Text Size

Stardrive

May 21

Debate on Back From The Future Physics

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
Shoup does not think that Daryl Bem’s experiments show real precognition.
Shoup’s position is here http://boundary.org/bi/articles/Understanding-Retrocausality.pdf
Of course Shoup is correct that in orthodox quantum theory there is no real precognition.
The distinction has been made clear in Antony Valentini’s papers e.g.
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049
So what we are really talking about is a new physics beyond orthodox quantum theory the way general relativity is beyond special relativity.

The SRI remote viewing data does show real precognition - that is certainly Russell Targ’s opinion.

Aharonov’s work is still orthodox quantum physics with Shimony’s “passion at  a distance” still not what Valentini is talking about and what I have been talking about since the 1970’s as shown in MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser’s book “How the Hippies saved physics. Yet Aharonov’s work is setting the stage for Valentini’s notion of “signal nonlocality” and my recent derivation of dark energy density hc/Lp^2A as redshifted Hawking radiation from our post-selected future cosmological event horizon.

Here are key excerpts from Discover Magazine
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C

"Back From the Future
A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?

by Zeeya Merali; photography by Adam Magyar

From the April 2010 issue; published online August 26, 2010

"Jeff Tollaksen … and his colleagues are investigating a far stranger possibility: It may be not only his past that has led him here today, but his future as well.

Tollaksen’s group is looking into the notion that time might flow backward, allowing the future to influence the past. By extension, the universe might have a destiny that reaches back and conspires with the past to bring the present into view. On a cosmic scale, this idea could help explain how life arose in the universe against tremendous odds. On a personal scale, it may make us question whether fate is pulling us forward and whether we have free will. ...

And yet, as crazy as it sounds, this notion of reverse causality is gaining ground. A succession of quantum experiments confirm its predictions—showing, bafflingly, that measurements performed in the future can influence results that happened before those measurements were ever made.

…According to conventional quantum mechanics, it is similarly impossible to observe a quantum system without interacting with the particles and destroying the fragile quantum behavior that existed before you looked.

 “Aharonov was one of the first to take seriously the idea that if you want to understand what is happening at any point in time, it’s not just the past that is relevant. It’s also the future,” … This indeterminism, along with the ambiguity inherent in the uncertainty principle, famously rankled Einstein, who fumed that God doesn’t play dice with the universe.
 It bothered Aharonov as well. “I asked, what does God gain by playing dice?” he says….

“Nature is trying to tell us that there is a difference between two seemingly identical particles with different fates, but that difference can only be found in the future,” he says. If we’re willing to unshackle our minds from our preconceived view that time moves in only one direction, he argues, then it is entirely possible to set  …

Clearly Aharonov needed concrete experiments to demonstrate that actions carried out in the future could have repercussions in the here and now.

Through the 1980s and 1990s, Tollaksen teamed up with Aharonov to design such upside-down experiments, in which outcome was determined by events occurring after the experiment was done. Generally the protocol included three steps: a “preselection” measurement carried out on a group of particles; an intermediate measurement; and a final, “postselection” step in which researchers picked out a subset of those particles on which to perform a third, related measurement. To find evidence of backward causality—information flowing from the future to the past—the experiment would have to demonstrate that the effects measured at the intermediate step were linked to actions carried out on the subset of particles at a later time.
Tollaksen and Aharonov proposed analyzing changes in a quantum property called spin, roughly analogous to the spin of a ball but with some important differences. In the quantum world, a particle can spin only two ways, up or down, with each direction assigned a fixed value (for instance, 1 or –1). First the physicists would measure spin in a set of particles at 2 p.m. and again at 2:30 p.m. Then on another day they would repeat the two tests, but also measure a subset of the particles a third time, at 3 p.m. If the predictions of backward causality were correct, then for this last subset, the spin measurement conducted at 2:30 p.m. (the intermediate time) would be dramatically amplified. In other words, the spin measurements carried out at 2 p.m. and those carried out at 3 p.m. together would appear to cause an unexpected increase in the intensity of spins measured in between, at 2:30 p.m. …

And the amplification would not be restricted to spin; other quantum properties would be dramatically increased to bizarrely high levels too. The idea was that ripples of the measurements carried out in the future could beat back to the present and combine with effects from the past, like waves combining and peaking below a boat, setting it rocking on the rough sea. The smaller the subsample chosen for the last measurement, the more dramatic the effects at intermediate times should be, according to Aharonov’s math. It would be hard to account for such huge amplifications in conventional physics.
For years this prediction was more philosophical than physical because it did not seem possible to perform the suggested experiments. All the team’s proposed tests hinged on being able to make measurements of the quantum system at some intermediate time; but the physics books said that doing so would destroy the quantum properties of the system before the final, postselection step could be carried out. Any attempt to measure the system would collapse its delicate quantum state, just as chasing dolphins in a boat would affect their behavior. Use this kind of invasive, or strong, measurement to check on your system at an intermediate time, and you might as well take a hammer to your apparatus.

