Text Size


May 31

Over-Unity Entangled QUBIT Nano-Heat Engines?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Memorandum for the Historical Record

"Let’s focus on the interesting scenarios where heat either flows out from the coldest bath or into the hottest bath (note that negative temperatures, which occur in systems with a finite number of states and corresponds to a hotter temperature than a positive one, are possible [3] ... When we look closer at the threequbits separately, we see a heat engine. This has the potential to design new functionalities in open quantum networks, where the subsystems have different roles to play."


Decades ago I predicted

W/Qin ~ 1 + |Tpositive/Tnegative| > 1

i.e. in idealized reversible limit heat flows from both the (classical( positive and negative (quantum) effective temperatures are converted completely to mechanical work.

i.e. over 100%  Carnot engine efficiency - not a violation of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at all.

It is the CLASSICAL 2nd Law of Thermodynamics with Quantum Theory added to it giving a counter-intuitive prediction.

Nick Herbert disagreed with me at the time, but now it looks like I may have been right.

On May 29, 2012, at 9:19 AM, Dean Radin wrote:

Yes, z and p are redundant, but not everyone has a table of z -> p in their head, so both figures are usually provided (at least in psychology articles that's the norm).

> There is no parapsychology experiment that ever reaches 5 sigma

On a per-experiment, systematically repeatable basis that is true. But there are cases where individual PK and precognition experiments have reached this level. And when considered cumulatively several classes of psi experiments (e.g., precognition, telepathy) have gone way beyond 6 sigma.

best wishes,

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:04 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
yes, z should be called something like the "sigma score"
to distinguish it from what I am calling "absolute effect size"
which expresses in a sense how big the effect actually is if there were no "noise".
Also when z and p are presented together
isn't this redundant? isn't one a simple function of the other?

http:// http://money.howstuffworks.com/six-sigma4.htmThanks Nick. Very interesting important perspective.

On May 29, 2012, at 12:33 AM, nick herbert wrote:


I hate Facebook so I am sending this via eMail:

"Absolute effect size is larger in parapsy than in many famous physics experiments, but signal to noise and reproducibility

are much worse than in physics."   

"Case in point is the present state of the Higgs boson which is at the parapsychology level of discovery. That is Atlas has seen a few  (possible) Higgs event a few sigma above background and CMS has seen a few (possible) Higgs events
at 1.5 sigma above background. But the threshold for announcing DISCOVERY is 5 sigma.

[There is no parapsychology experiment that ever reaches 5 sigma but the Dean Device is doing 3 sigma, which is comparable to the S/N of the (alleged) Higgs signal after a year of LHC running.]

LHC is back on line at higher luminosity and most physicists expect/hope that the Higgs signal will exceed the 5 sigma threshold sometime this year.

But what is the absolute effect size of these Higgs events? Very Very Very small.

Many trillions of protons collide but only a few thousand of them react, of these that do, only a few reactions create a higgs boson. And of those Higgs's only a very few decay into the di-photon channel that makes them stand out from the background.

So we are talking about colliding trillions of protons to get just a handful of visible Higgs's.

That's an awful small effect size.

If Radin's effect size is 1%--that's one in a hundred  not one in a hundred trillion like the Higgs signal at LHC."

end of Nick Herbert's commentary.

"So, when people in Six Sigma talk about the "sigma of a process," what they're really referring to is the Z score. But the key point is this: You can improve the quality of a process by reducing variation. Your goal is Six Sigma quality, which is an attempt at perfection, or reducing variation to less than four defects per million opportunities measured."


May 29

Wilson Wilson experimental test of relativity

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

See my uploaded WWinducedcurrent.pdf on the WW experiment and the heat not light from Pellegrini and Zielinski arguing over the wrong question.
The Wilson-Wilson Experiment 1 Problem 2 Solution
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by KT McDonald - Cited by 2 - Related articles
Jul 30, 2008 – and Wilson [2] as a test of special relativity; see also [3]. 2 Solution. A theme of this example is to what extent the electrodynamics of systems ...
Measurements on a rotating frame in relativity, and the Wilson and ...
www.imamu.edu.sa/.../ ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by TA Weber - Cited by 34 - Related articles
be used as a test of special relativity. In 1913, Wilson and. Wilson2 performed the experiment on a magnetic insulator rotating in an external magnetic field.
Experimental Basis of Special Relativity
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.htmlRoentgen, Eichenwald, Wilson, Rayleigh, Arago, Fizeau, Hoek, Bradley, Airy. ... Textbooks with good summaries of the experimental basis of relativity are: ...

