Text Size


Mar 17

Saint Paddy's Day 3-17-2012

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 


Mar 15

  2. On Mar 15, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Dean Radin wrote:

    I thought you were way too polite in your comment. Their failure to include the successful experiments in their report was an egregious violation of Wiseman's written promise to meta-analyze all of the registered studies. What's the point of registering a study in advance if you end up ignoring those you don't like?

    best wishes,

    On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Daryl J. Bem <d.bem@cornell.edu> wrote:
    I haven't responded to this particular piece, but I notice that some of the comments following French's column quote from or link to my comment on the PLoS ONE website itself in response to the Ritchie, Wiseman, French article.

    You can download my comment directly from my dropbox:  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8290411/Comment%20on%20Failing%20the%20Future.pdf

    I decided to be polite in my comment, but theirfailure to even mention the 2 successful replications pre-registered on Wiseman's own replication registry borders on dishonesty.  When people talk about the Filedrawer problem, they never focus on how some skeptics suppress or ignore successful studies that go against their biases.  The first task in writing an  empirical article is a literature review of previous similar experiments. 


    On Mar 15, 2012, at 5:22 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

    "As can be seen from our published report in PLoS ONE, none of us produced results that supported the effect reported by Bem (neither did Eric Robinson in a paper published in July 2011 in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research). Our failure to replicate Bem's results will, no doubt, not come as a surprise to many readers as they will have assumed from the outset that the alleged paranormal effect was not real. Indeed, many commentators strongly criticised the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology for publishing Bem's paper in the first place, though it had been put through the same peer review process as other submissions."

    Dear Daryl have you responded to this yet. :-)

Mar 15

Update on Entanglement Signals 3-15-12

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
The 2003 Rev Mod Phys paper by Leibfried on trapped ions has the entanglement coherent phase signal I calculated in general in my three talks 10-1-11 DARPA-NASA Star Ship Orlando Hilton, 11-1-11 SLAC APS Stanford University, & 2-27-12 Boston APS. However, both the sender and receiver are Siamese Twins, i.e. the phase coherent center of mass motion of the trapped ion as the sender and an internal qubit of the same ion as the receiver. Nevertheless,  orthodox quantum theory says the signal output of the qubit should be uncontrollable random noise 1/2 in proper units. In fact there is a non-random signal in the real data that obeys my general equation! So it's a first step. We may need to use quantum teleportation to get the sender and receiver spatially separated - another problem. Also, even if the sender and receiver are on the same ion can the sender act back from the future on the receiver as in the brain presponse reported by several independent people Libet -> Radin -> Bierman -> Bem.
Mar 14


Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

On Mar 14, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Kim Burrafato wrote:

What's that mean as far as your work?

On Mar 14, 2012, at 3:16 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:



the ion-trap stuff is very relevant Nick is making a clown of himself on that one - even though sender and receiver are stuck together at same location, the fact that ionic CENTER OF MASS motion is FAITHFULLY IMAGED in the RECEIVER signal from the SAME ION'S internal qubit violates orthodox quantum theory that says the image should be completely random without a correlation check.

who does he think he is, Niels Bohr? ;-)

nonlocal phase-modulated signals with nano-mechanical oscillator coherent state-atomic qubit entanglement? - progress update

On Mar 13, 2012, at 3:44 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Note, in this case signal strength S to detect the atomic qubit receiver B in state |g> or |e> from the trapped ion nano-mechanical oscillator sender A - of course the trick will be to get a system in which A and B can be spatially separated.

SB(g or e) ~ e^-<n>A[1 - cos(phiA)]

take the difference

<n>A = |alpha|^2

The message is in the function phi(t)

Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions
D. Leibfried
University of Colorado and National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder,
Colorado 80305-3328

Mar 13

Sixth Sense DESTINY MATRIX Virtual Reality

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
'SixthSense' is a wearable gestural interface that augments the physical world around us with digital information and lets us use natural hand gestures to interact with that information.      

