

On Mar 29, 2012, at 7:15 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

I'm going to tackle half of the exotic propulsion stuff tonight and briefly sketch Jack's proposal.  I'll leave the Mach effect stuff to the weekly update in a couple of days.

The chief problem of exotic propulsion is plain on examination of Einstein's field equations which say:

  geometry = 3D coupling constant X matter sources

The problem is the coupling constant.  It is 8 pi G/c^4.  This is an exceedingly small number (unless you use "natural" units and set G and c to one).  In order to get any significant geometry distortions, the matter sources have to be enormous -- and negative if you are trying to hold a traversable wormhole open.

Jack's way of attacking this problem has two parts.  The first part addresses the small coupling constant.  He says, what if the constant isn't a constant at all, but a coefficient that can have a range of values instead?  How might that be?  Well, what if the vacuum speed of light (in the denominator) is really the speed of light in media?  If this is so, then the index of refraction goes into the numerator of the coefficient.  Now, in superconductors (Bose-Einstein condensates in particular) the speed of light can be a literal crawl -- making the index of refraction 1= 10^10.  Since the index in the coefficient is raised to the 4th power, we now have a factor of 10^40 that otherwise doesn't appear in Einstein's equations.  And only small amounts of matter should suffice to produce prodigious distortions.

The second part of Jack's proposal deals with the negativity (exoticity) of the matter needed to thread a wormhole throat.  He notes that in metamaterials, the permitivity and permeability of such materials is negative.  Since they are multipliers of the squares of the electric and magnetic field strengths in the calculation of the energy density of a field present in a metamaterial, he argues that such materials can make exotic stuff.  Normally, the negativity of mu and epsilon is taken to mean that the phase and group velocities of waves in the field are in opposite directions.  Jack deals with this by asserting that the fields are to be DC fields.  No propagating waves to get you off the hook that is.

If he's right, low power warp drives are possible.  The neat thing about this proposal is that should he get off his duff and calculate some predictions, in principle his ideas are testable in the lab.  Since both Bose-Einstein condensates and metamaterials are already tested in existing labs, the sort of infrastructure that otherwise would have to be developed is already in place.  So, with some explicit predictions, it should be possible to find out pretty quickly whether this scheme will work in fact.  And it shouldn't cost some large amount of money to get the work done.

More later.

Best,

Jim


Jim grossly underestimates the magnitude of the problem here. Many disciplines - many experimental specialists are needed. The problem here is like that needed to build the atomic bomb in my opinion.


However, there appears to be a serious error in the key eq 16, which I think also applies to Leibfried’s eq. 146 as well. I am checking it carefully and will write it up with Math Type in proper notation.

Eq. 16 has

Pg(alpha,phi) = <S+|S+>

which is obvious nonsense since

<S+|S+> = 1 for Glauber coherent states.

I now not even sure if their final expression is correct.

The entangled state is Gerry’s eq 13 (attached pdf)

| PSI> = |alpha, phi;e,g> = |g>|S+> + |e>|S->

|S+,-> = (1/2)[|alphae^iphi/2> +- |alphae^0iphi/2>]

alpha is real

The phase phi MODULATION entanglement signal parameter is easily controlled precisely with the effective interaction Hamiltonian of eq. 9. So is the AMPLITUDE MODULATION entanglement signal parameter (real alpha). So we have choice of both PM and AM for messages - although in this case the sender and receiver are different degrees of freedom on the same ion, that will not always be so for more clever "total experimental arrangements" (Bohr)

Now something that a lot of Pundits don’t seem to know is that the usual prescription for the Born probability rule only works for orthogonal base states in the presence of entanglement!

The correct general way to compute responses is the one used by Stapp - the method of projection operators. This only works for STRONG VON NEUMANN measurements, not for pre & post-selected WEAK MEASUREMENTS. I only do the former here and will work on the latter when I get to London next week.

Following Stapp

1. form the total entangled Dirac KET-BRA projection operator

|PSI><PSI| = (|g><g|)(|S+><S+|) + three other terms

2. The STAND-ALONE LOCAL response function P(g) to detect the RECEIVER Jaynes-Cummings internal qubit in its ground state |g> is,

Gospel according to Stapp ;-)

Trace over all sender base states of |g><g| multiplied into |PSI><PSI|

Here is where the DISTINGUISHABLE NON-ORTHOGONALITY of the Glauber MACRO-QUANTUM COHERENT states make the crucial difference completely refuting all NO ENTANGLEMENT-SIGNAL PROOFS!