In my opinion entanglement signal nonlocality violating orthodox quantum theory is required for a full understanding of these issues.

Fred Alan Wolf concludes:

"Let me add a few more comments of my own here. I believe that until the ontology/epistemology issue is resolved we still have the “measurement problem” that stimulated such considerations as given by PBR, Bell, Bohm, and many others. We also still have the nonlocality issue to deal with. Perhaps PBR can resolve this issue. Ontologically speaking, what does it mean to have nonlocal influences? What does it mean to have an observer effect? Does the PBR solution resolve these problems?

Consider the effect of observation. Does a human being alter the quantum wave function simply by making an observation? If the quantum wave function is ontic then we have a real observer effect—observation (including nonlocal) indeed alters the quantum wave function and therefore reality. That would mean that mind and matter are truly entangled and such a finding could lead to breaking discoveries in the study of consciousness. On the other hand, if the quantum wave function is epistemic, observation is simply the usage of the Bayesian approach to probabilities wherein new information simply changes what we know, but leaves reality unscathed—at least what we mean by ontic reality. I hope that PBR and others continue this line of research. The next frontier may indeed not be space but will be the mind.” - end of quote

As a dyed-in-the-wool Groucho Marxist Bohmian - I assume psi is real/ontic i.e. quantum potential Q etc.

The experiments of Radin, Bem, Schmidt, PEAR show the reality of PK in my opinion.

On May 26, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Dean Radin wrote:

Thanks Nick. I don't think we're at the Reno Minimum yet. I am pretty sure that the absolute effect is less than 1%, but as I said I haven't calculated it yet to know for sure.

best wishes,

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM, nick herbert <Quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Would like to add to this note concerning the absolute value of the PK effect
(not the z-value: signal to noise but the actual magnitude comparable to values cited for the three
small but important physics effects.)

In my book "Elemental Mind" I define what I call the "Reno Minimum", which is the smallest
absolute PK effect you would have to manifest to win at the best odds in Reno or Vegas.

According to my calculations (Elemental Mind p 196) the Reno Minimum is 2%. If your absolute PK power
is positive but less than 2% you will still lose--although more slowly than the less gifted players.

Dean has commented that the absolute effect size of the Dean Device is less than 1% but I haven;t seen his  calculation.

Also it seems that the online version of the Dean Device is achieving positive results. Perhaps Dean's wider dissemination  of this task will lead to the discovery of unsuspected talents--folks that can move distant matter with their minds almost as easily as
we move our fingers with our minds.

Nick Herbert


Congratulations to you and your team on completing your mental effect on two-slit diffraction experiment (which I will henceforth refer to as the "Dean Device"--not to be confused with the "Dean Drive"). And also congrats on getting in published in a physics journal (Physics Essays). I hope it will elicit many comments from readers. I certainly have a few.

I found it interesting that in some experiments that there was a systematic "lag effect" which is further evidence of a real effect. In experiments of this sort any systematic behavior you can discover is pure gold.

I have always had a problem with the question: "How strong are psychic effects?" The general answer is that they are "weak" and hard to reproduce but statistically
significant. I have always liked your analogy with batting averages and wish you would take that analogy further using the same kind of statistical analysis (z and p scores as you--and many others--use for psychological studies.

I am especially interested in how to express the magnitude of these
effects whether in baseball, physics or psychology. Seems to me the z score is just the ratio of signal to noise and fails to express the absolute intensity of the signal.
If I look at the paper closely I find that you say that the natural fluctuations in R are about 0.5 % or 5 parts per thousand. So I imagine that a z score of 2 corresponds
to twice the natural variation = 1% effect. Is this correct?

How big an effect is the difference between a champion hitter and an average hitter? How many extra home runs will an expert hit per season?

I also note with surprise that the average psychological experiment has an overall effect size of 0.21. Astonishing!!!!

For your information I include three effects from physics which are small but very significant. I am comparing these to the absolute effect size of your experiment which I estimate to be about 1% = 0.01.

First is the Cronin and Fitch experiment on K mesons which showed CP non-invariance--1 particle out of 500 decayed in a CP-forbidden way = an absolute effect size of 0.002.

Second is the celebrated Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) which is completely isotropic (featureless) to 1 part in 10,000. All those pretty pictures
we see everywhere now represent an average effect size of < 0.0001.

Third is the Lamb Shift in Hydrogen. Dirac's relativistic wave equation predicts that
the two n = 2 states for Hydrogen should have EXACTLY the same energy ( = -10.2 electron volts). However Willis Lamb measured a small difference (= 4.3 x 10^-6 electron volts)--the so-called Lamb shift--an absolute effect size of about 0.0000004. This shift is due to "vacuum fluctuations" and its theoretical explanation is one of the most spectacularly accurate calculations in quantum physics.

Now if only we had some NICE THEORY to explain the 1% effects produced by the Dean Device.

Again. Congratulations, Dean.

But while I have your attention I'd like to share one of my half-baked proposals--as an armchair parapsychologist. I'm sure you get plenty of these from people who have no idea of how difficult it is to actually do these experiments.

My proposal is to use parapsychology experiments as Zombie Detectors. A Zombie (in David Chalmers's sense) acts exactly like a human but possesses no internal experience. If it takes minds to do psi then every parapsychology experiment is a potential zombie detector. No zombie possesses psi.

My proposal involves setting up a data base of "fake people" with names, genders, ages, professions, etc and including them in your psi experiments. Everything would be exactly the same as for real people--you could even conceal their identities with tags such as "Subject #34" but the zombies would never show up--
the experiment would run in an empty room--zombies are in effect a special kind of control group but a control group that's mixed into the experiment along with real people.

Now one big challenge for the psi experimenter--can he/she detect which subjects are zombies and which subjects possess minds?

Or after the fact, will the zombies really act like a good control group? Or will they as a group show evidence of psi? Or worse yet, will some of the zombies perform as well as experienced meditators?

O well. Back to my armchair.

Triple congratulations, buddy.

much love

On May 27, 2012, at 10:44 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

bcc - list

Begin forwarded message:

From: "fred alan wolf" <fawolf@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: RE: [ExoticPhysics] DARPA-NASA Low power warp drive issues.
Date: May 27, 2012 10:27:11 AM PDT
To: "'JACK SARFATTI'" <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

          I like this paper of yours—lots of good ideas to pursue.  Can you please send out to your mailing lists this latest version of the paper I sent you?
Best Wishes,
Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D.  aka Dr. Quantum ®
Have Brains / Will Travel
San Francisco
web page: http://www.fredalanwolf.com
Blog page: http://fredalanwolf.blogspot.com/
Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/fawolf
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/doctor_quantum

<Is the quantum wave function real.pdf>

May 24
On May 23, 2012, at 4:02 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

So far it’s only the calculation


for two distinct DISTINGUISHABLE Alice sender non-orthogonal coherent states entangled with an ordinary Bob qubit.

|Alice,Bob> = (1/2)[|Alice>|Bob1> + |Alice’>|Bob0>

S(Bob1) = S(Bob0) =  (1/2)(1 + |<Alice|Alice’>|^2)

S(Bob1) + S(Bob0)  = 1 + |<Alice|Alice’>|^2 > 1

Born’s probability rule VIOLATED for Glauber coherent states.

Of course, for the trapped ion system that will not be spacelike - but with delayed choice it may be RETRO-CAUSAL

For example, an ordinary crystal is a Glauber coherent state of VIRTUAL phonons of zero frequency and finite wave vectors inetger /lattice spacings.

Each phonon is a collective normal mode of all N atoms at the lattice points.

The lattice has P.W. Anderson’s “More is different” PHASE RIGIDITY it does not fall apart into a Poisson distribution at every gentle breeze. The Born probability interpretation breaks down!

On May 23, 2012, at 2:16 PM, nick herbert wrote:


You have a specific FTL signaling proposal?
That's big news.
Where can I find it?


On May 23, 2012, at 11:16 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On May 23, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Kim Burrafato wrote:


Nothing new. It does not address my entangled Glauber state proposal.

Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>
Subject: Re: Dark Matter, Dark Energy and the Mach-Sciama r^-1 MOND "force"
Date: May 22, 2012 4:50:05 PM PDT
To: GNPellegrini@

On May 22, 2012, at 4:39 PM, GNPellegrini@ wrote:

Thank you for the brief review.  I have a question that seems to be relevant to the theoretical discussions going on.
It appears (correct me if I'm wrong) that what is now called "dark matter and dark energy" are what's still missing after all known matter/energy sources have been accounted for.  Is this right?


Yes all REAL particles ON MASS SHELL are only about 4% of the gravitating “stuff” of the Universe.

However, VIRTUAL BOSONS anti-gravitate like Dark Energy.



Also if the hologram theory is correct then the area A of our future horizon

gives the observed dark energy density  hc/Lp^2A as red shifted Wheeler-Feynman advanced Hawking-Unruh thermal radiation that is indistinguishable from virtual zero point photons when it reaches our detectors.

Finally, on the Mach Sciama picture we have a MOND potential ~ log(r/r0) giving a 1/r static gravity force in addition to Newton’s 1/r^2 force.

Obviously r < r0 can be set to give a MOND attractive dark matter effect and r > r0 gives a repulsive MOND dark energy effect.
In a message dated 5/22/2012 6:52:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, WDKellyTriton@writes:
Dark matter is as much observational astronomy as cosmology.  If any of you do not recall, it was Vera Ruben in the 1980s and earlier that identified discrepancies in galactic rotation rates and luminous matter distributions.  Big discrepancies.  And the dark matter was not evenly distributed.  Spiral galaxies were rotating as though a great deal of their matter was in the arms and not in the core - plus that invisible.
Given that initial conundrum, a number of hypotheses were suggested.  But they branched between baryonic and non-baryonic matter.  The "baryonic" hypotheses included black holes, red dwarfs, brown dwarfs and even lesser forms of non-luminous star formation left-over debris.  It didn't add up.  Something else was out there.  Since it could not be seen and it was not a known particle, the non-baryonic explanations involved leaps of faith that were as great or greater than those involved with believing in exo-planets prior to Marcy and Butler or Mayor in Switzerland.
Whether GR or SR has a role to play, is a matter of where it is to be applied. In the cosmological origin of dark matter?  In the introduction of an nearly extra galactic force that mimics gravity?  Or what?  With WIMP and other cosmic background radiation measurement satellites, I believe we have obtained a fairly consistent cosmological picture of forms of matter and energy - at least as pieces of a matter and energy pie - but we dark matter and dark energy's nature is still to be determined.

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Subject: Does the MOND Machian 1/r term explain both attractive dark matter and repulsive dark energy?
Date: May 21, 2012 8:32:51 PM PDT
To: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com>, Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
On May 21, 2012, at 8:12 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
As I said, if Jim gets a positive experimental result that holds up to scrutiny, then we will have to take another
look at his "inertial reaction force" model and see if real physical sense can be made of it.

That seems unlikely as his signal-to-noise ratio is very poor - or do I misunderstand?
It could be that such long range acceleration-dependent interactions do make a *contribution* to the inertial
mass, and if so then there would be the question of how big the contribution is. If Jim's experiment can detect such
a contribution that would be very significant, even if the k in F = kma is only 0.23.

a 1/r effect force is subject to Wheeler-Feynman-Cramer time loop transaction. Quite obviously that requires the future event horizon. However, that also seems to require real gravity waves - and that’s a problem.
note that a gravity force ~ 1/r is from a log r potential that grows as r increases.
Not only that, but there must be a scale r0
i.e. VMach ~ logr/r0
therefore this new gravity potential “force” will be attractive for r < r0 and repulsive for r >  r0.
Has anyone else ever noticed this reversal from attractive to repulsive or am I the first?
However, since it’s a static field it must be from coherent states of off-mass-shell virtual gravitons - not real gravitons making real gravity waves. So the whole thing is peculiar to say the least.
On 5/21/2012 7:46 PM, Andrew wrote:
Since we're looking at an instance of "things that make GR's toes curl", how about Jim's equation? It predicts that as the mass fluctuation approaches the rest mass value, there will be a term in the denominator (the proper mass density) which approaches zero transiently. Now, Jim says that all this is anchored in GR, so I offer this as another example. Unlike the Wilson-Wilson data, however, we don't have a clean measurement in the Machian case (yet).

ExoticPhysics mailing list

On May 21, 2012, at 5:59 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

GR and QM are so well tested experimentally in their domains of validity, i.e. classical and microscopic respectively, that I say that any experiment in those domains that purports a violation will be found to be bad experiments - errors of one sort or the other.

Not only that, but in this particular case: (to one claim - details not relevant)

1) I don’t see how GR is even relevant in this experiment

2) the problem will be in the condensed matter physics part of the experiment.

Of course, that does preclude natural extensions of GR and QM to expanded domains - analog to analytic continuation of a real function of a real variable to a complex function of a complex variable.


3) “quantum gravity” attempts of various kinds

4) torsion fields coupled to quantum spins and even orbital angular momentum of Tuv sources?

5) mesoscopic and macroscopic coherent phenomena in pumped open dissipative structures - does Born probability interpretation break down in the manner suggested by Antony Valentini in a series of papers? In this regime is the dynamics fundamentally non-unitary with entanglement signaling (e.g. using distinguishable over-complete non-orthogonal Glauber eigenstates of non-Hermitian observables of relatively sharp wave amplitudes and phases).

May 21

Back From The Future Experiment Succeeds

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged