Text Size

Stardrive

My Original Ideas

 

I make Popper falsifiable[i] original predictions in this book: Dark matter[ii] detectors will fail to register true signals because dark matter is caused by virtual particles inside the quantum vacuum not real particles outside the vacuum whizzing through space. Trying to find real dark matter particles is like Michelson and Morley in 1887 trying to detect the motion of Earth through the aether with their interferometer.[iii] A preponderance of virtual spin ½ fermion-antifermion pairs over virtual spin 1 boson pairs creates the net gravity attraction of dark matter that mimics cold dark matter real particles. Dark energy is the opposite.

 

I also claim to have essentially solved the mind-matter “hard problem.” I used David Bohm’s picture of quantum theory. The non-relativistic limit is valid for biological physics. I postulate that Bohm’s quantum information field called the quantum potential Q that pilots particles and electromagnetic fields is essentially “mental” or “thoughtlike” (Henry P. Stapp) with the particles and electromagnetic fields as “matter” in the common sense way of thinking. Orthodox quantum theory, that I will call “special quantum theory” in analogy with Einstein’s “special theory of relativity,” obeys the “no-signal theorem” in its several guises. This means that nonlocal quantum entanglement, now a powerful resource in applied physics of imaging, cryptography etc., cannot be used as a stand-alone command-control-communication-channel C4. Yes, one can encode a complex message nonlocally in a spatially extended entangled quantum system, like the electron switches inside the protein dimers in the microtubules of our brains in the Stuart Hameroff model, for example, but we cannot decrypt the spread-out coded message without light-speed limited classical signal keys. I say that our consciousness violates this restriction and the theory that explains it is, in analogy with Einstein’s general theory of relativity of the gravitational field - “general quantum theory.” Antony Valentini has published papers on “general” quantum theory where he introduces the idea of “signal nonlocality” in a more formal way than I did and Brian Josephson did independently before him. I claim that evidence for signal nonlocality is found in the independent “brain presponse” data of several experimental scientists, Ben Libet, Dean Radin, Dick Bierman, and most recently Cornell’s Daryl Bem in his paper “Feeling the Future.” Technically, the special quantum theory taught in school is linear and unitary provided that “strong” measurements are not made in between the time evolution of the quantum system. General quantum theory is nonlinear and non-unitary. Both of these properties can arise in different ways. Spontaneous symmetry breaking of the ground state of complex systems is one way. General quantum systems, it seems, must be open systems pumped far from thermodynamic equilibrium like Ilya Prigogine’s “dissipative structures.” David Bohm with Basil Hiley showed that the no-signal property of special quantum theory comes from the violation of Einstein’s philosophical “action-reaction principle” that forms the essence of his general theory of relativity of the gravitational field. In special relativity, the four-dimensional spacetime continuum pilots the real force-free “geodesic” motion of particles and field configurations without any direct back-reaction of those piloted particles and fields on the spacetime-continuum. That is, the space-time continuum acts without being reacted upon directly! Einstein found this to be repugnant to his intuition of how God should have created the universe. Indeed, Wolfgang Pauli quipped that Einstein should stop telling God what to do. Einstein transformed the spacetime continuum from an absolute object into a relative object the geometrodynamical field in which the particles and non-gravity fields back-react directly producing curvature of the spacetime continuum. Indeed, such curvature permits time travel to the past as well as global faster than light messaging through traversable “stargate” wormholes that are the other side of the quantum entanglement coin where ER = EPR. Note, that locally, the message-signal travels slower than light inside the wormhole. It is faster than light only to observers outside the wormhole. So we have to borrow from John Archibald Wheeler “faster-than-light without faster-than-light.” The no-signal theorem of special quantum theory corresponds to wormholes with event horizons that pinch off before a message or traveller can get through the warped space tunnel. Anti-gravitating amplified dark energy holds the wormhole open. General quantum theory violating the no-signal theorem of special quantum theory depends on the dark energy that is about 68% of all the stuff in the universe. Now there are the naysayers who discount all this. However, because of the UFO evidence, I take the position in this book of “Damn the photon torpedoes, full warp ahead.”  One other point, Einstein’s equivalence principle allows artificial “non-tidal” gravity even in special relativity. We experience artificial gravity without curvature when we are at rest in accelerating reference frames called “non-inertial frames.” Real gravity fields correspond to hovering in a “stretch-squeeze” Weyl “tidal” curvature field. However, even in such a real gravity field with curvature, we can eliminate its “non-tidal” artificial gravity component by freely falling weightless on a timelike geodesic that is inside our local light cone. The light cone is the essential object in both special and general relativity. Now let’s return to the hard problem of our immediate experience of the “Now” in our consciousness called “qualia” by the mind-matter philosophers. I say that “qualia” are generated in our minds as immediate experiences from the direct back-reactions of the charged particles and electromagnetic fields in our brain on a macroscopically coherent quantum potential Q mental pilot field. Our conscious experiences, qualia, are simply excited states out of the ground state of our Q-field. The Q-field emerges from spontaneous symmetry breaking of a dissipative structure in our brains. Topological computing also probably plays an essential role because it is robust against thermal environmental decoherence. This would be a off-equilibrium biological version of the fractional quantum Hall effect in 2D nano-quantum wells with the braid group of anyonic fractional quantum statistics replacing the spin-statistics connection of 3D quantum systems. Indeed, the wrapping of the protein dimers around the microtubules inside our nerve cells is, it seems to my intuition, such a 2D nano-quantum well structure. Summarizing, the analogy of real tidal gravity curvature to conscious qualia is profound.

 

There are two kinds of Stephen Hawking black body radiation[iv]from black holes and our two past and future cosmological horizons that define the edges of our observable universe. Hawking’s original prediction was from low energy horizon surface area modes of vibration. The new higher energy radiation is from the quantum uncertainty thickness of these horizons. In particular, the black hole horizons are heat engines doing work whose outer regions pump out beams of particles.