Slavoj Žižek’s advice to you: ‘Learn, learn, & learn’ –
Posted by Khephra on Mar 12, 2010 in Critical Analysis, Provocations |  View Comments

Embedding, unfortunately, is currently disabled for this clip; but see here for a Question & Answer session with Slavoj Žižek, held at the University of Vermont in November of 2009. The topic of his lecture had been “Ideology in Hollywood Today”, and the Q&A began by focusing on the relevance of learning how to be smart critics of ideology.
Early in the session Žižek claims that ‘there are so many things happening today that undermine … our basic perception of what it means to be a human being.’ He then goes on to share his enthusiasm for SixthSense, a technology that could be ubiquitous in the developed world within a matter of years. And there are dozens – if not hundreds or thousands! – of ‘breakthrough’ technologies looming on the horizon. The iPad, for all its faults, will inspire all sorts of competition in a market that’s been woefully moribund. Or, for the home entertainment enthusiast, there’s 3D theatre equipment. The technology is still in its infancy and the initial offerings are unlikely to make much market penetration, but with additional development it could take home media into fully-immersed virtual reality. But that’s hypothetical and contingent on future development, whereas SixthSense is currently beginning production. ...


SixthSense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sixthsense is a wearable gestural interface device by Pranav Mistry, a PhD student ... TED Talks - Pranav Mistry: The thrilling potential of SixthSense technology ...


SixthSense - a wearable gestural interface (MIT Media Lab)

The GCTs connect "points" (field configurations & colliding test particles) on the same GAUGE ORBIT.

 "Frefos" (Susskind) if they are LIFs non-rotating on timelike geodesics, otherwise they are "fidos" (Susskind) either translationally accelerating and/or rotating about their centers of mass.
The local Euler-Lagrange equations of motion from the global action principle are now covariant under all pair-wise COINCIDENT local frame transformations no matter what the motion of each local frame detector is (as long as its inside local light cone).
The vacuum solution need not have this symmetry. That's spontaneous broken symmetry with Goldstone-Higgs bosons. However, the GCT invariant gravity fields themselves, i.e. tetrads and spin-connections are induced spin 1 LOCAL gauge fields. One gets spin 2 from pairwise entangled spin 1 pairs. So the guy who wrote that gravitons are Goldstone bosons got his ideas garbled I think. There are Goldstone bosons in emergent gravity, but I don't think they are gravitons. They may give rest mass to some gravitons like in the W-boson and superconducting photon cases.
Gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong interaction are ALL induced local gauge spin 1 vector fields from different symmetry Lie groups. Einstein's metric tensor gravity is a composite structure.
Indeed, the gauge vector bosons are themselves entangled pairs of Penrose-Rindler-Newman 2-spinor Wheeler-Feynman advanced and retarded QUBITS as in Wheeler's
Massless Goldstone phase quanta and massive Higgs amplitude quanta in spontaneous broken "superconducting" vacua are different, though they may interact with the gauge vector bosons and the spinor leptons and quarks.
Redundant excess mathematical noise that obscures the physical signal. It's true, but it makes no difference to anything of physical interest.
What's PHYSICALLY important is that GCTs are just GAUGE changes of appearance of the same objective reality OUT THERE relative to COINCIDENT accelerating non-geodesic detectors. It's exactly like in special relativity, except now the frames can accelerate and rotate and now they need to be small and COINCIDENT even if they look at same far-away quasar through a gravity lens like in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment.

Mar 10

Entanglement Nonlocal Signals

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:30 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

 above case of Messina's paper this is

P(1)B = (1/2)(1 + e^-2<n(t)>A)

P(0)B = (1/2)(1 + e^-2<n(t)>A)

Of course, if one continues to think of this as Born probability, ad-hoc renormalization gives 1/2, 1/2 same as in ordinary QM.

i.e. take

P'(1)B = P(1)B/[P(1)B + P(0)B] = 1/2

But the whole point here is that the Goldstone "phase rigidity" (P.W. Anderson's "More is different") of the Glauber coherent states is a complete breakdown of the Born probability rule. The P's above are not probabilities but are relative signal strengths and do not have to be renormalized to conserve probability.