Remember Glauber coherent states are P.W. Anderson “More is different" emergent from spontaneous broken ground state symmetry (in this case U1 super-selection rule for particle number conjugate to phase) of complex systems, e.g. in a non-equilibirum laser above threshold or in an (thermal) equilibrium superconductor below phase transition critical temperature, or in a thermal equlibirium crystal, ferromagnet etc. etc.

Note the square of |g><g| is itself (idempotent)

The required trace is

P(g) = <g|{(|g><g|)(<S+|S+><S+|S+>) + (|g><g|)(<S-|S+><S+|S->)}|g>

= 1 + |<S+|S->|^2

The ANOMALOUS ENTANGLEMENT SIGNAL TERM is obviously  |<S+|S->|^2  that is zero in micro-quantum entangled states.

The Born probability rule is obviously violated since

P(e) = P(g)

P(e) + P(g) > 1

In Bohm’s theory, the probability rule is not an absolute truth of Copenhagen Church.

Therefore, the RECEIVER response functions P(e) and P(g) depend on the SENDER controllable settings alpha and phi in blatant violation of the No-Signal Theorems.


On Mar 24, 2012, at 10:47 AM, nick herbert wrote:

Jack--

Thanks for the review paper on "Quantum Dynamics of Single Trapped Ions" (henceforth LBMW). I am amazed
how much quantum behavior one can demonstrate with such a simple system. The trapped ion is essentially
a pocket demo of almost all of the effects you read about in quantum textbooks. I used to think that quantum
optics was the royal road to experiencing quantum weirdness firsthand. Now I am ceding second place to
trapped ion physics. I especially like the opening quote by Schrödinger that we will never be able to do experiments
on single atoms. LBMW show that not only are we able to do such experiments, but we can probe the quantum behavior
of a single atom to an astonishing degree of sophistication. And we can even SEE SINGLE IONS with the naked eye
due to laser induced fluorescence.

This intensity of this fluorescence is the signal of the interference experiment you are so excited about.

This is a very complicated experiment and I'm not sure I understand it completely but my take on it is that
you have misunderstood the nature of "phi". In terms of an analogous EPR experiment "phi" would not
be under the control of Alice or Bob but is merely a parameter controlled at the SOURCE of the EPR
pair--hence useless for signalling.

What happens in the experiment you cite from LBMW is that the experimenters set up a coherent state interference
experiment for one value of "phi". Then they set up a new experiment with a different value of "phi". Interference
between two motional states is revealed cause the motional states are entangled with the ground |g> and excited |e>
states. The phase is controlled by a series of set up pulses that operate on both the motion and the internal states--
hence the analogy with the EPR SOURCE rather than the EPR SIGNAL. These pulses are chosen initially to make the
fluorescence signal vanish--which happens when the |e> state is unoccupied.

The experimenters start with a superposition of two coherent motion states of fixed N and fixed phase difference "phi" which
are entangled with two internal states. They do an interference experiment (I'm not quite sure how this is carried out)
and measure the amount of |e>. then they do another experiment with different phi.

Again it seems to me that each value of phi corresponds to an entirely new EPR experiment. it is as if Clauser would change his EPR light source  and run the experiment again. The results will of course be different at Bob and Alice's stations and Clauser could send them signals. But this effect  is useless for sending a signal from Bob to Alice.

Thanks for drawing this experiment to my attention. I am impressed by its subtlety. But I see no way that it can be adapted
to FTL signalling. If you see such possibilities--by all means take the ball and run with it.

You may find some inspiration for your quest in the following entangled coherent state review article by Sanders

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1112.1778

I am amazed that the person that discovered coherent states was Schrödinger!!!!! This was long before quantum field theory and Fock (number states). Even before the Born
probability interpretation for the wave function!!!! I wonder how he came to conceive of such a modern notion.. What was his motivation?

Thanks again for the LBMW paper. It taught me a lot about quantum theory and experiment.

Nick Herbert
http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com



Discussio
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120321-searching-for-a-starship/1

PS Another inaccuracy is that I never said I thought the phone calls were from a computer on board a spacecraft.
I only said that that was what the computer voice in 1953 said it was.
I suspect it was US Army Intelligence doing a project on gifted kids since I was already being studied by them since age ten or so. My grandfather was a Army employee at the time and I used to hang out at US Army Quartermaster Corps in Manhattan Garment District near the John Wannamaker building where Captain Video serial was shot. I used to watch them doing it once or twice. This was maybe 1951 or so?

On Mar 22, 2012, at 6:46 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Fantastic Sharon - great job!
One inaccuracy Creon Levit told me that it was General Pete Worden who actually made the decision to invite me not Creon. ;-)

Is a Pentagon plan for a spaceship travel outside our solar system a crackpot idea, or a visionary blueprint for reaching the stars?

When Jack Sarfatti was 13 years old, he began receiving phone calls from a strange metallic voice that told him he would someday become part of an elite group of scientists exploring uncharted territory. Those calls, which he believes may have come from a computer on a spacecraft, proved a seminal influence on his life and led him to pursue a career that combined mainstream physics with an enduring interest in UFOs and the far-out reaches of science.

For those who might dismiss Sarfatti as a crank, he is quick to point out that he is not interested in debating the reality of little green men, but rather whether the existence of UFOs might prove that the technology required for interstellar travel is possible. “It’s the physics that interests me,” says Sarfatti, who received his PhD in the subject from the University of California.

That experience, and interest, also helped make Sarfatti one of the key figures invited last year to help formulate an unusual government programme: the 100-Year Starship (100YSS).   ...

But the 100YSS is not a fringe activity started by a bunch of dreamers. It has the backing of two high-profile US agencies – the space agency Nasa and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), the US military agency that helped create the internet and satellite-based navigation. Darpa has a track record for these kinds of seemingly impossible technologies: in recent years it has sponsored attempts to develop a hypersonic aircraft and driverless cars.

But even those might pale next to the goal of sending a manned spaceship to the stars. And the agency’s willingness to embrace unconventional ideas and people – like Sarfatti – means the project divides opinion. For its backers it is a visionary blueprint for interstellar travel. For the naysayers, it is a crackpot idea with no hope of even getting off the ground.

For those who might consider a starship something of a pipedream, David Neyland, the head of the Darpa office in charge of the 100YSS, points to the agency’s ability to spur innovation in unexpected areas, an ability that has proven critical to its success. “The iPhone in your pocket is powered by cellular radio technology that came out of communications research Darpa did back in the 70s and 80s,” says Neyland. “So it is that unintended consequence of technology research that we are hoping to inspire.”

...

In January 2011, Darpa and Nasa convened a handful of people, including Sarfatti, to help shape the project. It was decided that the government would provide a modest seed fund of just $500,000 – a drop in the ocean compared to Darpa’s annual budget of about $3 billion – to a foundation that could demonstrate its ability to advance thinking on interstellar travel. Darpa believes the chosen group will then find new sources of revenue, either through commercialising technologies or private donations. And, of course, if there are a few spin-off technologies that Darpa – whose main customer is the US Department of Defense – can exploit, then all the better. ...


Nasa has since stepped back, allowing Darpa – which has even hired a public relations firm to handle publicity for the project – to take the lead. Despite that initial misstep, a conference open to the public held late last year proved popular. At a panel on breakthrough propulsion, an audience eager to hear about warp drive and faster-than-light travel spilled out of the room and into the hallway.

And no wonder, since many of the ideas sounded like they had come straight out of a Hollywood script for going where no man has gone before. Sarfatti proposed a low-power warp drive (a faster-than light propulsion system) that involves the warping of spacetime around the starship. His idea involves using new meta-materials – which change how light is refracted –  to slow the speed of light, while also creating a repulsive anti-gravity effect, creating a warp bubble surrounding the starship. This approach, Sarfatti anticipates, would break the space-time barrier, allowing the spaceship to travel beyond the speed of light in its own bubble. (A related Sarfatti proposal involves using a “quantum entanglement communicator”, which would allow the ship’s crew to speak with people back on Earth). ...


But Levit, the Nasa scientist, says these sorts of breakthrough propulsion ideas, however far-fetched, have to be considered, because they are the only way mankind could conceivably cover the vast distances to other stars.

“Nuclear fusion, if you’re willing to have a 1,000 year mission, is worth talking about,” says Levit, although even this is also an unproven technology, despite decades of effort on Earth.

“But I tend to agree with Jack [Sarfatti] on this: in order to do this, we have to have a breakthrough. We have to have a warp drive.”

Levit, who was the one who invited Sarfatti to the initial 100-Year Starship meeting, says unusual interests shouldn’t make someone off-limits. Mainstream scientists are tied down, argues Levit, and someone like Sarfatti is free to talk about ideas like antigravity propulsion without fear of repercussions on his career. “Although his interests and style are outside of the mainstream, he is a fully pedigreed physicist and he knows as much or more than mainstream physicists,” Levit says. “When he talks about warp drives, he knows what he’s talking about. He knows he’s speculating.” ...

But Levit, the Nasa scientist, says these sorts of breakthrough propulsion ideas, however far-fetched, have to be considered, because they are the only way mankind could conceivably cover the vast distances to other stars.

“Nuclear fusion, if you’re willing to have a 1,000 year mission, is worth talking about,” says Levit, although even this is also an unproven technology, despite decades of effort on Earth.

“But I tend to agree with Jack [Sarfatti] on this: in order to do this, we have to have a breakthrough. We have to have a warp drive.”

Levit, who was the one who invited Sarfatti to the initial 100-Year Starship meeting, says unusual interests shouldn’t make someone off-limits. Mainstream scientists are tied down, argues Levit, and someone like Sarfatti is free to talk about ideas like antigravity propulsion without fear of repercussions on his career. “Although his interests and style are outside of the mainstream, he is a fully pedigreed physicist and he knows as much or more than mainstream physicists,” Levit says. “When he talks about warp drives, he knows what he’s talking about. He knows he’s speculating.”



http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120321-searching-for-a-starship/1
PS Another inaccuracy is that I never said I thought the phone calls were from a computer on board a spacecraft.
I only said that that was what the computer voice in 1953 said it was.
I suspect it was US Army Intelligence doing a project on gifted kids since I was already being studied by them since age ten or so. My grandfather was a Army employee at the time and I used to hang out at US Army Quartermaster Corps in Manhattan Garment District near the John Wannamaker building where Captain Video serial was shot. I used to watch them doing it once or twice. This was maybe 1951 or so?
On Mar 22, 2012, at 6:46 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Fantastic Sharon - great job!
One inaccuracy Creon Levit told me that it was General Pete Worden who actually made the decision to invite me not Creon. ;-)
Is a Pentagon plan for a spaceship travel outside our solar system a crackpot idea, or a visionary blueprint for reaching the stars?
When Jack Sarfatti was 13 years old, he began receiving phone calls from a strange metallic voice that told him he would someday become part of an elite group of scientists exploring uncharted territory. Those calls, which he believes may have come from a computer on a spacecraft, proved a seminal influence on his life and led him to pursue a career that combined mainstream physics with an enduring interest in UFOs and the far-out reaches of science.
For those who might dismiss Sarfatti as a crank, he is quick to point out that he is not interested in debating the reality of little green men, but rather whether the existence of UFOs might prove that the technology required for interstellar travel is possible. “It’s the physics that interests me,” says Sarfatti, who received his PhD in the subject from the University of California.
That experience, and interest, also helped make Sarfatti one of the key figures invited last year to help formulate an unusual government programme: the 100-Year Starship (100YSS).   ...
But the 100YSS is not a fringe activity started by a bunch of dreamers. It has the backing of two high-profile US agencies – the space agency Nasa and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), the US military agency that helped create the internet and satellite-based navigation. Darpa has a track record for these kinds of seemingly impossible technologies: in recent years it has sponsored attempts to develop a hypersonic aircraft and driverless cars.
But even those might pale next to the goal of sending a manned spaceship to the stars. And the agency’s willingness to embrace unconventional ideas and people – like Sarfatti – means the project divides opinion. For its backers it is a visionary blueprint for interstellar travel. For the naysayers, it is a crackpot idea with no hope of even getting off the ground.
For those who might consider a starship something of a pipedream, David Neyland, the head of the Darpa office in charge of the 100YSS, points to the agency’s ability to spur innovation in unexpected areas, an ability that has proven critical to its success. “The iPhone in your pocket is powered by cellular radio technology that came out of communications research Darpa did back in the 70s and 80s,” says Neyland. “So it is that unintended consequence of technology research that we are hoping to inspire.”
...
In January 2011, Darpa and Nasa convened a handful of people, including Sarfatti, to help shape the project. It was decided that the government would provide a modest seed fund of just $500,000 – a drop in the ocean compared to Darpa’s annual budget of about $3 billion – to a foundation that could demonstrate its ability to advance thinking on interstellar travel. Darpa believes the chosen group will then find new sources of revenue, either through commercialising technologies or private donations. And, of course, if there are a few spin-off technologies that Darpa – whose main customer is the US Department of Defense – can exploit, then all the better. ...
Nasa has since stepped back, allowing Darpa – which has even hired a public relations firm to handle publicity for the project – to take the lead. Despite that initial misstep, a conference open to the public held late last year proved popular. At a panel on breakthrough propulsion, an audience eager to hear about warp drive and faster-than-light travel spilled out of the room and into the hallway.
And no wonder, since many of the ideas sounded like they had come straight out of a Hollywood script for going where no man has gone before. Sarfatti proposed a low-power warp drive (a faster-than light propulsion system) that involves the warping of spacetime around the starship. His idea involves using new meta-materials – which change how light is refracted –  to slow the speed of light, while also creating a repulsive anti-gravity effect, creating a warp bubble surrounding the starship. This approach, Sarfatti anticipates, would break the space-time barrier, allowing the spaceship to travel beyond the speed of light in its own bubble. (A related Sarfatti proposal involves using a “quantum entanglement communicator”, which would allow the ship’s crew to speak with people back on Earth). ...
But Levit, the Nasa scientist, says these sorts of breakthrough propulsion ideas, however far-fetched, have to be considered, because they are the only way mankind could conceivably cover the vast distances to other stars.
“Nuclear fusion, if you’re willing to have a 1,000 year mission, is worth talking about,” says Levit, although even this is also an unproven technology, despite decades of effort on Earth.
“But I tend to agree with Jack [Sarfatti] on this: in order to do this, we have to have a breakthrough. We have to have a warp drive.”
Levit, who was the one who invited Sarfatti to the initial 100-Year Starship meeting, says unusual interests shouldn’t make someone off-limits. Mainstream scientists are tied down, argues Levit, and someone like Sarfatti is free to talk about ideas like antigravity propulsion without fear of repercussions on his career. “Although his interests and style are outside of the mainstream, he is a fully pedigreed physicist and he knows as much or more than mainstream physicists,” Levit says. “When he talks about warp drives, he knows what he’s talking about. He knows he’s speculating.” ...
But Levit, the Nasa scientist, says these sorts of breakthrough propulsion ideas, however far-fetched, have to be considered, because they are the only way mankind could conceivably cover the vast distances to other stars.
“Nuclear fusion, if you’re willing to have a 1,000 year mission, is worth talking about,” says Levit, although even this is also an unproven technology, despite decades of effort on Earth.
“But I tend to agree with Jack [Sarfatti] on this: in order to do this, we have to have a breakthrough. We have to have a warp drive.”
Levit, who was the one who invited Sarfatti to the initial 100-Year Starship meeting, says unusual interests shouldn’t make someone off-limits. Mainstream scientists are tied down, argues Levit, and someone like Sarfatti is free to talk about ideas like antigravity propulsion without fear of repercussions on his career. “Although his interests and style are outside of the mainstream, he is a fully pedigreed physicist and he knows as much or more than mainstream physicists,” Levit says. “When he talks about warp drives, he knows what he’s talking about. He knows he’s speculating.”

Mar 22

Update on Entanglement Signals 3-21-12

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

I meant to include



which is a specific case of my more general



That I have now presented at three physics meetings

DARPA-NASA Orlando Hilton 10-1-11
SLAC APS  11-11-11
Boston APS 2-27-12

On Mar 21, 2012, at 4:22 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

g is the micro-qubit "receiver"

S are the "sender" Glauber macro-quantum coherent states.

The response at the receiver depends on the settings alpha and phi at the sender. This violates the no-signal theorems. (not FTL here, but all entanglement signals FTL or not are verboten in the "proofs" that are all spurious depending on circular logic.
as explained by Peacock

The Glauber coherent states are a loophole evading the Born probability rule, linearity and unitarity. Indeed spontaneous symmetry breaking of ground/vacuum states generates Glauber coherent states.

Ground states made from real particles.

Higgs-Goldstone vacuum states made from Glauber coherent states of virtual scalar (spin 0) bosons.

The acquisition of rest mass for leptons and quarks only uses the Glauber coherent states of these virtual scalar bosons not real scalar bosons. Also while the Goldstone phase spin 0 bosons in the trough of the Mexican Hat potential are swallowed giving mass to spin 1 massless vector bosons as in P.W. Anderson's model for the superconducting Meissner effect. The Higgs amplitude vibrational quanta up and down the sides of the Mexican Hat potential have their own rest mass that the LHC is looking for. I forget off-hand, I suppose the Yukawa couplings by which the leptons and quarks get rest mass come from the massive Higgs amplitude quanta, which the W-mesons (like the photon in the superconductor) get their mass from the massless Goldstone phase quanta? I will need to check this out.




Note also that non-radiating near EM fields, crystal lattices are made from Glauber coherent states of virtual longitudinal & transverse photons and phonons respectively - including Wilzcek's "time crystals". The static Coulomb field, for example, is made from coherent states of zero frequency f = 0 and all wave 3-vectors k in a 1/k^2 distribution from the Feynman propagator. Similarly for the space crystal ground states with f = 0 and k ~ 1/lattice unit cell space vectors. Wilzcek's time crystals are f =/= 0 with k = 0.

In contrast superconductors are Glauber coherent states of real particles, e.g. on-shell Cooper entangled electron pairs glued together by off-shell virtual phonon (collective modes of the atoms at equlibrium lattice positions..

Lasers are Glauber coherent states of real on shell transverse photons in contrast to near longitudinal and transverse fields of virtual photons also in Glauber coherent states.

Again in the ion-trap coherent COM- incoherent internal entangled states the sender and receiver are on the same world line. However, can one can try to do delayed choice and try to look for a retro-causal effect where the g-response is detected before the sender settings are chosen?

Also in principle such states can be generated and then sender and receiver separated - though not in this particular example.<EntangledGlauberPhysRevA.55.2478.pdf>

Depending on the causal order between sender and receiver measurements this may also be a model for memory of things past as well as things future in the context of the Hameroff-microtubule picture and the Viitiello-Freeman model that uses Glauber coherent states.



Mar 20
Thanks for the book The Reality of ESP Russell. :-)
While I agree with your empirical evidence for ESP especially BACK FROM THE FUTURE (retro-causal) signaling, I have never really been able to understand your complex relativity model to explain it. I think the theory for remote viewing hinges on the entanglement signal nonlocality issue wonderfully summarized in the Peacock paper that Ruth Kastner sent me.


My own thoughts on how it all works is here http://journalofcosmology.com/SarfattiConsciousness.pdf


On Mar 19, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Russell Targ wrote:

Dear Jack,
The on-going no-signaling arguments seem to me to fly in the face of existing data.

Elizabeth Rauscher and I published a paper in the Proceedings of the First Retro causality Conference, which you have.
It dealt with the question of the speed of thought in remote viewing experiments.

Can we measure the speed of a signal traveling from a hostage in Iran to a viewer in California?
No! That velocity is undefined, if we get the signal before the event takes place.

In designing such an experiment, we realized that there is abundant experimental evidence that the perceiver (remote viewer) in California will frequently be aware of events which have not yet happened to the poor hostage.
For example, in this case where we did not know anything about our target person. The viewer saw him walking out of a dark basement in poor physical condition, and flying on a plane to Germany.  That was recorded and handed to our Navy sponsor two days before Ambassador Richard Queen was released because of MS, by the Iranian hostage takers.
Elizabeth and I realized that the time it took for that signal to reach us was minus two days, yielding a negative velocity.
From two decades of remote viewing, all researchers are confident that it is no more difficult to describe event that is a few days in the future, than one which is contemporaneous. We published these data for the first time in our IEEE paper in 1976.
Yours in science,
Russ




Mar 18

Begin forwarded message:
From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: dubious about sender control over phi PS
Date: March 17, 2012 6:55:11 PM PDT
To: REK
The no signaling theorem (NST) is violated by
P(g) = (1/2)(1 + |(alpha|alphae^iphi)|^2)
NST demands
P(g) = 1/2
Here are the full details of my calculation for a macro-quantum coherent Glauber state sender Alice entangled with a micro-quantum incoherent single qubit receiver Bob:


this is independent of the space-time interval separating detection of g from the choice of alpha and phi .


True, one cannot send FTL signals with entanglement using the ions in the Paul trap - unless somehow we can add a teleportation link. You have not considered that at all yet.
I accept that what you wrote here:
"(c) The selective dipole force of the coherent displacement beams excited the motion correlated with the |e> component to a state |alpha>". This is only possible if one has direct access to both components since one is selectively exciting only the motional state correlated with |e>."
is true in the ion-trap measurements, but it is still not a two point correlation in the sense of Aspect's measurements because data only from the internal qubit system teleported to Bob will allow Bob to see the message encoded by Sam-Alice without asking Sam-Alice for a secondary key. True this may not be FTL as yet, but even if inside the light cone the NST forbids it.
So again, my point is NOT that the ion-trap data shows FTL signals, but that it shows STL entanglement signals. All entanglement signals FTL, STL or retro-causal are verboten in the general NST.
The general NST says that given an entangled whole, no local measurement on one part of the whole, by itself, can depend on any controllable parameters on another part of the whole. That is, all such functional dependence must be erased locally and can only be decoded in hindsight with a secondary classical signal key that permits a correlation computation.
Begin forwarded message:
From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: dubious about sender control over phi
Date: March 17, 2012 6:49:47 PM PDT
To: REK
On Mar 17, 2012, at 4:17 PM, REKer wrote:
Again in the ion trap experiment it's not Alice that is manipulating phi or n but  what I'm calling 'Sam' (for 'source') in the form of phase-locked rf beams that manipulate the entire system:
That may be the case for that particular system, but that does not matter in the general case. What matters is that the local response depends on controllable parameters from the other end of the system. This itself is not possible in the no signal theorems. One can imagine that Sam and Alice are one and the same or very close together and that Bob is far away. Of course, that is not true for the trapped ion system, but that is not my point.
"The relative phases [phi and the phases of steps (b), (d), and (f)] of the steps above were controlled by phase locking the rf sources that created the frequency splitting of the Raman or displacement beams, respectively", just above eq (145)"
Fine, let that be Sam doing that and putting whatever message he wants in the time record for alpha and phi. That message is locally decodable by Bob only looking at his local measurements of the internal qubit. Bob does not have to communicate with Sam to unlock the message. The output from the internal quibts can be sent by any classical signal directly to Bob who can see the message without the key. At this point it does not matter that this communication is limited by light speed at all. That is a separate issue. The point of no signaling is not FTL, but that no kind of entanglement signaling even slower than light is possible. This is wrong - that's my point.
"The Raman beams clearly operate on the entire composite system according to their description.
And is also set by an operation on the composite system:
"(c) The selective dipole force of the coherent displacement beams excited the motion correlated with the |e> component to a state |alpha>". This is only possible if one has direct access to both components since one is selectively exciting only the motional state correlated with |e>. This means that the state |e> has to be distinguished from |g> in order to make that correlation. This is a local process, not something that Alice could do when spacelike separated from Bob.
It looks to me like steps (a) through (f) are all operations on the entire composite system.  I'm not saying that it's impossible for a sender Alice to modulate phi or n, but according to the article it is operations on the entire composite system space that are modulating phi and/or n.
What you are calling my 'intuitive' arguments are my attempts to make sure that your *physical* interpretation of the mathematics is consistent. Just because you see Alice's parameters changing does not mean that Alice can do this without causal access to Bob's system.  If you can really find a way for the sender only to modulate Phi or then you'd have something. But that's not what's being done in this experiment.

You are focusing too much on this example. What you don't seem to get is that any kind of entanglement signal is forbidden by the proofs. Getting outside the light cone is the next step - not the trapped ion system of course.
RK
On Mar 17, 2012, at 4:17 PM, REK  wrote:
Again in the ion trap experiment it's not Alice that is manipulating phi or n but  what I'm calling 'Sam' (for 'source') in the form of phase-locked rf beams that manipulate the entire system:

________________________________________
On Mar 17, 2012, at 10:59 AM, REK wrote:
What you have shown in your calculations is that the reduced density operator of the internal energy subspace is not necessarily proportional to the identity and that its form depends on phi.  But the fact that the reduced density matrix of the energy subspace can be different from the identity  doesn't necessarily mean that some sender Alice (the motion degree of freedom) can alter something in the receiver Bob's (energy levels) subspace.

On the contrary I think it obviously does. Alice can manipulate phi as a function of time and that is a message that Bob sees locally without needing a classical signal key from Bob. I think Leibfried is explicit on how they control phi in order to get Fig 16 - will find that text later today. ;-)
Also you have forgotten that not only do they control Alice's relative phase phi but they also control Alice's signal intensity = |alpha|^2 they have four distinct intensities 0.84, 1.20, 1.92 & 2.97 as will as MANY phase phi DATA points - look closely at the graphs. This is obvious proof of precise control for both intensity and phase modulation of a message.