 

·            Dark energy accelerating the expansion rate of the three-dimensional space of our universe, itself maybe a back-from-the-future hologram image, is redshifted advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking black body radiation with negative energy density.  Retarded radiation from past obeys the Feynman propagator boundary condition that positive energy propagates forward in time, while negative energy propagates backward in time. I postulate here, the mirror image anti-Feynman boundary condition for back-from the future advanced radiation: that negative energy propagates forward in time, while positive energy propagates backwards in time.  Therefore, even though w = + 1/3 for real black body thermalized photons they generate universally repulsive anti-gravity.  The cosmological expansion of space makes a blue shift for back-from-the-future advanced radiation, but it’s a very small correction to the enormously larger gravity redshift from our future dark energy de Sitter cosmological event horizon that may well be the holographicHawking Brain/Brane of God, whose software is his “Mind of God.” Indeed, the Hawking radiation energy density is the actuallyobserved hc/ALp2 where A is the area-entropy of the observer-dependent future cosmic horizon. A ~ 10124 quantum bits of information. In general quantum theory we have entanglement signal nonlocality, which makes the Brane of God conscious in my opinion – take it, or leave it.[v]

·            One of the most important principles in modern theoretical physics is that of local gauge invariance used in conjunction with the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking of the lowest energy state called the quantum vacuum for virtual particles and the quantum ground state for real particles. The “God Particle” of Peter Higgs found in the CERN LHC in Geneva, Switzerland, that gives rest masses to spin ½ fermion leptons and quarks as well as weak force spin 1 vector bosons is an example of the former. The persistent electric currents in quantized magnetized superconducting rings are an example of the latter. The equations of local gauge invariance that explain all the real forces of electromagnetism, weak and strong interactions are presented in text books as formal mathematical tricks without any immediate physical meaning. I have recently discovered their physical meaning. I have connected the pure mathematics of local gauge transformations to Einstein’s “objects of experience.” The simplest case is that of electromagnetism from the internal symmetry U1 unitary Lie group of continuous phase transformations. The electromagnetic field potential A transforms to A + (hc/e)d.  Of course, h is the Planck’s quantum of action and c is the speed of light in vacuum.  Everyone knows that  is the quantum phase of, for example, the electron test charge e’s wave function , whose rest mass m is induced by the Higgs vacuum superconductor field that presumably forms in the moment of inflation Alpha Point creation of our universe in the quantum phase transition from a false to the “true” vacuum. The total linear momentum of the charge coincident with the electromagnetic field A is the canonical momentum P

 

P = mV + (e/c)A

 

The gauge transformation keeps the canonical momentum P invariant. It does not change because from the Schrodinger quantum equation of motion

 

mV à mV - hdf

 

(e/c)A à (e/c)A + hdf

 

suddenly dawned on me that hdf is simply the linear momentum transfer Dp between the test charge and the electromagnetic field it is in local contact with. This is a near field electrical contact force caused by the exchange of a virtual photon whose momentum is simply hdf. Indeed, from Fourier analysis it is easily shown that the virtual photon has longitudinal polarization pointing in the same direction as its linear momentum. Let me remind the physicist reader that virtual particles do not obey Einstein’s “mass shell” constraint between energy and momentum. That is, unlike the case for real particles excited out of the vacuum, the equation

 

E2 = c2P2 + (mc2)2

 

Is violated for virtual particles.  Since Dp = hdf cancels out in an elementary exchange, DP/ds = 0 and DE/ds = 0 separately in such an exchange that takes time Dt. The local contact force per elementary exchange is

 

hdf/Dt  ~ - (e/c)DA/ds ~ ectric field)

 

Where

 

DE Dt < h.

 

The action-reaction principle in this case in the form of linear momentum conservation and Noether’s theorem connecting conservation laws with continuous symmetries of dynamical fields is trivially obeyed locally without any need for the astrological belief called Mach’s Principle that inertial resistance to off-geodesic pushes by real forces in Newton’s second law of particle mechanics comes from the far away stars as suggested by Dennis Sciama and promoted by James Woodward and others. Einstein may be forgiven for flirting with Mach’s Principle in his struggle to create general relativity. He eventually rejected it as no more than a useful psychological crutch in his creative process. This same idea will work for the SU2 weak real force as well as the SU3 strong real force. Real forces push slower than light massive test particles off the timelike geodesics of the gravitational field in contrast to fictitious forces that are actually the non-tidal curvature-free part of the gravitational field itself! This is what the equivalence principle demands.

 

Amazingly enough, local gauge invariance also works for the proper off-geodesic accelerations of test particles in the gravitational field rather than the linear momenta of test particles being measured by those detectors. The key idea of gravity is that of the geodesic, which is longest proper time path connecting two events in Einstein’s unified four-dimensional spacetime continuum. That is, all neighboring paths that have the same starting and ending events have smaller proper times. This is an example of the “Action Principle” that is a key organizing idea of all theoretical physics. Clocks moving on these paths, called “world lines” measure proper time. Proper time is the amount you age if you are on that world line journey. Indeed, this explains why your twin who is abducted by an evil extra-terrestrial is much younger than you when they return him as in Francis Ford Coppola’s “4400” sci fi TV series for example.  The proper acceleration of a test particle is DV/ds where V is the “four-velocity” of the test particle relative to some detector at the origin of a local frame of reference.  In general, using my symbolic short hand without tensor indices to keep it as simple as possible, without being simpler than is possible (Einstein paraphrase):

 

DV/ds = dV/ds – {LNIF}(VV)

 

Where the symbol {LNIF} describes the detector at the origin of the local frame, in this case a “Local Non-Inertial-Frame.”  It’s also called the “Christoffel symbol”, the “Levi-Civita connection” and the “affine metric connection with zero torsion.” Mathematically it describes, “parallel transport” of geometric objects in a tangent fiber bundle whose base space is Einstein’s world spacetime continuum.  Physically it encodes all the fictitious forces on the observed test object Eve caused by real forces on the detector at the origin of the local frame of reference, either Alice or Bob’s. For example, {LNIF} could describe a rotating frame or a frame with translational proper off-geodesic acceleration, or both at once.  Any object, is on an off-geodesic world line only if an external real (EM-weak-strong) force acts on it. This is Newton’s second law of motion. Newton’s first law of motion is simply the “geodesic equation” that if no real forces act, the massive object moves along a timelike geodesic that is independent of the mass of the object. In this case, we assume that the mass of the object is not changing as it would in a rocket or jet ejecting mass in the exhaust.