The Glauber states are eigenstates of a non-Hermitian operator. The rule that quantum observables must be Hermitian operators is violated in this case. In addition Glauber states emerge from spontaneous symmetry breakdown - in this case a U1 symmetry relating boson number and conjugate phase. Indeed, the Glauber states are order parameters - displaced from the ordinary boson vacuum in phase space. Their time evolution is not unitary.
#2 For the moment consider the Levi-Civita metric connection { } rather than the spin connection. It has no torsion and it preserves the lengths of vectors in parallel transport. Suppressing indices with X as the General Coordinate (Gauge) Transformation (GCT) of T4(x):

{ } --> { }' = XXX{ } + Xd'X

d' is not the Cartan d here

The first term on the RHS is the usual third rank GCT tensor transformation.

The second term is the spoiler.

Similarly for the spin-connection S 1-form under Lorentz transformations L of SO1,3

S ---> S' = LLS + LdL

here d is the Cartan exterior derivative & L is a 0-form, S & S' are 1-forms.

S is not an anti-symmetric 2nd rank SO1,3 tensor, though it is a GCT4(x) local scalar gauge invariant.

Note that it's the GLOBAL Lie algebra of T4 that entails the LOCAL matter field source --- Tuv(matter) in Einstein's field equation.

Similarly, adding torsion means that the orbital + spin angular momentum current densities should be a source for a new set of field equations not found in Einstein 1916 GR. This extension (Einstein-Cartan) was done by TWB Kibble in 1961. One can go further and use the entire 15 parameter conformal group and also replace the Poincare sub-group by the de Sitter group with a positive cosmological constant that is the inverse area-entropy of our future cosmological event horizon. Gravity in its fullness is the induced compensating gauge connection of the largest universal spacetime symmetry group - that may be partially spontaneously broken in the vacuum. Conformal dilation invariance is spontaneously broken - massive Higgs amplitude- massless Goldstone phase particles etc.

Returning to

{ } --> { }' = XXX{ } + Xd'X

This is a gauge transformation for the SAME objectively real gravitational field. It represents the two different appearances of that  SAME invariant gravity field seen by TWO LOCALLY COINCIDENT NON-INERTIAL ("fido") FRAME (LNIF) observers measuring the same processes. Each LNIF experiences g-force caused by some non-gravity force. Indeed, there is no such thing as a gravity force according to Einstein's equivalence principle. Therefore, trying to unify gravity as a force with the electro-weak-strong forces should give one pause.

The difference { } - { }' is NEVER a GCT tensor, in fact it is the contingent Xd'X definitely not a GCT tensor.

However, and this is completely independent from the above sentence, the most general connection from locally gauging larger and larger universal spacetime symmetry groups up to the conformal group is of the form

Connection = {LC} + torsion tensor + nonmetricity tensor + ....

i.e. third rank GCT tensors.

Finally the Einstein equivalence principle EEP means that there is a TETRAD transformation T the physically connects COINCIDENT LIF ("frefos") with LNIF ("fidos") such that

{LNIF} ---> TTT{LNIF} + Td'T = 0

From this one concludes that { } does not contain a non-zero GCT third rank tensor piece.

Proof - reducto ad absurdum

Suppose there was such a tensor B =/= 0

{LNIF} = B + {LNIF}*

TTTB + TTT{LNIF}* + Td'T = 0


TTTB = - TTT{LNIF}* + Td'T    (1)

But this is a self-contradiction, because there exists a second T' such that

T'T'T'TTT{LNIF}* + T'T'T'TdT + T'd'T' = 0

on the RHS of (1)

On the other hand the LHS of (1) is a non-zero tensor that must transform as T'T'T'TTTB =/ = 0

Hence the LHS =/= 0 whilst the RHS = 0.