By the late 1980s, Aharonov had seen a way out: He could study the system using so-called weak measurements. (Weak measurements involve the same equipment and techniques as traditional ones, but the “knob” controlling the power of the observer’s apparatus is turned way down so as not to disturb the quantum properties in play.) In quantum physics, the weaker the measurement, the less precise it can be. Perform just one weak measurement on one particle and your results are next to useless. You may think that you have seen the required amplification, but you could just as easily dismiss it as noise or an error in your apparatus.

The way to get credible results, Tollaksen realized, was with persistence, not intensity. By 2002 physicists attuned to the potential of weak measurements were repeating their experiments thousands of times, hoping to build up a bank of data persuasively showing evidence of backward causality through the amplification effect.
Just last year, physicist John Howell and his team from the University of Rochester reported success. In the Rochester setup, laser light was measured and then shunted through a beam splitter. Part of the beam passed right through the mechanism, and part bounced off a mirror that moved ever so slightly, due to a motor to which it was attached. The team used weak measurements to detect the deflection of the reflected laser light and thus to determine how much the motorized mirror had moved.

That is the straightforward part. Searching for backward causality required looking at the impact of the final measurement and adding the time twist. In the Rochester experiment, after the laser beams left the mirrors, they passed through one of two gates, where they could be measured again—or not. If the experimenters chose not to carry out that final measurement, then the deflected angles measured in the intermediate phase were boringly tiny. But if they performed the final, postselection step, the results were dramatically different. When the physicists chose to record the laser light emerging from one of the gates, then the light traversing that route, alone, ended up with deflection angles amplified by a factor of more than 100 in the intermediate measurement step. Somehow the later decision appeared to affect the outcome of the weak, intermediate measurements, even though they were made at an earlier time.

This amazing result confirmed a similar finding reported a year earlier by physicists Onur Hosten and Paul Kwiat at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. They had achieved an even larger laser amplification, by a factor of 10,000, when using weak measurements to detect a shift in a beam of polarized light moving between air and glass...

For Tollaksen, though, the results are awe-inspiring and a bit scary. “It is upsetting philosophically,” he concedes. “All these experiments change the way that I relate to time, the way I experience myself.” The results have led him to wrestle with the idea that the future is set. If the universe has a destiny that is already written, do we really have a free choice in our actions? Or are all our choices predetermined to fit the universe’s script, giving us only the illusion of free will? …

you can see the effects of the future on the past only after carrying out millions of repeat experiments and tallying up the results to produce a meaningful pattern. Focus on any single one of them and try to cheat it, and you are left with a very strange-looking result—an amplification with no cause—but its meaning vanishes. You simply have to put it down to a random error in your apparatus. You win back your free will in the sense that if you actually attempt to defy the future, you will find that it can never force you to carry out postselection experiments against your wishes. The math, Tollaksen says, backs him on this interpretation: The error range in single intermediate weak measurements that are not followed up by the required post­selection will always be just enough to dismiss the bizarre result as a mistake.
physics mainstream is destined to finally notice his time-twisting ideas, then so it will be....

Here, finally, is the answer to Aharonov’s opening question: What does God gain by playing dice with the universe? Why must the quantum world always retain a degree of fuzziness when we try to look at it through the time slice of the present? That loophole is needed so that the future can exert an overall pull on the present, without ever being caught in the act of doing it in any particular instance.

“The future can only affect the present if there is room to write its influence off as a mistake,” Aharonov says.
Whether this realization is a masterstroke of genius that explains the mechanism for backward causality or an admission that the future’s influence on the past can never fully be proven is open to debate. Andrew Jordan, who designed the Rochester laser amplification experiment with Howell, notes that there is even fundamental controversy over whether his results support Aharonov’s version of backward causality. No one disputes his team’s straightforward experimental results, but “there is much philosophical thought about what weak values really mean, what they physically correspond to—if they even really physically correspond to anything at all,” Jordan says. “My view is that we don’t have to interpret them as a consequence of the future’s influencing the present, but rather they show us that there is a lot about quantum mechanics that we still have to understand.” Nonetheless, he is open to being convinced otherwise: “A year from now, I may well change my mind.”

DOES THE UNIVERSE HAVE A DESTINY?
Is feedback from the future guiding the development of life, the universe, and, well, everything? Paul Davies at Arizona State University in Tempe and his colleagues are investigating whether the universe has a destiny—and if so, whether there is a way to detect its eerie influence.

Cosmologists have long been puzzled about why the conditions of our universe—for example, its rate of expansion—provide the ideal breeding ground for galaxies, stars, and planets. If you rolled the dice to create a universe, odds are that you would not get one as handily conducive to life as ours is. Even if you could take life for granted, it’s not clear that 14 billion years is enough time for it to evolve by chance. But if the final state of the universe is set and is reaching back in time to influence the early universe, it could amplify the chances of life’s emergence.

With Alonso Botero at the University of the Andes in Colombia, Davies has used mathematical modeling to show that bookending the universe with particular initial and final states affects the types of particles created in between. “We’ve done this for a simplified, one-dimensional universe, and now we plan to move up to three dimensions,” Davies says. He and Botero are also searching for signatures that the final state of the universe could retroactively leave on the relic radiation of the Big Bang, which could be picked up by the Planck satellite launched last year.

Ideally, Davies and Botero hope to find a single cosmic destiny that can explain three major cosmological enigmas. The first mystery is why the expansion of the universe is currently speeding up; the second is why some cosmic rays appear to have energies higher than the bounds of normal physics allow; and the third is how galaxies acquired their magnetic fields. “The goal is to find out whether Mother Nature has been doing her own postselections, causing these unexpected effects to appear,” Davies says.

Bill Unruh of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, a leading physicist, is intrigued by Davies’s idea. “This could have real implications for whatever the universe was like in its early history,” he says."


 

it’s all in the formalism - interpretation independent.

 

|Alice, Bob) ~ |A)|B) + |A’)|B’)

 

(A|A) = 1 et-al

 

(A|A’) =/= 0 when A =/= A’

 

(B|B’) =/= 0 when B =/= B’

 

P(B) = Trace over A & A’ {|B)(B| |Alice, Bob)(Alice,Bob|}

 

i.e.

 

|A)|B)(B|(A| + |A)|B)(B’|(A’| + |A’)|B’)(B’|(A’| + |A’)|B’)(B|(A|

 

 

Trace ---)

 

(B|(A|{|A)|B)(B|(A| + |A)|B)(B’|(A’| + |A’)|B’)(B’|(A’| + |A’)|B’)(B|(A|}|A)|B)

 

+(B| (A’|{|A)|B)(B|(A| + |A)|B)(B’|(A’| + |A’)|B’)(B’|(A’| + |A’)|B’)(B|(A|}|A’)|B)

 

= {(B|(A||A)|B)(B|(A||A)|B) + (B|(A||A)|B)(B’|(A’||A)|B) + (B|(A||A’)|B’)(B’|(A’||A)|B) + (B|(A||A’)|B’)(B|(A||A)|B)}

 

+|{(B| (A’|A)|B)(B|(A||A’)|B) + (B| (A’|A)|B)(B’|(A’||A’)|B) + (B| (A’|A’)|B’)(B’|(A’| |A’)|B)+(B| (A’ |A’)|B’)(B|(A||A’)|B)}

 

= {1 + (B’||B)(A’||A) + (B||B’)(B’||B)(A||A’)(A’||A) + (B|B’)|(A||A’)(A||A)}

 

+|{ (A’|A)(A||A’) + (A’|A)(A’||A’)(B’||B) + (B||B’) (B’||B)+(B||B’) (A||A’)}

 

= {1 + (B’||B)(A’||A) +|(B||B’)|^2|(A||A’)|^2 + (B|B’)|(A||A’)|^2}

 

+|{ |(A’|A)|^2 + (A’|A)(B’||B) + |(B||B’)|^2 +(B||B’) (A||A’)}

 

THE ABOVE ALGEBRA NEEDS TO BE CHECKED FOR ERRORS.

 

In the special case that two Glauber SENDER states |A) and |A’) are entangled with a single qubit B i.e. (B|B’) = 0

 

then

 

P(B) ~ 1 + |(A||A’)|^2

 

This is an entanglement signal because of the  |(A||A’)|^2 MODULATION term absent in the usual states used e.g. in Aspect’s experiment where Alice and Bob are both micro-qubit states instead of macro-QUBIT Glauber states.

 

Born’s probability interpretation breaks down completely here because of distinguishable over-complete non-orthgonal base states used in the entanglement.

 


1) is entanglement signaling with entangled Glauber states possible because they are over-complete non-orthogonal and distinguishable with a non-unitary dynamics (nonlinear non-unitary Landau-Ginzburg c-number ODLRO eq replaces nonlocal linear Schrodinger 2nd-quantized eq in Fock number space - e.g. paper by Jorge Berger cited in my http://journalofcosmology.com/SarfattiConsciousness.pdf ?
2) Is dark energy Hawking-Unruh thermal radiation from our future event horizon that is a Wheeler-Feynman total absorber? The Hawking radiation density on the horizon Lp thick is hc/Lp^4 with temperature hc/LpkB. The advanced waves back from the future to us are red-shifted down to temperature hc/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 to us - and as is well known the advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking radiation looks like zero point virtual photons at that stage. Plugging in the T^4 black body radiation law gives dark energy density hc/Lp^2A as actually measured where A is the area/Hawking entropy of our future horizon, where our future light cone crosses it.

3) Is this horizon a Seth Lloyd computer and is it also a ’t Hooft-Susskind hologram screen with us as its retro-causally Aharonov post-selected computed 3D images along with all the matter fields in the interior bulk of the causal diamond of both past (pre-selected) and future 2D horizons?

it’s all in the formalism - interpretation independent.

 

|Alice, Bob) ~ |A)|B) + |A’)|B’)

 

(A|A) = 1 et-al

 

(A|A’) =/= 0 when A =/= A’

 

(B|B’) =/= 0 when B =/= B’

 

P(B) = Trace over A & A’ {|B)(B| |Alice, Bob)(Alice,Bob|}

 

i.e.

 

|A)|B)(B|(A| + |A)|B)(B’|(A’| + |A’)|B’)(B’|(A’| + |A’)|B’)(B|(A|

 

 

Trace ---)

 

(B|(A|{|A)|B)(B|(A| + |A)|B)(B’|(A’| + |A’)|B’)(B’|(A’| + |A’)|B’)(B|(A|}|A)|B)

 

+(B| (A’|{|A)|B)(B|(A| + |A)|B)(B’|(A’| + |A’)|B’)(B’|(A’| + |A’)|B’)(B|(A|}|A’)|B)

 

= {(B|(A||A)|B)(B|(A||A)|B) + (B|(A||A)|B)(B’|(A’||A)|B) + (B|(A||A’)|B’)(B’|(A’||A)|B) + (B|(A||A’)|B’)(B|(A||A)|B)}

 

+|{(B| (A’|A)|B)(B|(A||A’)|B) + (B| (A’|A)|B)(B’|(A’||A’)|B) + (B| (A’|A’)|B’)(B’|(A’| |A’)|B)+(B| (A’ |A’)|B’)(B|(A||A’)|B)}

 

= {1 + (B’||B)(A’||A) + (B||B’)(B’||B)(A||A’)(A’||A) + (B|B’)|(A||A’)(A||A)}

 

+|{ (A’|A)(A||A’) + (A’|A)(A’||A’)(B’||B) + (B||B’) (B’||B)+(B||B’) (A||A’)}

 

= {1 + (B’||B)(A’||A) +|(B||B’)|^2|(A||A’)|^2 + (B|B’)|(A||A’)|^2}

 

+|{ |(A’|A)|^2 + (A’|A)(B’||B) + |(B||B’)|^2 +(B||B’) (A||A’)}

 

THE ABOVE ALGEBRA NEEDS TO BE CHECKED FOR ERRORS.

 

In the special case that two Glauber SENDER states |A) and |A’) are entangled with a single qubit B i.e. (B|B’) = 0

 

then

 

P(B) ~ 1 + |(A||A’)|^2

 

This is an entanglement signal because of the  |(A||A’)|^2 MODULATION term absent in the usual states used e.g. in Aspect’s experiment where Alice and Bob are both micro-qubit states instead of macro-QUBIT Glauber states.

 

Born’s probability interpretation breaks down completely here because of distinguishable over-complete non-orthgonal base states used in the entanglement.

 

 


This is an entanglement signal because of the  ||^2 MODULATION term absent in the usual states used e.g. in Aspect’s experiment where Alice and Bob are both micro-qubit states instead of macro-QUBIT Glauber states.
Born’s probability interpretation breaks down completely here because of distinguishable over-complete non-orthgonal base states used in the entanglement.
_______________________________________________
ExoticPhysics mailing list
ExoticPhysics@mail.softcafe.net
http://mail.softcafe.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exoticphysics

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=39440
May 09

"and I do not feign hypotheses” Newton

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
On May 9, 2012, at 12:33 PM, REK wrote:

To clarify, my question was not 'why do particles follow geodesics' but 'how can 'spacetime' 'cause' particles to follow geodesics’.


JS: I still don’t understand the question. Why “cause”. Geodesic equation comes from the ACTION principle just like all the laws of physics do. Action for a free test particle is INVARIANT integral mods  (generalized Newton’s 1st law).

REK: My point is that I don't think that 'spacetime' causes particles to follow geodesics; of course forces are involved, and I don't see why we need to tie those forces to a substantive 'spacetime’.  

JS: “Cause” here is inappropriate. No forces involved in geodesic. By definition geodesic motion is (real) force-free motion. I agree with Ruth, if I understand her words? -  that no forces needed for gravity. Newton’s “gravity force” is replaced by “substantive space time” i.e. the LOCAL GEOMETRODYNAMICAL FIELD e^I (tetrads)& S^I^J (spin connection) - as explained by Rovelli Ch 2 of “Quantum Gravity” on ontic par with EM field F = dA, weak field F^a, a = 1,2,3 and strong field F^b, b = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8

all obey generalized

DF = 0  (Faraday, no magnetic monopole)

D*F = *J (Ampere, Gauss)

D*J = 0 LOCAL CONSERVATION OF BOSON FIELD SOURCE CURRENT DENSITIES

D = d + (LOCAL GAUGE CONNECTION)/\

Hypotheses non fingo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hypotheses non fingo (Latin for "I feign no hypotheses", or "I contrive no hypotheses") is a famous phrase used by Isaac Newton in an essay General Scholium which was appended to the second (1713) edition of the Principia.
Here is a recent translation (published 1999) of the passage containing this famous remark:
I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. [1]
[edit]

Forces cause off-geodesic motion. (Newton’s 2nd law)


That's why I mentioned the Harvey Brown book--he argues that 'spacetime' is superfluous to the question.

Best
R


May 09

Do we need Mach's Principle? May 8, 2012

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Overview
JW: The existence of transient mass fluctuations in objects subjected to large accelerations and rapid changes in acceleration depends upon "Mach's principle" and some peculiarities of "radiation reaction" forces. Mach's principle is the assertion that the physical origin of all inertial reaction forces is an interaction of the object with chiefly the most distant matter in the universe. (Inertial reaction forces are those things that push back on you when you push on stuff.)
JS: I do not think you need Mach’s Principle or Wheeler-Feynman advanced influences to explain Newton’s 3rd law of equal and opposite action-reaction. This is a purely local phenomenon from universal local translation symmetry Noether’s theorem implying conservation of total linear momentum.
"Noether's (first) theorem states that any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law. The theorem was proved by German mathematician Emmy Noether in 1915 and published in 1918.[1] The action of a physical system is the integral over time of a Lagrangian function (which may or may not be an integral over space of a Lagrangian density function), from which the system's behavior can be determined by the principle of least action.
Noether's theorem has become a fundamental tool of modern theoretical physics and the calculus of variations. A generalization of the seminal formulations on constants of motion in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (developed in 1788 and 1833, respectively), it does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian alone (e.g. systems with a Rayleigh dissipation function). In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Example_2:_Conservation_of_center_of_momentum

JW: Radiation reaction forces are experienced by charged objects as they "launch" energy in the form of radiation when they are accelerated by external forces. (These are recoil forces, like those experienced when "launching" bullets out of a gun in your hand.) When examined, the origin of inertia and radiation reaction turn out to have some very strange consequences, notwithstanding that no "new physics" is involved. These ideas are explored in the following material.
JS: It is true that when a real electron emits a real photon that there is a recoil on the electron in order to obey Newton’s 3rd law. However, that is not the same as the radiation reaction force that depends on the time derivative of the acceleration of the electron.
Abraham–Lorentz force
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In the physics of electromagnetism, the Abraham–Lorentz force is the recoil force on an accelerating charged particle caused by the particle emitting electromagnetic radiation. It is also called the radiation reaction force.
The formula is in the domain of classical physics, not quantum physics, and therefore, may not be valid at distances of roughly the Compton wavelength (λC ≈ 2.43 pm) or below.[1] There is, however, an analogue of the formula which is both fully quantum and relativistic, called the "Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac-Langevin equation". See Johnson and Hu.[2]
The force is proportional to the square of the object's charge, times the so-called "jerk" (rate of change of acceleration) that it is experiencing. The force points in the direction of the jerk. For example, in a cyclotron, where the jerk points opposite to the velocity, the radiation reaction is directed opposite to the velocity of the particle, providing a braking action.
It was thought that the solution of the Abraham–Lorentz force problem predicts that signals from the future affect the present, thus challenging intuition of cause and effect. For example, there are pathological solutions using the Abraham–Lorentz-Dirac equation in which a particle accelerates in advance of the application of a force, so-called preacceleration solutions! One resolution of this problem was discussed by Yaghjian,[3] and is further discussed by Rohrlich,[4] Medina.,[5] and Ribari? and Šušterši?.[6] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham–Lorentz_force
JS: Another is Wheeler-Feynman --> Hoyle-Narlikar --> Cramer transaction.
However ordinary forces depend on acceleration and even velocity not jerk.
On the other hand, we can try to say semi-classically for the source charge: 3-vectors in BOLD font.
Ffinal_electron = dPfinal_electron/dt = (inertia)(acceleration) + (velocity)d(inertia)/dt + (coefficient)d(acceleration)dt
with
Pinitial_electron = Pfinal_electron + Pphoton
d/dt[Pfinal_electron + Pphoton] = 0  Newton’s local 3rd law
ABOVE IS ONLY VALID IN AN INERTIAL FRAME WITHOUT UNIVERSAL FICTITIOUS FORCES OF CORIOLIS, CENTRIFUGAL, EULER AND NEWTON’S “GRAVITY” (PRE-EINSTEIN GR).
So the Wheeler-Feynman nonlocal retrocausal “jerk” is only ONE term in the balance of action-reaction forces.
Of course the problem really must be done quantum mechanically if its only one photon. You can do it classically using EM Poynting vector ~ ExB.
TO BE CONTINUED

PS - there is no Higgs mechanism here in the usual sense. The eight vacuum condensate Goldstone phases that represent macro-quantum coherent Glauber states of virtual (off-shell) massless spin zero bosons are singular multi-valued Cartan 0-forms whose exterior derivatives are the still massless spin 1 strong force vector gluons. Because the 0-forms are singular multivalued the massless spin 1 vector gluon 1-forms are not closed and have non-vanishing 2-form exterior derivatives. Details are shown in Hagen Kleinert’s book.

In the usual Higgs mechanism, we are given a-priori a spin 1 massless local gauge potentials A^a with a set of macro-quantum coherent vacuum state order parameters that are Glauber states of off-mass-shell spin 0 Goldstone bosons. The Goldstone bosons are “eaten” by the gauge potentials. In other words, the massless Goldstone bosons become the longitudinal polarization states of the now massive spin 1 vector field. This is a non-Abelian Meissner effect in the vacuum leading to stringy flux tubes of the massive spin 1 vector field analogous to quantized magnetic flux vortices in superconductors.

However, in the present self-referential case, the spin 1 vector field is not different in nature from the spin 0 Goldstone phases - they are the same field unlike the usual U1xSU2 Higgs mechanism for the W-bosons.

------------------------------------

These are the logs of the starship NCC-1701-280Z.  Its five-year mission to seek out new minds, new quantum realms.  To boldly explore physics where no physicist  has gone before (in physical, virtual, or quantum worlds)!




May 06

Destiny Matrix 2012 Autobiography

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
actually this is about a year old
http://www.scribd.com/doc/91241944/Destiny-Matrix-2012-Jack-Sarfatti