 

We now consider a physical local frame transformation. Suppose Alice is measuring Eve’s motion. Also imagine that Bob is momentarily coincident with Alice and they both measure Eve’s motion with radars. Remember now, that Eve, Alice and Bob all with rest masses are each independently on arbitrary timelike world lines. Eve’s world line need not be close to Alice’s and Bob’s since they measure Eve’s motion with light signals. However, Alice and Bob must be physically near each other and must make their measurements of Eve almost simultaneously in order to test Einstein’s general relativity field equations. The local frame transformation between coincident Alice and Bob is X. The Christoffel symbol then transforms as

 

{LNIF}A à {LNIF}B = XX-1X-1{LNIF} A + X-1X-1dX

 

VA à VB = XVA

 

{LNIF}(VV)A à XX-1X-1 {LNIF}XX(VV)A + X-1X-1XX(VV)AdX

 

= X{LNIF}(VV)A + (VV)A dX

 

dVA/ds à dVB/ds = XdVA/ds – (VV)A dX

 

Just as the exchanged virtual photon momentum transfer hdfDt cancels out in the local electrical U1 contact gauge force for coincident fermion charge and spin 1 boson field, so does the gravity gauge transformation term (VV)AdX cancel out leaving the first rank tensor transformation

 

DVA/ds à DVB/ds = XdVA/ds

 

What is the physical meaning of the gravity gauge term dX(VV)A?

Obviously, it is the proper acceleration difference between coincident Alice and Bob.  Einstein’s equivalence principle tells us that a frame with proper acceleration is the same as a frame at rest in a non-tidal Newtonian gravity field. Because of the Unruh effect, it corresponds to the momentum of a macro-quantum coherent Glauber state of near field virtual spin 2 gravitons with momentum  (h/c2)dX(VV)A

 

I was much enthralled with John Archibald Wheeler’s geometrodynamics back in the late 1960s when I was a very young assistant professor of physics at San Diego State with Fred Alan Wolf who was an associate professor. Wheeler modeled the electron as a tiny wormhole with closed lines of quantized electric flux lines threading it. The quantization of electric charge was then trivially explained from the single-valuedness on the wormhole’s quantum wave function around a closed loop exactly like the quantization of magnetic flux vortices in Type II superconductors and the magnetic flux through superconducting rings carrying persistent currents. The electric flux entering one of the two wormhole mouths of the Einstein-Rosen bridge would be a tiny Kerr-Newman black hole pure vacuum black hole with negative electric charge from Gauss’s theorem. The flux leaving the other mouth in possibly a different parallel universe would have positive electric charge and would be a white hole. What we didn’t know back then, but what we know now some forty plus years later is that the white hole mouth is unstable while the black hole mouth is stable. Therefore, we have a trivial explanation for the C-charge violation, why we do not see anti-matter in the universe.  One major problem, if we want to explain the rest of the lepton and the quarks this way, is that Newton’s gravity G is too small. I should add, that quarks were not totally accepted back then. Geoffrey Chew’s analytic S-Matrix was also a competitor. Gerard t’ Hooft had not yet showed the renormalizability of Yang-Mills gauge theories and the role of spontaneous symmetry breaking of the vacuum giving a “superconducting” order parameter for the SU2 weak force. This order parameter was described by Glauber macro-quantum coherent states of virtual massive Higgs and virtual massless Goldstone quanta forming a spin 0 cosmic field that gives rest masses to the weak spin 1 boson of the radioactive weak force as well as rest mass to the spin ½ leptons and quarks.  Abdus Salam had introduced the idea of f-gravity with a strong force massive graviton. This gave a strong short-range gravity on the scale of a Fermi that was forty powers of ten stronger than Newton’s gravity at short scales. I immediately realized that Salam’s idea naturally explained why the slopes of all the Regge trajectories for hadronic resonances were parallel to each other in the plot of their spins against the square of their masses seen in the peaks in the resonance scattering cross sections. The hadrons were little black holes. Their Hawking radiation would explain their decay times.  Salam was excited by my discovery and he invited me to his Institute for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy 1973-4. My old idea has recently been rediscovered in 2013. I also got the idea that EPR quantum entanglement was the other face of the same coin describing the wormhole ER. That is, the two mouths of the wormhole connected by a stringy tunnel described, for example, an entangled electron-positron pair. Lenny Susskind and I knew each other at Cornell in 1963-5 and he rediscovered this idea not long ago.  We now know that all the no-go theorems of quantum information theory, which prohibit faster-then-light messaging, correspond to the pinch off of the wormholes with event horizon mouths when signals try to get through them. However, we also now know that the anti-gravitating dark energy permits traversable “stargate” wormholes whose mouths are not event horizons. Therefore, signals can get through them not only faster-than-light, but also even back-from-the-future in time. 

 



[i] The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of scienceKarl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience. This is often epitomized in Wolfgang Pauli famously saying, of an argument that fails to be scientific because it cannot be falsified by experiment, "it is not only not right, it is not even wrong!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

[ii] Dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized in astronomy and cosmology to account for a large part of the mass that appears to be missing from the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light.[1] Instead, the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

 

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mistakes-Human-Failings-Genius/dp/0393337685
 
 
On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:20 PM, Jack Sarfatti <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:

Page 8 chapter 3rd paragraph down

"The notion has gotten abroad since the advent of general relativity that inertia - the property of the massive objects that makes them resist acceleration by external forces - does not involve force."

Jim gives no reference in the literature back up this statement which to me seems totally bizarre red herring no one actually says anything like that.

He then goes on to make some obscure unintelligible remark about inertial forces.

In fact Einstein's general relativity says nothing at all about the origin of inertia where by the word "inertia" we mean resistance to external force.

That Einstein may have initially thought there was a connection is irrelevant because his final equations showed that there was no such connection after all.

Indeed, the role of the gravitational field is to provide force-free motions - the geodesics.
 
F^u = DP^u/ds = DmV^u/ds   is Newton's 2nd law of test particle motion.
 
m = "inertia" as resistance to proper tensor acceleration a^u = DV^u/ds measured locally with an accelerometer clamped to the test particle.
 
dV^u/ds = kinematical acceleration measured not locally with light signals using a Doppler radar located at the origin of the frame of reference. 
 
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v
 
DV^u/ds = dV^u/ds - G^uvwV^vV^w
 
V^u = dx^u/ds  4-velocity of test particle relative to detector separated on a scale small compared to radii of curvature of spacetime if present.
 
Assume dm/ds = 0 for now.
 
G^uvw = G^uwv = symmetric torsionless Levi-Civita-Christoffel metric connection which includes ALL inertial forces.
 
G^uvw = 0 at the origin of a LIF, which by Einstein's historical definition is always in Cartesian coordinates
 
ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2  for flat spacetine
 
where dt, dx, dy, dz have "immediate metrical significance" Einstein
 
Therefore, in Cartesian coordinates (inertial frame):
 
F^u = mdV^u/ds
 
F^u is a real force (primarily electromagnetic)
 
All fictitious "inertial" pseudo-forces (centrifugal, Coriolis ....) are zero.
 
Note if you use
 
ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dr^2 - r^2(d@^2 + sin^2@d&^2)  for flat spacetime
 
@ = latitude (polar angle)
 
& = longitude (azimuthal angle)
 
g00 = 1
 
g11 = - 1
 
g22 = - r^2
 
g33 = - r^2sin^2@
 
x^0 = ct
 
x^1  = r
 
x^2 = @
 
x^3 = &
 
these are coordinate labels not powers
 
The only non-vanishing Levi-Civita Christoffel symbols here are:
 
G^122 = - r
 
G^233 = - sin@cos@
 
G^133 = - r sin^2@
 
G^313 = 1/r
 
G^323 = cot@
 
DV^1/ds = dV^1/ds - 2G^122V^2V^2 - 2G^133V^3V^3 
 
This is
 
D^2r/ds^2 = d^2r/ds^2 + 2r(d@/ds)^2 + 2rsin^2@(d&/ds)^2  
 
DV^2/ds = dV^2/ds - 2G^212V^1V2 - 2G^233V^3V^3
 
This is
 
D^2@/ds^2 = d^2@/ds^2 - (2/r)(dr/ds)(d@/ds) + 2sin@cos@(d&/ds)^2
 
 
DV^3/ds^2 = d^2V^3/ds^2 - 2G^313V^1V^3 - 2G^323V^2V^3
 
This is
 
D^2&/ds^2 = d^2&/ds^2 - 2(1/r)(dr/ds)(d&/ds) - 2cot@(d@/ds)(d&/ds)
 
DV^4/ds = dV^4/ds
 
D^2t/ds^2 = d^2t/ds^2 
 
What is the meaning of these fictitious force terms that only appear in the spacelike components of the proper acceleration?
 
The local frame in spherical coordinates is not inertial. The unit radial vector er is always pointed at the test particle's retarded position (as shown by a light signal).
 
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_fields_in_cylindrical_and_spherical_coordinates
 
If the test particle has constant "inertia" m then Newton's 2nd law becomes Newton's first law when the real force F^u = 0
 
The geodesic equations are then
 
0 = d^2r/ds^2 + 2r(d@/ds)^2 + 2rsin^2@(d&/ds)^2  
 
0 = d^2@/ds^2 - (2/r)(dr/ds)(d@/ds) + 2sin@cos@(d&/ds)^2
 
0 = d^2&/ds^2 - 2(1/r)(dr/ds)(d&/ds) - 2cot@(d@/ds)(d&/ds)
 
0 = d^2t/ds^2 
 
Where the test particle geodesic orbit is r(t), @(t), &(t).
 
There is no Newton's third law here as yet. That requires additional physical assumptions.
 
In Newton's 2nd law F is the unbalanced net force on the test particle - no assumption about back-reaction on the source of F need be made yet.
 
What PURE general relativity does is to provide the global G^uvw fields for a given class of observers for the GEODESIC real force-free F = 0 test particle orbits.
 
inertia m of the test particles is nowhere to be seen at this classical level of pure gravity.
 
If we only had gravity all motions would be geodesics. However, we could not have stable sources Tuv with pure gravity.
 
The inertia of test particles canceled out of the geodesic equation of motion. Therefore by elementary logic gravity cannot explain the origin of the inertia of test particles.

The only exception would be Wheeler's wormhole geons mass without mass etc., but that also needs non-gravity quantum physics.


Sent from my iPad speaking to Siri

 

On Mar 12, 2014, at 2:26 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Folks,

I wouldn't have spent my time writing the book if I didn't think that there is a reasonable chance we will eventually be able to build starships and stargates.  And, truth be told, leaving the details of the enabling physics aside, it seems to me obvious that the only way to create a Jupiter mass of exotic matter in a structure with the dimensions of meters is to find a way to transform normal matter into the exotic matter needed in situ.  As I say in the book, I do not claim that the ADM electron model is a substitute for the standard model of RQFT.  But it sure has a lot of desirable features to recommend it -- like includng gravity without having to assume that gravity at short range miraculously becomes decades of orders of magnitude stronger than it is at all other scales.  And I really like Asim Barut's lepton quantization scheme.


Best,

Jim

My Review of James F. Woodward’s book “Making Starships and Stargates” Springer 2013 V2

Jack Sarfatti

John G. Cramer, proponent of the transactional interpretation of orthodox quantum theory based on the Wheeler-Feynman back-from-the-future advanced potential of classical electromagnetism, endorses Woodward’s theory in the “Foreword”[i] I will play Devil’s Advocate usually assigned to Wolfgang Pauli. I pretty much agree with most of Woodward’s “Preface” except for his short shrift for the reality of flying saucers operated by an advanced intelligence. I mean, “advanced” in two senses including the back-from-the-future meaning. So I will home in on what I think are Woodward’s mistakes in his theory. I have nothing intelligent to say about his experiments except that scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory seemingly refuted them about fourteen years ago and that Woodward has not succeeded in getting a small model to fly under its own power in those fourteen years. Neither have any of his competitors in the fringe physics propellantless propulsion world.

 

Of course, we Pirates of Penzance are all on the same side against the establishment pundits of physics who, in Cramer’s words:

 

“Erect a ‘picket fence’ around those solutions of Einstein’s equations … to place stable traversable wormholes, faster-than-light warp drives, and time machines in the forbidden area outside the fence … it is presumed that nature does not allow such disreputable objects to exist.”

 

Woodward professes that “both inertial reaction forces and mass itself” have a “gravitational origin.” (p.xviii) He hedges on whether his approach will allow us to manufacture practical stargates (i.e., traversable wormholes without event horizons that do not pinch off killing the traveler and destroying any message in a signal) but is more optimistic that “at least a means of propellant-free propulsion can be created using Mach effects.”(p.xix) Using orthodox theory assuming Newton’s G requires an impossible Jupiter mass of exotic negative mass matter to make a stargate of few tens of meters across. Woodward invokes the classical 1960 ADM model. Curiously, I was a graduate student in physics at Brandeis in 1960 when Deser was there creating that model.  Woodward does not seem to realize that he needs David Bohm’s hidden variable picture of classical particles piloted by a quantum information field in order for the ADM model to make sense. Niels Bohr’s “Copenhagen interpretation” with its magical collapse of the state does not even allow such a picture as ADM suggest. Since I am partial to Bohm’s picture, this is not a bad thing.  Woodward alleges that the ADM model “when fixed” shows that there is a lot of negative energy matter locked inside ordinary matter like the electron. Of course, we now know since 1998 that about 68% of our observable universe’s stuff is exotic “dark energy” exactly what we need. However, its energy density 6.7 x 10-10 Joules/meter3 is way too small for our purpose unless we can amplify it by many powers of ten. Perhaps, the advanced intelligences in the flying saucers are doing just that? Woodward claims that the negative exotic matter creating universally repelling antigravity is screened at a distance by distant matter by. This is definitely not mainstream textbook physics taught in the top universities. He proposes a kind of catalytic avalanche effect, like the straw that broke the camel’s back, or the butterfly wing flapping creating a super storm across the world, a pistol shot causing an avalanche. [ii] What is disturbing, however, is Woodward’s Frankenstein Monster supposing he were on the right track, fortunately my bet is that he is not, but I could be wrong. Woodward intends to expose a Jupiter mass of exotic matter as his end product, and to concentrate it in a region a few meters across. If this isn’t madness I don’t what is. ;-)

 

 



[i] “Woodward extended the work of Sciama in investigating the origins of inertia in the framework of general relativity by consideration of time-dependent effects that occur when energy is in flow while an object is being accelerated. … It predicts large time-dependent variations in inertia, the tendency of matter to resist acceleration. … The inertial transient effects … have G in the denominator, and dividing by a small number produces a large effect. … he has been able to demonstrate tens of micronewton-level thrusts … they represent convincing evidence that Woodward-Sciama inertial transients are a real physical phenomenon and that the underlying calculations behind them should be taken seriously … Personal flying cars and reactionless heavy-lift Earth-to-orbit space vehicles cannot be ruled out … The … inertial transient … second term, which is always negative and can in principle drive the inertial mass to zero or negative values … could … be used to provide the ‘exotic mass’ needed to stabilize wormholes and produce superluminal warp drives. ” P.ix

 

[ii] “Exotic matter is available in everyday matter, normally screened by the gravitational interaction with chiefly distant matter in the universe. … exposure can be achieved by cancelling the gravitational effect of the chiefly distant matter with nearby exotic, negative rest mass matter. The amount … needed to trigger this is miniscule in comparison with the Jupiter mass that results from exposure.  Mach effects … produce the exotic matter required … for exposure.” P.xix



James F. Woodward's Frankenstein Project
Like ·  · 
  • Jack Sarfatti My Review of James F. Woodward’s book “Making Starships and Stargates” Springer 2013 V2
    Jack Sarfatti
    John G. Cramer, proponent of the transactional interpretation of orthodox quantum theory based on the Wheeler-Feynman back-from-the-future advanced potential of classical electromagnetism, endorses Woodward’s theory in the “Foreword” I will play Devil’s Advocate usually assigned to Wolfgang Pauli. I pretty much agree with most of Woodward’s “Preface” except for his short shrift for the reality of flying saucers operated by an advanced intelligence. I mean, “advanced” in two senses including the back-from-the-future meaning. So I will home in on what I think are Woodward’s mistakes in his theory. I have nothing intelligent to say about his experiments except that scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory seemingly refuted them about fourteen years ago and that Woodward has not succeeded in getting a small model to fly under its own power in those fourteen years. Neither have any of his competitors in the fringe physics propellantless propulsion world.

    Of course, we Pirates of Penzance are all on the same side against the establishment pundits of physics who, in Cramer’s words:

    “Erect a ‘picket fence’ around those solutions of Einstein’s equations … to place stable traversable wormholes, faster-than-light warp drives, and time machines in the forbidden area outside the fence … it is presumed that nature does not allow such disreputable objects to exist.”

    Woodward professes that “both inertial reaction forces and mass itself” have a “gravitational origin.” (p.xviii) He hedges on whether his approach will allow us to manufacture practical stargates (i.e., traversable wormholes without event horizons that do not pinch off killing the traveler and destroying any message in a signal) but is more optimistic that “at least a means of propellant-free propulsion can be created using Mach effects.”(p.xix) Using orthodox theory assuming Newton’s G requires an impossible Jupiter mass of exotic negative mass matter to make a stargate of few tens of meters across. Woodward invokes the classical 1960 ADM model. Curiously, I was a graduate student in physics at Brandeis in 1960 when Deser was there creating that model. Woodward does not seem to realize that he needs David Bohm’s hidden variable picture of classical particles piloted by a quantum information field in order for the ADM model to make sense. Niels Bohr’s “Copenhagen interpretation” with its magical collapse of the state does not even allow such a picture as ADM suggest. Since I am partial to Bohm’s picture, this is not a bad thing. Woodward alleges that the ADM model “when fixed” shows that there is a lot of negative energy matter locked inside ordinary matter like the electron. Of course, we now know since 1998 that about 68% of our observable universe’s stuff is exotic “dark energy” exactly what we need. However, its energy density 6.7 x 10-10 Joules/meter3 is way too small for our purpose unless we can amplify it by many powers of ten. Perhaps, the advanced intelligences in the flying saucers are doing just that? Woodward claims that the negative exotic matter creating universally repelling antigravity is screened at a distance by distant matter by. This is definitely not mainstream textbook physics taught in the top universities. He proposes a kind of catalytic avalanche effect, like the straw that broke the camel’s back, or the butterfly wing flapping creating a super storm across the world, a pistol shot causing an avalanche. What is disturbing, however, is Woodward’s Frankenstein Monster supposing he were on the right track, fortunately my bet is that he is not, but I could be wrong. Woodward intends to expose a Jupiter mass of exotic matter as his end product, and to concentrate it in a region a few meters across. If this isn’t madness I don’t what is. 
  • Jack Sarfatti “Woodward extended the work of Sciama in investigating the origins of inertia in the framework of general relativity by consideration of time-dependent effects that occur when energy is in flow while an object is being accelerated. … It predicts large time-dependent variations in inertia, the tendency of matter to resist acceleration. … The inertial transient effects … have G in the denominator, and dividing by a small number produces a large effect. … he has been able to demonstrate tens of micronewton-level thrusts … they represent convincing evidence that Woodward-Sciama inertial transients are a real physical phenomenon and that the underlying calculations behind them should be taken seriously … Personal flying cars and reactionless heavy-lift Earth-to-orbit space vehicles cannot be ruled out … The … inertial transient … second term, which is always negative and can in principle drive the inertial mass to zero or negative values … could … be used to provide the ‘exotic mass’ needed to stabilize wormholes and produce superluminal warp drives. ” P.ix

    “Exotic matter is available in everyday matter, normally screened by the gravitational interaction with chiefly distant matter in the universe. … exposure can be achieved by cancelling the gravitational effect of the chiefly distant matter with nearby exotic, negative rest mass matter. The amount … needed to trigger this is miniscule in comparison with the Jupiter mass that results from exposure. Mach effects … produce the exotic matter required … for exposure.” P.xix

 

On Mar 9, 2014, at 3:21 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:

FYI - comments?

re: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/08/10-scientific-studies-that-prove-consciousness-can-alter-our-physical-material-world/

Begin forwarded message:

From: Stephan Schwartz 
Subject: water experiments
Date: March 9, 2014 at 2:42:33 PM PDT
To: adastra1@icloud.com

Jack --

Saw your excellent article on 10 experiments involving nonlocal perturbation and perception. 

(Jack not a paper I wrote something I only forwarded)

Here is another water experiment even clearer than Dean's Emoto replication. Thought you might like to see it. Also a recent paper of mine that you might find of interest. It speaks to these same issues.

Hope all is well with you.

-- Stephan
I replied to SAS

All of these effects have a unified explanation in terms of general quantum physics. General quantum physics is to "orthodox" special quantum physics as Einstein's general relativity is to his special relativity. General quantum physics has what Antony Valentini calls "signal nonlocality". Signal nonlocality is analogous to the curvature of spacetime, that is, the parameter that is missing in special relativity. Special quantum physics is linear and unitary. General quantum physics is nonlinear and non unitary with effective computations around closed timelike world lines from wormholes held open by dark energy in the high energy quantum gravity Wheeler foam - although other lower energy biological mechanisms seem to be possible using Glauber coherent states that are distinguishably non-orthogonal on the macroscopic low energy scale.
10 Scientific Studies That Prove Consciousness Can Alter Our Physical Material World
www.collective-evolution.com
Nikola Tesla said it best, “the day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one...

On Mar 4, 2014, at 11:30 AM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:

"(dS4) is holographically dual to a three-dimensional conformal field theory
(CFT3) living on the spacelike boundary of dS4 at future timelike infinity. The CFT3 is the Euclidean Sp(N) vector model with anticommuting scalars”

CFT3/Sp(N) must be the software running on the dS4 future horizon hardware

"The AdS/CFT correspondence provides a non-perturbative holographic definition of anti-de Sitter (AdS) quantum gravity in terms of a CFT living on the timelike conformal boundary of AdS."

“living” quite literally from non-unitary signal nonlocality violating Shimony’s “passion at a distance."

"Our own universe is unlikely to have an anti-de Sitter boundary, but may well have a de Sitter (dS) boundary in the far future. This dS boundary shares a number of mathematical properties with the AdS boundary. Hence it is natural to try to define dS quantum gravity in terms of a CFT living on the future conformal boundary of dS [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. One key difference is that in AdS/CFT, the radial direction emerges holographically from the CFT,
while in dS/CFT time itself must be holographically emergent. It is challenging to reconcile this with our usual quantum notions of unitary time evolution.”

I have come to drive the priests of unitarity out of the Temple. 

Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).

"A second key difference is that we have had no useful microscopically complete examples of the dS/CFT correspondence. This has stymied progress in the subject and at times rendered the discussions somewhat formal.1 It is the purpose of this paper to begin to fill this gap."

to be continued.

On Mar 4, 2014, at 10:58 AM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

No, but I claim I have done exactly that! Of course like the Cardinals in the Curia of Rodrigo Borgia there will be schisms on this. 
See Michael Towler's Lecture 8 of his online Bohm course @ Cambridge

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 4, 2014, at 9:58 AM, Deepak Chopra <wrote:

Can any theory be called Grand Unified in the absence of mind / matter unification ? 

2013 Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009
DeepakChopra.com
YouTube/ChopraWell.com
Dream Weaver
The Chopra Center for Wellbeing
The Chopra Foundation
Chopra Connect

On Mar 4, 2014, at 9:41 AM, "Jack Sarfatti" <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:

Note that it's nonunitary hence signal nonlocality hence conscious in my model
So my intuition or precognition shall we say may prove right
The future boundary the brane  of Hawking's mind of I j good's "god(d)" is a conscious computer 
So Seth the Lloyd 

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:52 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

Excellent just what I was looking for thanks
Saul-Paul

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:32 PM, Saul-Paul and Mary-Minn Sirag <sirag@mindspring.com> wrote:

For ds/CFT check out Strominger et al:

<Strominger-dS:CFT-2011.pdf>

But as David Gross points out in his talk, AdS/CFT has been used to correctly model the quark-gluan plasma created at Brookhaven. 

Saul-Paul
-----------------------
On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:25 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Yes I have said that many times
It's obvious for cosmology
But I think they model black holes in higher dimensions with it as well?
We need a dS/CFT

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Saul-Paul and Mary-Minn Sirag <sirag@mindspring.com> wrote:

There's an easier way to falsify AdS.
Simply point out that AdS requires a negative cosmological constant, while the observational evidence is for a small positive cosmic constant---thus the dark energy picture. 

However the superstring theory as a quantum gravity theory deals mainly with physics at the Planck scale, where things can be quite different. 

Saul-Paul
---------------------
On Mar 3, 2014, at 7:25 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Of course I know who gross is I have even eaten at table with him at ucsb
But if bizon is right in his claim that's the end of it
Can't have it both ways

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 3, 2014, at 7:20 PM, Saul-Paul and Mary-Minn Sirag <sirag@mindspring.com> wrote:

Jack,
David Gross doesn't mention Bizon's claim of AdS instabiility at all.
Probably Gross considers it as irrelevant to the AdS/CFT duality.

You should watch the David Gross YouTube talk, anyway.

Certainly Gross would be familiar with Bizon's claims, since he has presented it at KITP-UCSB in Feb. 2012.
Note that David Gross is the director of KITP-UCSB.
Also Bizon's paper on this has been on the web since 2011.

<Bizon-AdSInstability-2011.pdf>

Bizon tests the stability of Einstein's GR equations in 4-d AdS
He claims in the last paragraph that 5-d AdS is also unstable, but doesn't demonstrate this.

5 AdS is unphysical - Jack

However, the AdS/CFT theorem is based on IIB superstring theory whose 10 dimensions are asymtotically the 10-d space AdS_5 x S^5.
The CFT theory is an SU(N) theory (with N being large) on the 4-d boundary of AdS_5.

As David Gross describes in his YouTube talk, the 4-d boundary at infinity of AdS_5 is 4-d Minkowski space. 

So the quantum gravity theory entailed in this picture is radically different from applying Einstein's equations to AdS_4 or AdS_5. 

All for now;)
Saul-Paul
------------
On Mar 3, 2014, at 5:01 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

so what? 

"On the mathematical and numerical side, Prof. Piotr Bizon presented his striking result that the anti-de Sitter space-time, is unstable in full, non-linear general relativity although it was known to be perturbatively stable. This is surprising both because it has been known for some time that de Sitter space-time and Minkowski space-time are non-linearly stable and because the anti-de Sitter space-time is assumed to represent the ‘ground state’ in the
ADS/CFT correspondence.” GR20/Amaldi10 Conference held at Warsaw, Poland
Abhay Ashtekar, IGC, Penn State ashtekar@gravity.ps.edu

Are you saying that Bizon’s result is wrong? I mean did Gross say Bizon was wrong?

Note that our universe is deSitter in the future and that is allegedly stable.

dark energy density ~ hc/Lp^2A

A = area-entropy of our far future de Sitter event horizon computer of ~ 10^124 qubits

so Seth the Lloyd! 

On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Saul-Paul and Mary-Minn Sirag <sirag@mindspring.com> wrote:

But see the strong endorsement of AdS/CFT by David Gross at the Dyson Festschrift a month after the GR 20 conference'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1ml3uZGGQE

At the end Gross makes the point the Spacetime seems to be Emergent.

That is a separate point not connected. I have been saying it’s emergent for years, but there are many different ideas of emergence. I don’t think that AdS/CFT being wrong would deny such emergence?

All for now;-)
Saul-Paul
---------------
On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:54 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

<MattersofGravity1402.2817v1.pdf>






 

Jack Sarfatti shared a link.

Michio Kaku's new book Future of the Mind
We will be able to test whether brain presponse for example is really retro causal 
Everything nick herbert envisioned in his elemental mind book is now either done in brain labs or will be soon including uploading memories and emotions into the internet immortality wit the connect dome. Hawking is now completely paralyzed cannot use his fingers but operates computer with brain waves via something like google glass.

I do think Kaku is wrong about 11 dimensions and mind of god, however he may be right if I am wrong both pictures popper falsifiable eventually
Indeed even the 11 d geometrodynamical Kaluza Klein super string field though rocklike has a thought like super quantum bit Bohm pilot field in Hilbert space 

Kaku is mistaken about Sri CIA RV he does not know about signal nonlocality and he says the empirical results were nothing

It's time for russell Targ to challenge Kaku on that

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:39 AM, Deepak Chopra wrote:

This is Part 1 of a series of articles I'm writing with Menas Kafatos and Subhash Kak
I'm horrified that intelligent people buy into the naive realism of Richard Dawkins and his pseudo skeptic gang
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Hidden-Truths-Going-Beyond-Common-Sense-Reality-5283560.php 
From: Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 6:04 AM

Subject: Re: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc


On 3 Mar 2014, at 11:00, Deepak Chopra <nonlocal101@chopra.com> wrote:

> Some future as yet unborn could access these emails - also in mind space Where is it located ?

NSA? GCHQ? Are they, even now, figuring out how to take advantage of quantum entanglement?

Brian

PS when quite some time ago (pre-Snowden) there was news of internet problems with an underground cable I said to myself, aha! what’s really happening here is that they are breaking into that cable to plant a tap!

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: 
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

Like ·  · 

  •  

    William Kuch and Derek Cooper like this.

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1498038/posts

    Timeline of Secret Government Projects LSD, Esalen, HAARP and the Cosmic Cointelpro

    www.freerepublic.com

    note: because important web-sites are frequently "here today but gone tomorrow" the following was archived from http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/timeline.htm on November 3, 2002. This is NOT an attempt to divert readers from the aforementioned web-site.  Indeed, the reader should only read this back-u...

    6 hours ago · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

     

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti The basic germ of an explanation that I propose is rather simple:

    My idea is well described here
    http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT/lectures/bohm8.pdf...See More

    6 minutes ago · Like

     

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti Subject: Kaku's book & CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc
    From: jacksarfatti@icloud.com
    Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:37:21 -0800
    ...
    See More

     

     

    Michio Kaku on 'The Future of the Mind' | KQED

    www.kqed.org

    In his new book, 'The Future of the Mind,' theoretical physicist Michio Kaku explores how the next century of scientific innovation will expand the brain's abilities. Kaku joins us to discuss the latest in neurological research, how the brain resembles a corporation, and the fantastic inventions tha...

    5 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview

     

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:04 AM, "JACK SARFATTI" <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

    A wise decision. 


    Sent from my iPhone

    On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Bernard Carr <b.j.carr@qmul.ac.uk> wrote:

    There's a lot about string theory and higher-dimensional physics in "Universe or Multiverse?" (eg. Susskind's article) and also some discussion of consciousness and mind (because of the anthropic connection). However, there's nothing explicitly about the connection between mind and higher dimensions. I felt it best not to mix these ideas in the book. Even the multiverse is a step too far for some physicists and the mind is one step further! My personal view is that these topics (multiverse, mind, higher dimensions) are all connected but the number of people interested in all three topics is probably rather small. Best wishes, Bernard. 
    ________________________________________
    From: Ruth Kastner [rekastner@hotmail.com]
    Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:50 AM
    To: Bernard Carr; Brian Josephson
    Cc: JACK SARFATTI; creon levit; nick herbert; S-P Sirag; David Kaiser; Kim Burrafato;beowulfr@interlog.com Addinall; Fred Wolf; Dean Radin; George Knapp; Russell Targ; York Dobyns; Ronald Pandolfi
    Subject: RE: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc

    Fascinating, many thanks Bernard!
    I'm entertaining the idea that quantum objects have both mindlike and matter-like aspects, in which case we might not need a deeper theory but just the appropriate interpretation of the existing one (including relativistic qm).

    Does your edited collection Universe or Multiverse have any essays on this topic?

    Best
    Ruth

    From: b.j.carr@qmul.ac.uk
    To: rekastner@hotmail.com;bdj10@cam.ac.uk

    Subject: RE: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc
    Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:28:33 +0000

    Dear Ruth

    There are a small number of physicists (eg. Saul-Paul, Russell and maybe others on this email list) who have explored the idea that mind can be identified with a higher dimensional "reality structure", which might be viewed as an extension of general relativity. Ordinary 4-dimensional spacetime is then regarded as a slice of this higher-dimensional space. These theories are not exactly aspatiotemporal but they are a(normal)spatiotemporal. Currently there is interest in linking this idea up with M-theory (e.g. with ordinary matter being associated with the brane and mind with the bulk). I've written quite a lot about this but not in mainstream physics journals. Most string theorists of course would do more than merely roll their eyes at this suggestion! In this approach, one is not trying to deny a link between quantum theory and mind but seeking a deeper theory which underlies both.

    Best wishes, Bernard Carr
    ________________________________________
    From: Ruth Kastner [rekastner@hotmail.com]
    Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 10:02 PM
    To: Brian Josephson
    Cc: JACK SARFATTI; creon levit; nick herbert; S-P Sirag; David Kaiser; Bernard Carr; Kim Burrafato;beowulfr@interlog.com Addinall; Fred Wolf; Dean Radin; George Knapp; Russell Targ; York Dobyns; Ronald Pandolfi
    Subject: RE: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc

    Interesting. I'll think about this. BTW do you have a specific physicist in mind who is explicitly OK with the idea that real entities need not exist in spacetime? My experience has been that the minute I suggest such a thing, the eyes roll.

    Subject: Re: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc
    From: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
    Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 20:53:20 +0000

    To:rekastner@hotmail.com

    On 2 Mar 2014, at 19:57, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

    those micro-physical entities are possibilities in a pre-spacetime realm, and based on that aspatiotemporal aspect, they could well be described as mental sorts of entities. It all depends on what we mean by 'physical' -- most physicists equate that to space-time objects

    Ruth,

    That all depends on what species of physicist you consult. The theoreticians are happy to consider reality beyond ordinary space-time.

    and that rules out the mental. However in my new popular book (almost finished the draft now) I explore the idea that quantum objects could be the fundamental basis for both the mental (extra-spacetime) and material (spacetime) realm. This also implies that the entire quantum realm has some degree of consciousness as well as potential materiality, which would also resolve the 'strong problem of consciousness' (Chalmers)

    I don’t think QM should be considered primary, but rather mind, which Peirce equates with ‘thirdness’, something that emerges and connect. There is a nice compilation of his quotes on this at
    http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/thirdness.html. Now how do things become precise and mathematical? Following Bateson in ‘mind and nature, a necessary unity’ we can argue that it is in some sense an outcome of what he calls calibration, which is connected with the ability to learn to get things right without feedback (getting them right from the start), though one might also connect this with symmetry, which is like calibrating one part of a system with another. You could argue that space-time is the outcome of subjects shaping the form of an object in order to be able to exploit its potential: imprecise mind creates precise object through technology.

    Brian

    5 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview

     

  •  

     

     

Jack Sarfatti shared a link.

For the record i consider quantum information as intrinsically mental, i.e. Stapp’s “thoughtlike”, though not “conscious” in orthodox “special” QM because of violation of the action-reaction principle in Einstein’s general sense. There must be direct back-reaction of “rocklike” (Stapp) hidden variables (Bohm) on their quantum potential pilot field Q to excite conscious qualia in the Q field (macro-quantum coherent order parameter piloting perhaps the electrons in the protein dimers in Hameroff’s model.
Michael Towler Lecture 8 describes my idea on this. My idea is consistent with David Chalmers’s disiderata and with what Brian says below.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

On Mar 2, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

On 2 Mar 2014, at 19:57, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

those micro-physical entities are possibilities in a pre-spacetime realm, and based on that aspatiotemporal aspect, they could well be described as mental sorts of entities. It all depends on what we mean by 'physical' -- most physicists equate that to space-time objects

Ruth,

That all depends on what species of physicist you consult. The theoreticians are happy to consider reality beyond ordinary space-time.

and that rules out the mental. However in my new popular book (almost finished the draft now) I explore the idea that quantum objects could be the fundamental basis for both the mental (extra-spacetime) and material (spacetime) realm. This also implies that the entire quantum realm has some degree of consciousness as well as potential materiality, which would also resolve the 'strong problem of consciousness' (Chalmers)

I don’t think QM should be considered primary, but rather mind, which Peirce equates with ‘thirdness’, something that emerges and connect. There is a nice compilation of his quotes on this at
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/thirdness.html. Now how do things become precise and mathematical? Following Bateson in ‘mind and nature, a necessary unity’ we can argue that it is in some sense an outcome of what he calls calibration, which is connected with the ability to learn to get things right without feedback (getting them right from the start), though one might also connect this with symmetry, which is like calibrating one part of a system with another. You could argue that space-time is the outcome of subjects shaping the form of an object in order to be able to exploit its potential: imprecise mind creates precise object through technology.

Brian

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: 
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

 

 

 

On Mar 2, 2014, at 2:59 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

 

There are now papers coming out linking the emergence of geometrodynamics as a classical field to quantum entanglement in Hilbert space and holography all coming from Bekenstein’s horizon area ~ entropy in some way I am not yet clear on the details.

One key idea is the equivalence principle in the form of a local uniformly accelerating frame = gravity field in a frame at rest etc ties in with Rindler horizon thermodynamics and that holds locally at every local “event."

On Mar 2, 2014, at 2:48 PM, Brian Josephson wrote:


On 2 Mar 2014, at 22:02, Ruth Kastner wrote:

Interesting. I'll think about this.  BTW do you have a specific physicist in mind who is explicitly OK with the idea that real entities need not exist in spacetime? My experience has been that the minute I suggest such a thing, the eyes roll.


Can't go into any detail at this hour, but have you ever talked to a string theorist about this?  Supersymmetry which they like as it allegedly allows gravity to be quantised without divergences requires 10 or 11 dimensions.


I am very suspicious of such claims and I find extra geometrodynamic dimensions in order to avoid causality violation as a cure that is much worse than the disease. Indeed, I think nonunitary nonlinear QM signal nonlocality fits the facts of experience. Ordinary strings in 3 + 1 are OK - just my opinion.
 

And my colleague at Trinity in the field who is very well informed tells me that some people are unhappy just assuming there is such a thing as a space and want to explain how it comes about.  Here’s a possible reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Hiley#Implicate_orders.2C_pre-space_and_algebraic_structures

Here’s a quote from it, quoting very respectable people:

The notion of another order underlying space was not new. Along similar lines, both Gerard 't Hooft and John Archibald Wheeler, questioning whether space-time was the appropriate starting-point for describing physics, had called for a deeper structure as starting point. In particular, Wheeler had proposed a notion of pre-space which he called pregeometry, from which spacetime geometry should emerge as a limiting case.


Have you any comments on this, Bernard?

Brian

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory and the foundations of quantum mechanics - A graduate lecture...

www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk