Text Size

Stardrive

Nov 30

LIGO's Little Bang for Big Buck

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

No gravitational waves are identified. These are local measurements of course. Gravity waves are seen indirectly in the binary pulsar data and the agreement with Einstein's GR is excellent.

PHYSICAL REVIEW D 82, 102001 (2010) Search for gravitational waves from compact binary coalescence in LIGO
and Virgo data from S5 and VSR1
J. Abadie,29,a B. P. Abbott,29,a R. Abbott,29,a M. Abernathy,66,a T. Accadia,27,b F. Acernese,19a,19c,b C. Adams,31,a
R. Adhikari,29,a P. Ajith,29,a B. Allen,2,78,a G. Allen,52,a E. Amador Ceron,78,a R. S. Amin,34,a S. B. Anderson,29,a W. G. Anderson,78,a F. Antonucci,22a,b M. A. Arain,65,a M. Araya,29,a M. Aronsson,29,a K. G. Arun,26a,26b,b Y. Aso,29,a S. Aston,64,a P. Astone,22a,b D. E. Atkinson,30,a P. Aufmuth,28,a C. Aulbert,2,a S. Babak,1,a P. Baker,37,a G. Ballardin,13,b T. Ballinger,10,a S. Ballmer,29,a D. Barker,30,a S. Barnum,49,a F. Barone,19a,19c,b B. Barr,66,a P. Barriga,77,a L. Barsotti,32,a M. Barsuglia,4,b M. A. Barton,30,a I. Bartos,12,a R. Bassiri,66,a M. Bastarrika,66,a J. Bauchrowitz,2,a Th. S. Bauer,41a,b B. Behnke,1,a M. G. Beker,41a,b A. Belletoile,27,b M. Benacquista,59,a A. Bertolini,2,a J. Betzwieser,29,a N. Beveridge,66,a P. T. Beyersdorf,48,a S. Bigotta,21a,21b,b I. A. Bilenko,38,a G. Billingsley,29,a J. Birch,31,a S. Birindelli,43a,b R. Biswas,78,a M. Bitossi,21a,b M. A. Bizouard,26a,b E. Black,29,a J. K. Blackburn,29,a L. Blackburn,32,a D. Blair,77,a B. Bland,30,a M. Blom,41a,b C. Boccara,26b,b O. Bock,2,a T. P. Bodiya,32,a R. Bondarescu,54,a F. Bondu,43b,b L. Bonelli,21a,21b,b R. Bonnand,33,b R. Bork,29,a M. Born,2,a S. Bose,79,a L. Bosi,20a,b B. Bouhou,4,b M. Boyle,8,a S. Braccini,21a,b C. Bradaschia,21a,b P. R. Brady,78,a V. B. Braginsky,38,a J. E. Brau,71,a J. Breyer,2,a D. O. Bridges,31,a A. Brillet,43a,b M. Brinkmann,2,a V. Brisson,26a,b M. Britzger,2,a A. F. Brooks,29,a D. A. Brown,53,a R. Budzyn ?ski,45b,b T. Bulik,45c,45d,b H. J. Bulten,41a,41b,b A. Buonanno,67,a J. Burguet–Castell,78,a O. Burmeister,2,a D. Buskulic,27,b C. Buy,4,b R. L. Byer,52,a L.Cadonati,68,a G.Cagnoli,17a,b J.Cain,56,a E.Calloni,19a,19b,b J.B.Camp,39,a E.Campagna,17a,17b,b P.Campsie,66,a J. Cannizzo,39,a K. C. Cannon,29,a B. Canuel,13,b J. Cao,61,a C. Capano,53,a F. Carbognani,13,b S. Caudill,34,a M. Cavaglia`,56,a F. Cavalier,26a,b R. Cavalieri,13,b G. Cella,21a,b C. Cepeda,29,a E. Cesarini,17b,b T. Chalermsongsak,29,a E. Chalkley,66,a P. Charlton,11,a E. Chassande-Mottin,4,b S. Chelkowski,64,a Y. Chen,8,a A. Chincarini,18,b N. Christensen,10,a S. S. Y. Chua,5,a C. T. Y. Chung,55,a D. Clark,52,a J. Clark,9,a J. H. Clayton,78,a F. Cleva,43a,b E. Coccia,23a,23b,b C. N. Colacino,21a,b J. Colas,13,b A. Colla,22a,22b,b M. Colombini,22b,b R. Conte,73,a D. Cook,30,a T. R. Corbitt,32,a N. Cornish,37,a A. Corsi,22a,b C. A. Costa,34,a J.-P. Coulon,43a,b D. Coward,77,a D. C. Coyne,29,a J. D. E. Creighton,78,a T. D. Creighton,59,a A. M. Cruise,64,a R. M. Culter,64,a A. Cumming,66,a L. Cunningham,66,a E. Cuoco,13,b K. Dahl,2,a S. L. Danilishin,38,a R. Dannenberg,29,a S. D’Antonio,23a,b K. Danzmann,2,28,a K. Das,65,a V. Dattilo,13,b B. Daudert,29,a M. Davier,26a,b G. Davies,9,a A. Davis,14,a E. J. Daw,57,a R. Day,13,b T. Dayanga,79,a R. De Rosa,19a,19b,b D. DeBra,52,a J. Degallaix,2,a M. del Prete,21a,21c,b V. Dergachev,29,a R. DeRosa,34,a R. DeSalvo,29,a P. Devanka,9,a S. Dhurandhar,25,a L. Di Fiore,19a,b A. Di Lieto,21a,21b,b I. Di Palma,2,a M. Di Paolo Emilio,23a,23c,b A. Di Virgilio,21a,b M. D ??az,59,a A. Dietz,27,b F. Donovan,32,a K. L. Dooley,65,a E. E. Doomes,51,a S. Dorsher,70,a E. S. D. Douglas,30,a M. Drago,44c,44d,b R. W. P. Drever,6,a J. C. Driggers,29,a J. Dueck,2,a J.-C. Dumas,77,a T. Eberle,2,a M. Edgar,66,a M. Edwards,9,a A. Effler,34,a P. Ehrens,29,a G. Ely,10,a R. Engel,29,a T. Etzel,29,a M. Evans,32,a T. Evans,31,a V. Fafone,23a,23b,b S. Fairhurst,9,a Y. Fan,77,a B. F. Farr,42,a D. Fazi,42,a H. Fehrmann,2,a D. Feldbaum,65,a I. Ferrante,21a,21b,b F. Fidecaro,21a,21b,b L. S. Finn,54,a I. Fiori,13,b R. Flaminio,33,b M. Flanigan,30,a K. Flasch,78,a S. Foley,32,a C. Forrest,72,a E. Forsi,31,a N. Fotopoulos,78,a J.-D. Fournier,43a,b J. Franc,33,b S. Frasca,22a,22b,b F. Frasconi,21a,b M. Frede,2,a M. Frei,58,a Z. Frei,15,a A. Freise,64,a R. Frey,71,a T. T. Fricke,34,a D. Friedrich,2,a P. Fritschel,32,a V. V. Frolov,31,a P. Fulda,64,a M. Fyffe,31,a M. Galimberti,33,b L. Gammaitoni,20a,20b,b J. A. Garofoli,53,a F. Garufi,19a,19b,b G. Gemme,18,b E. Genin,13,b A. Gennai,21a,b S. Ghosh,79,a J. A. Giaime,34,31,a S. Giampanis,2,a K. D. Giardina,31,a A. Giazotto,21a,b C. Gill,66,a E. Goetz,69,a L. M. Goggin,78,a G. Gonza ?lez,34,a S. Goßler,2,a R. Gouaty,27,b C. Graef,2,a M. Granata,4,b A. Grant,66,a S. Gras,77,a C. Gray,30,a R. J. S. Greenhalgh,47,a A. M. Gretarsson,14,a C. Greverie,43a,b R. Grosso,59,a H. Grote,2,a S. Grunewald,1,a G. M. Guidi,17a,17b,b E. K. Gustafson,29,a R. Gustafson,69,a B. Hage,28,a P. Hall,9,a J. M. Hallam,64,a D. Hammer,78,a G. Hammond,66,a J. Hanks,30,a C. Hanna,29,a J. Hanson,31,a J. Harms,70,a G. M. Harry,32,a I. W. Harry,9,a E. D. Harstad,71,a K. Haughian,66,a K. Hayama,40,a J.-F. Hayau,43b,b T. Hayler,47,a J. Heefner,29,a H. Heitmann,43a,43b,b P. Hello,26a,b I. S. Heng,66,a A. Heptonstall,29,a M. Hewitson,2,a S. Hild,66,a E. Hirose,53,a D. Hoak,68,a K. A. Hodge,29,a K. Holt,31,a D. J. Hosken,63,a J. Hough,66,a E. Howell,77,a D. Hoyland,64,a D. Huet,13,b B. Hughey,32,a S. Husa,62,a S. H. Huttner,66,a T. Huynh–Dinh,31,a D. R. Ingram,30,a R. Inta,5,a T. Isogai,10,a A. Ivanov,29,a P. Jaranowski,45e,b W. W. Johnson,34,a D. I. Jones,75,a G. Jones,9,a R. Jones,66,a L. Ju,77,a P. Kalmus,29,a V. Kalogera,42,a S. Kandhasamy,70,a J. Kanner,67,a E. Katsavounidis,32,a K. Kawabe,30,a S. Kawamura,40,a F. Kawazoe,2,a W. Kells,29,a D. G. Keppel,29,a A. Khalaidovski,2,a F. Y. Khalili,38,a E. A. Khazanov,24,a H. Kim,2,a P. J. King,29,a D. L. Kinzel,31,a J. S. Kissel,34,a S. Klimenko,65,a V. Kondrashov,29,a R. Kopparapu,54,a S. Koranda,78,a I. Kowalska,45c,b D. Kozak,29,a T. Krause,58,a V. Kringel,2,a S. Krishnamurthy,42,a B. Krishnan,1,a A. Kro ?lak,45a,45f,b G. Kuehn,2,a J. Kullman,2,a R. Kumar,66,a
1550-7998=2010=82(10)=102001(11)    102001-1    ! 2010 The American Physical SocietyJ. ABADIE et al.    PHYSICAL REVIEW D 82, 102001 (2010)
P. Kwee,28,a M. Landry,30,a M. Lang,54,a B. Lantz,52,a N. Lastzka,2,a A. Lazzarini,29,a P. Leaci,2,a J. Leong,2,a I. Leonor,71,a N. Leroy,26a,b N. Letendre,27,b J. Li,59,a T. G. F. Li,41a,b H. Lin,65,a P. E. Lindquist,29,a N. A. Lockerbie,76,a D. Lodhia,64,a M. Lorenzini,17a,b V. Loriette,26b,b M. Lormand,31,a G. Losurdo,17a,b P. Lu,52,a J. Luan,8,a M. Lubinski,30,a A. Lucianetti,65,a H. Lu ?ck,2,28,a A. Lundgren,53,a B. Machenschalk,2,a M. MacInnis,32,a M. Mageswaran,29,a K. Mailand,29,a E. Majorana,22a,b C. Mak,29,a I. Maksimovic,26b,b N. Man,43a,b I. Mandel,42,a V. Mandic,70,a M. Mantovani,21a,21c,b F. Marchesoni,20a,b F. Marion,27,b S. Ma ?rka,12,a Z. Ma ?rka,12,a E. Maros,29,a J. Marque,13,b F. Martelli,17a,17b,b I. W. Martin,66,a R. M. Martin,65,a J. N. Marx,29,a K. Mason,32,a A. Masserot,27,b F. Matichard,32,a L. Matone,12,a R. A. Matzner,58,a N. Mavalvala,32,a R. McCarthy,30,a D. E. McClelland,5,a S. C. McGuire,51,a G. McIntyre,29,a G. McIvor,58,a D. J. A. McKechan,9,a G. Meadors,69,a M. Mehmet,2,a T. Meier,28,a A. Melatos,55,a A. C. Melissinos,72,a G. Mendell,30,a D. F. Mene ?ndez,54,a R. A. Mercer,78,a L. Merill,77,a S. Meshkov,29,a C. Messenger,2,a M. S. Meyer,31,a H. Miao,77,a C. Michel,33,b L. Milano,19a,19b,b J. Miller,66,a Y. Minenkov,23a,b Y. Mino,8,a S. Mitra,29,a V. P. Mitrofanov,38,a G. Mitselmakher,65,a R. Mittleman,32,a B. Moe,78,a M. Mohan,13,b S. D. Mohanty,59,a S. R. P. Mohapatra,68,a D. Moraru,30,a J. Moreau,26b,b G. Moreno,30,a N. Morgado,33,b A. Morgia,23a,23b,b K. Mors,2,a S. Mosca,19a,19b,b V. Moscatelli,22a,b K. Mossavi,2,a B. Mours,27,b C. MowLowry,5,a G. Mueller,65,a S. Mukherjee,59,a A. Mullavey,5,a H. Mu ?ller-Ebhardt,2,a J. Munch,63,a P. G. Murray,66,a T. Nash,29,a R. Nawrodt,66,a J. Nelson,66,a I. Neri,20a,20b,b G. Newton,66,a E. Nishida,40,a A. Nishizawa,40,a F. Nocera,13,b D. Nolting,31,a E. Ochsner,67,a J. O’Dell,47,a G. H. Ogin,29,a R. G. Oldenburg,78,a B. O’Reilly,31,a R. O’Shaughnessy,54,a C. Osthelder,29,a D. J. Ottaway,63,a R. S. Ottens,65,a H. Overmier,31,a B. J. Owen,54,a A. Page,64,a G. Pagliaroli,23a,23c,b L. Palladino,23a,23c,b C. Palomba,22a,b Y. Pan,67,a C. Pankow,65,a F. Paoletti,21a,13,b M. A. Papa,1,78,a S. Pardi,19a,19b,b M. Pareja,2,a M. Parisi,19b,b A. Pasqualetti,13,b R. Passaquieti,21a,21b,b D. Passuello,21a,b P. Patel,29,a D. Pathak,9,a M. Pedraza,29,a L. Pekowsky,53,a S. Penn,16,a C. Peralta,1,a A. Perreca,64,a G. Persichetti,19a,19b,b M. Pichot,43a,b M. Pickenpack,2,a F. Piergiovanni,17a,17b,b M. Pietka,45e,b L. Pinard,33,b I. M. Pinto,74,a M. Pitkin,66,a H. J. Pletsch,2,a M. V. Plissi,66,a R. Poggiani,21a,21b,b F. Postiglione,73,a M. Prato,18,b V. Predoi,9,a L. R. Price,78,a M. Prijatelj,2,a M. Principe,74,a R. Prix,2,a G. A. Prodi,44a,44b,b L. Prokhorov,38,a O. Puncken,2,a M. Punturo,20a,b P. Puppo,22a,b V. Quetschke,59,a F. J. Raab,30,a D. S. Rabeling,41a,41b,b T. Radke,1,a H. Radkins,30,a P. Raffai,15,a M. Rakhmanov,59,a B. Rankins,56,a P. Rapagnani,22a,22b,b V. Raymond,42,a V. Re,44a,44b,b C. M. Reed,30,a T. Reed,35,a T. Regimbau,43a,b S. Reid,66,a D. H. Reitze,65,a F. Ricci,22a,22b,b R. Riesen,31,a K. Riles,69,a P. Roberts,3,a N. A. Robertson,29,66,a F. Robinet,26a,b C. Robinson,9,a E. L. Robinson,1,a A. Rocchi,23a,b S. Roddy,31,a C. Ro ?ver,2,a L. Rolland,27,b J. Rollins,12,a J. D. Romano,59,a R. Romano,19a,19c,b J. H. Romie,31,a D. Rosin ? ska,45g,b S. Rowan,66,a A. Ru ?diger,2,a P. Ruggi,13,b K. Ryan,30,a S. Sakata,40,a M. Sakosky,30,a F. Salemi,2,a L. Sammut,55,a L. Sancho de la Jordana,62,a V. Sandberg,30,a V. Sannibale,29,a L. Santamar ??a,1,a G. Santostasi,36,a S. Saraf,49,a B. Sassolas,33,b B. S. Sathyaprakash,9,a S. Sato,40,a M. Satterthwaite,5,a P. R. Saulson,53,a R. Savage,30,a R. Schilling,2,a R. Schnabel,2,a R. Schofield,71,a B. Schulz,2,a B. F. Schutz,1,9,a P. Schwinberg,30,a J. Scott,66,a S. M. Scott,5,a A. C. Searle,29,a F. Seifert,29,a D. Sellers,31,a A. S. Sengupta,29,a D. Sentenac,13,b A. Sergeev,24,a D. Shaddock,5,a B. Shapiro,32,a P. Shawhan,67,a D. H. Shoemaker,32,a A. Sibley,31,a X. Siemens,78,a D. Sigg,30,a A. Singer,29,a A. M. Sintes,62,a G. Skelton,78,a B. J. J. Slagmolen,5,a J. Slutsky,34,a J. R. Smith,7,a M. R. Smith,29,a N. D. Smith,32,a K. Somiya,8,a B. Sorazu,66,a F. C. Speirits,66,a L. Sperandio,23a,23b,b A. J. Stein,32,a L. C. Stein,32,a S. Steinlechner,2,a S. Steplewski,79,a A. Stochino,29,a R. Stone,59,a K. A. Strain,66,a S. Strigin,38,a A. Stroeer,39,a R. Sturani,17a,17b,b A. L. Stuver,31,a T. Z. Summerscales,3,a M. Sung,34,a S. Susmithan,77,a P. J. Sutton,9,a B. Swinkels,13,b D. Talukder,79,a D. B. Tanner,65,a S. P. Tarabrin,38,a J. R. Taylor,2,a R. Taylor,29,a P. Thomas,30,a K. A. Thorne,31,a K. S. Thorne,8,a E. Thrane,70,a A. Thu ?ring,28,a C. Titsler,54,a K. V. Tokmakov,66,76,a A. Toncelli,21a,21b,b M. Tonelli,21a,21b,b O. Torre,21a,21c,b C. Torres,31,a C. I. Torrie,29,66,a E. Tournefier,27,b F. Travasso,20a,20b,b G. Traylor,31,a M. Trias,62,a J. Trummer,27,b K. Tseng,52,a L. Turner,29,a D. Ugolini,60,a K. Urbanek,52,a H. Vahlbruch,28,a B. Vaishnav,59,a G. Vajente,21a,21b,b M. Vallisneri,8,a J. F. J. van den Brand,41a,41b,b C. Van Den Broeck,9,a S. van der Putten,41a,b M. V. van der Sluys,42,a A. A. van Veggel,66,a S. Vass,29,a R. Vaulin,78,a M. Vavoulidis,26a,b A. Vecchio,64,a G. Vedovato,44c,b J. Veitch,9,a P. J. Veitch,63,a C. Veltkamp,2,a D. Verkindt,27,b F. Vetrano,17a,17b,b A. Vicere ?,17a,17b,b A. Villar,29,a J.-Y. Vinet,43a,b H. Vocca,20a,b C. Vorvick,30,a S. P. Vyachanin,38,a S. J. Waldman,32,a L. Wallace,29,a A. Wanner,2,a R. L. Ward,29,a M. Was,26a,b P. Wei,53,a M. Weinert,2,a A. J. Weinstein,29,a R. Weiss,32,a L. Wen,8,77,a S. Wen,34,a P. Wessels,2,a M. West,53,a T. Westphal,2,a K. Wette,5,a J. T. Whelan,46,a S. E. Whitcomb,29,a D. J. White,57,a B. F. Whiting,65,a C. Wilkinson,30,a P. A. Willems,29,a L. Williams,65,a B. Willke,2,28,a L. Winkelmann,2,a W. Winkler,2,a C. C. Wipf,32,a A. G. Wiseman,78,a G. Woan,66,a R. Wooley,31,a J. Worden,30,a I. Yakushin,31,a H. Yamamoto,29,a K. Yamamoto,2,a D. Yeaton-Massey,29,a S. Yoshida,50,a
102001-2
SEARCH FOR GRAVITATIONAL WAVES FROM COMPACT . . .    PHYSICAL REVIEW D 82, 102001 (2010) P. P. Yu,78,a M. Yvert,27,b M. Zanolin,14,a L. Zhang,29,a Z. Zhang,77,a C. Zhao,77,a N. Zotov,35,a
M. E. Zucker,32,a and J. Zweizig29,a (aLIGO Scientific Collaboration)
(bVirgo Collaboration)
1Albert-Einstein-Institut, Max-Planck-Institut fu ?r Gravitationsphysik, D-14476 Golm, Germany 2Albert-Einstein-Institut, Max-Planck-Institut fu ?r Gravitationsphysik, D-30167 Hannover, Germany 3Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104, USA 4AstroParticule et Cosmologie (APC), CNRS: UMR7164-IN2P3-Observatoire de Paris-Universite ?, Denis Diderot-Paris 7-CEA: DSM/IRFU, France 5Australian National University, Canberra, 0200, Australia 6California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA 7California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, California 92831 USA 8Caltech-CaRT, Pasadena, California 91125, USA 9Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 3AA, United Kingdom 10Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota 55057, USA 11Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia 12Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, USA 13European Gravitational Observatory (EGO), I-56021 Cascina (PI), Italy 14Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott, Arizona 86301, USA 15Eo ?tvo ?s University, ELTE 1053 Budapest, Hungary 16Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, New York 14456, USA 17aINFN, Sezione di Firenze, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy 17bUniversita` degli Studi di Urbino ’Carlo Bo’, I-61029 Urbino, Italy 18INFN, Sezione di Genova, I-16146 Genova, Italy 19aINFN, Sezione di Napoli, I-80126 Napoli, Italy 19bUniversita` di Napoli ’Federico II’ Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy 19cUniversita` di Salerno, Fisciano, I-84084 Salerno, Italy 20aINFN, Sezione di Perugia, I-06123 Perugia, Italy 20bUniversita` di Perugia, I-06123 Perugia, Italy 21aINFN, Sezione di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy 21bUniversita` di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy 21cUniversita` di Siena, I-53100 Siena, Italy 22aINFN, Sezione di Roma, I-00185 Roma, Italy 22bUniversita` ’La Sapienza’, I-00185 Roma, Italy 23aINFN, Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, I-00133 Roma, Italy 23bUniversita` di Roma Tor Vergata, I-00133 Roma, Italy 23cUniversita` dell’Aquila, I-67100 L’Aquila, Italy 24Institute of Applied Physics, Nizhny Novgorod, 603950, Russia 25Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune - 411007, India 26aLAL, Universite ? Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS, F-91898 Orsay, France 26bESPCI, CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France 27Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules (LAPP), Universite ? de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, F-74941 Annecy-Le-Vieux, France 28Leibniz Universita ?t Hannover, D-30167 Hannover, Germany 29LIGO - California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA 30LIGO - Hanford Observatory, Richland, Washington 99352, USA 31LIGO - Livingston Observatory, Livingston, Louisiana 70754, USA 32LIGO, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA 33Laboratoire des Mate ?riaux Avance ?s (LMA), IN2P3/CNRS, F-69622 Villeurbanne, Lyon, France 34Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA 35Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana 71272, USA 36McNeese State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana 70609 USA 37Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA 38Moscow State University, Moscow, 119992, Russia 39NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA 40National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan 41aNikhef, National Institute for Subatomic Physics, P.O. Box 41882, 1009 DB Amsterdam, The Netherlands 41bVU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
102001-3
J. ABADIE et al.    PHYSICAL REVIEW D 82, 102001 (2010)
42Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA 43aUniversite ? Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, CNRS, Observatoire de la Coˆte d’Azur, F-06304 Nice, France 43bInstitut de Physique de Rennes, CNRS, Universite ? de Rennes 1, 35042 Rennes, France 44aINFN, Gruppo Collegato di Trento, Trento, Italy 44bUniversita` di Trento, I-38050 Povo, Trento, Italy 44cINFN, Sezione di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy 44dUniversita` di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy 45aIM-PAN, 00-956 Warsaw, Poland 45bWarsaw University, 00-681 Warsaw, Poland 45cAstronomical Observatory of Warsaw University, 00-478 Warsaw, Poland 45dCAMK-PAN, 00-716 Warsaw, Poland 45eBia?ystok University, 15-424 Bia?ystok, Poland 45fIPJ, 05-400 S ?wierk-Otwock, Poland 45gInstitute of Astronomy, 65-265 Zielona Go ?ra, Poland 46Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York 14623, USA 47Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, HSIC, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX United Kingdom 48San Jose State University, San Jose, California 95192, USA 49Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California 94928, USA 50Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, Louisiana 70402, USA 51Southern University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70813, USA 52Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA 53Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244, USA 54The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA 55The University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia 56The University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, USA 57The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom 58The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA 59The University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College, Brownsville, Texas 78520, USA 60Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas 78212, USA 61Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084 China 62Universitat de les Illes Balears, E-07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain 63University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia 64University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom 65University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA 66University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, United Kingdom 67University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742 USA 68University of Massachusetts - Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA 69University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA 70University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA 71University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, USA 72University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA 73University of Salerno, I-84084 Fisciano (Salerno), Italy and INFN (Sezione di Napoli), Italy 74University of Sannio at Benevento, I-82100 Benevento, Italy and INFN (Sezione di Napoli), Italy 75University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom 76University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G1 1XQ, United Kingdom 77University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia 78University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201, USA 79Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164, USA (Received 25 June 2010; published 5 November 2010)
We report the results of the first search for gravitational waves from compact binary coalescence using data from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory and Virgo detectors. Five months of data were collected during the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory’s S5 and Virgo’s VSR1 science runs. The search focused on signals from binary mergers with a total mass between 2 and 35M.
 

Why do you think back-from-the-future retro-causation may be involved? If your results are real then I say it's evidence for two things:
1) Aharonov's post-selection "destiny" effect.
2) Signal nonlocality violating quantum theory's linear unitarity.

On Nov 30, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Dean Radin wrote:

Retrocausal "explanations" can arise in any experiment where the measurement of interest is noisy. Under such conditions, *if* one can perceive potential future states then one can select times in the present to take measurements that will support any hypothesis of interest. This is not "data selection" in the usual sense of data snooping, but rather selection of fortuitous moments and contexts in which to conduct an experiment. The paper "Decision Augmentation Theory" on Ed May's webpage: http://lfr.org/LFR/csl/academic/library.html goes into this in detail. Other papers on that same page are also relevant to the idea that one can take present-time advantage of retrocausal information.

Of course, the whole concept of retrocausal influence throws a very serious monkey wrench into basic epistemological assumptions in science. But from what I've seen so far, Nature doesn't seem to care about our assumptions.

best wishes,
Dean



On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:19 AM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
Dean

Why do you think back-from-the-future retro-causation may be involved? If your results are real then I say it's evidence for two things:

1) Aharonov's post-selection "destiny" effect.

2) Signal nonlocality violating quantum theory's linear unitarity.

Search Results
Back From the Future | Subatomic Particles | DISCOVER Magazine
Aug 26, 2010 ... A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in thefuture can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a ...
discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future - Cached
?

Thanks Dean
OK got it. Very clear. In fact, however Yakir Aharonov just got a medal from President Obama for showing how the future does influence the present exactly like I and Fred Alan Wolf have been saying now for decades. So the idea is now in the air and has gone mainstream.

Yakir Aharonov Pictures - Obama Awards National Medals Of Science ...
Nov 17, 2010 ... U.S. President Barack Obama (R) presents a National Medal of Science toYakir Aharonov of Chapman University in California during an East ...
www.zimbio.com/pictures/.../Obama...Medals.../Yakir+Aharonov - Cached
?
Chapman University Professor Yakir Aharonov Receives National ...
Oct 15, 2010 ... Bestowed annually by the President of the United States, ... of this year'smedals by President Obama at a ceremony in coming ... Professor Yakir AharonovAwarded National Medal of Science « Schmid College of Science ...
chapmannews.wordpress.com/.../chapman-university-professor-yakir- aharonov-receives-national-medal-of-science/ - Cached
Obama bestows science, technology medals
Nov 17, 2010 ... President Barack Obama stands with Yakir Aharonov, a professor at Chapman University in ... Recipients of the National Medal of Science are: ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/.../AR2010111705578.html



Audio: How the Hippies Saved Physics @SpokenWord.org
Jun 2, 2010 ... MIT Professor David Kaiser describes the field of physic's bumpy transition from New Age to cutting edge. In recent years, the field of ...
www.spokenword.org/program/1097896 - Cached
?
How the Hippies Saved Physics Baltimore - How the Hippies Saved ...
Mar 26, 2009 ... How the Hippies Saved Physics in Baltimore at Johns Hopkins University. David Kaiser, Massachusetts Institute of Technology NO PAPER ...
eventful.com › Baltimore events - Cached - Similar
Talk: How the Hippies Saved Physics Cambridge - Talk: How the ...
Talk: How the Hippies Saved Physics in Boston at MIT Massachusetts Institute ...
eventful.com/...ma/...hippies-saved-physics-/E0-001-029549455-4 - Cached
Show more results from eventful.com
How the Hippies Saved Physics | W. W. Norton & Company
A lively and entertaining Cinderella story, How the Hippies Saved Physics takes us to a time when only the unlikeliest heroes could break the science world ...
books.wwnorton.com/books/detail.aspx?ID=20543 - Cached
Quantum LSD : The Quantum Pontiff
Oct 23, 2009 ... How the Hippies Saved Physics. Abstract: In recent years, the field of quantum information science-an amalgam of topics ranging from quantum ...
scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2009/10/quantum_lsd.php - Cached
[PDF] David I. Kaiser
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Kaiser, How the Hippies Saved Physics. New York: W. W. Norton, forthcoming. 2005 . Kaiser, Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in ...
web.mit.edu/dikaiser/www/Kaiser.cv.pdf - Similar
QUANTUM TANTRA: How the Hippies Saved Physics
Nov 23, 2010 ... In June 2011, W. W. Norton is scheduled to publish a book by MIT historian of science David Kaiser entitled How the Hippies Saved Physics ...
quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2010/.../how-hippies-saved-physics.html - Cached
Talk: How the Hippies Saved Physics | Facebook
Talk: How the Hippies Saved Physics. Share · Public Event ... the field of quantum information science has catapulted to the cutting edge of physics. ...
www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=119532511393714&index=1 - Cached
Spring 2009 Physics Colloquium Schedule
David Kaiser, MIT; Host: Allan Franklin; Title: How the hippies saved physics; Abstract: In recent years, the field of quantum information science--an ...
www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/.../colloquium-spring09.html - Cached - Similar
HTS @ Georgia Tech: How The Hippies Saved Physics
Sep 29, 2010 ... His latest book, How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival, will be published by W. W. Norton in June ...
georgiatechhts.blogspot.com/2010/.../how-hippies-saved-physics.html - Cached

On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Dean Radin wrote:
Similar to Dick, my approach to this problem is from the "data are sacred" perspective. So I have been testing the effect of consciousness on a double-slit interference pattern by asking people to use their imagination or "mind's eye" to gain which-path knowledge from a distance. I'm writing up the last two years of experimentation now, and my conclusion is in agreement with Dick's: The act of focusing attention on a double-slit system weakly alters the interference fringes in a direction consistent with consciousness collapsing the wavefunction. The effect is noticeably stronger in meditators than in non-meditators.
Note that this effect is not necessarily quantum -- it might be due to a classical perturbation on some other aspect of the optical system, or it might be due to a retrocausal effect. With a colleague I've been comparing the data with models of an ideal double-slit system to see if it's possible to distinguish between classical and quantum explanations.

--
best wishes,
Dean
-------------------------------
Dean Radin PhD
Co-Editor-in-Chief, Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
Adjunct Professor, Department of Psychology, Sonoma State University
Senior Scientist
Institute of Noetic Sciences
101 San Antonio Road
Petaluma, CA 94952 USA
www.ions.org
www.explorejournal.com
www.deanradin.com


On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Dick Bierman wrote:
I must confess that I did not (yet) follow the current discussion closely. So my comments may be inappropriate.
The idea to get results in simple physical systems that are different from the predictions of QP because of interaction with consciousness seems to be a dead-end as Danko writes.
Our research has followed the line originally proposed by the Shimony group: to see if a conscious observation of a quantum system has an effect on the experience of a subsequent conscious observer (of the same 'delayed' event). An underlying assumption is that the brain is sensitive for the difference between a non-collapsed and a collapsed state. And of course the assumption that is tested is that conscious observation is the ultimate measurement 'device'  (resulting in collapse).
I am not sure if by reasoning alone (on the basis of QP) one can easily show for this set-up that there can not be an effect of pre-observation but I assume that Shimony did think about this and the fact that he ran such an experiment suggests to me it is not as simple as that.
My position is that data are sacred and theory must follow.
We ran 3 experiments of the kind, two of which has been published. We are currently writing a review of all 3 experiments  for publication, hopefully in FoP.
The verdict will be that over-all the data seem to show a weak differential effect in brain processing of a second observer of a quantum event depending on pre-observation but that the effect size is too small to draw firm conclusions.  (no differential effect when observing a classical event).
One big problem in all this is that we pretend to run a physics-psychology experiment but actually might be running a parapsychological experiment. That is also a reason to remain very cautious when drawing conclusions.

Dick Bierman, University of Amsterdam


On Nov 30, 2010, at 1:58 AM, Hrvoje Nikolic wrote:

What Danko says below makes much more sense to me.
However, my impression is that this is NOT
what Danko and Shan have written in the paper.
I would suggest them to rewrite the paper
completely, not only to emphasize the points that
Danko made below, but also to remove the misleading
discussions that only distract attention from
the good points.


Hrvoje Nikolic

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Danko Nikolic wrote:

On Nov 30, 2010, at 12:42 AM, Yu Shan wrote:


HPS: I suggest that you check with a quantum physicist, such as Zeilinger,
about your paper!

Thanks for your suggestion. We did so. And we are still keep our minds open.

I actually visited Zeilinger and had an extended discussion with him and with his team about the possibilities of designing exactly such an experiment, as Henry suggests. Before I visited, my (naive) plan was to combine our cognitive/psychological expertise in manipulating consciousness with the Vienna expertise in QM experiments. This was supposed to be a conjoint super-experiment that would involve physics and psychology in the same set up. Some people in Zeilinger's group were about equally excited about the idea. Zeilinger was open and curious two. However, unfortunately, as our discussions were progressing in the course of three days, it became more and more apparent that such an experiment cannot be designed. Nothing we came up with could be used as a test.

Shan and I now came to believe that this inability to create a proper design is not a technical problem or a problem of limited creativity of researchers'. Instead, it seems that this is a principal problem. It seems that such an experiment CANNOT EVER be designed. The QM-consciousness hypothesis seems utterly unapproachable even in principle. Whichever experiment we considered to test the relationship between QM and consciousness, we could ALWAYS predict the outcome based on the present knowledge of quantum mechanics. Thus, the known laws of quantum mechanics seemed already so fixed, predictable and complete that there was no room left for any additional manipulation. There seem to be no space left to test empirically the role of observer's consciousness in QM.

Let me illustrate with another problem:
Imagine that someone hypothesizes that consciousness about an object's motion is necessary for Newton's first law of motion to work. How would you test this hypothesis without violating Newton's equations? To formulate an empirical test, one needs to have some degree of freedom. Something must have a possibility to vary. In contrast, Newton's laws already predict everything. There is no variation outside these laws. The laws are complete (please ignore the relativity here). As a consequence, to design an experiment, you already have to assume that Newton got something wrong. You must assume that there is something about motion that Newton did not get right and that consciousness may account for instead. So, even before you begin running the tests, you must have certain conviction about the incorrectness of the existing theory. One cannot design an experiment about the role of consciousness in motion and, in the same time, assume that Newton'w laws are correct.


Similarly, Henry pointed out correctly: "But in the set-up you describe there is no possibility of observing an interference." Note that he makes this conclusion on the basis of the current knowledge of QM. And he assumes that this knowledge is correct. We assume the same. However, the problem that we want to point out is that no matter which experimental design one considers the outcome will be the same. The available knowledge of QM will always lead us to a similar problem: there will always be a lack of a possibility of either an observation or a manipulation. At the end, no matter what you do, you will be every time unable to test the hypothesis. It seems that no experiment can ever be designed.

This inability to operationalize the idea of consciousness-in-QM due to the completeness of the existing QM theory, is our main argument for rejecting the hypothesis.

I hope this helps.


Regards,

Danko Nikolic





Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Date: November 28, 2010 6:15:18 PM PST
To: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: The physical meaning of Einstein's General Coordinate Transformations (GCT)

The best way to see this is with global Penrose conformal diagrams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Penrose.PNG


This is for globally flat Minkowski spacetime of 1905 SR
R^I^J = 0 identically everywhere-when.
This is an unstable solution of Ruv = 0.
You can make GCTs on this and get all kinds of screwy looking guv metrics, all kinds of Levi-Civita connection patterns - but all of them will have vanishing curl. Therefore, they are gauge transformations only describing the flight maneuvers of LNIF spacecraft.

No GCT will ever morph the above global geodesic pattern into any of these for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PENROSE2.PNG


On Nov 28, 2010, at 6:06 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

GCTs are not singular, they are single-valued not multi-valued around topological obstructions, consequently they do not change the real global pattern of the geodesics. GCTs are redundant gauge transformations that describe all possible mappings of the motions of possible fields of accelerating small LNIF detectors. Classical counter-factuality is assumed. That is, if you put a detector there, they would measure a definite result. The invariant computed from that definite result is assumed to really exist there even if no actual measurement has been made.

On Nov 28, 2010, at 5:38 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote to Z:

It is a mistaken model. It's wrong because you have made a false premise.

The geodesic equation?

No, of course not. Your false premise is that a change in the Levi-Civita connection induced by a GCT changes the objective pattern of geodesics in any way. It never does.
 
Your starting point is mathematically and conceptually wrong.

You seem to be saying that the geodesic equation is wrong. That is my premise here.

No, I never said that. To say that is stupid. I am not that stupid. What I said was that:
 
The first-order metric gradients do not change the objective pattern of the geodesics as you assume.

Can you explain this with specific reference to the textbook standard geodesic equation

d^2x^u/d lambda^2 + LC^u_rs (dx^r/d lambda) (dx^s/d lambda) = 0

and show how the second derivatives of the metric appearing in the Riemann curvature tensor enter
into the problem of solving for the geodesics in the presence of a real gravitational field? I just don't see it.


Very simple.

Start from

Guv = -kTuv + boundary/initial conditions

get a valid solution like

gtt = -1/grr = 1 - rs/r

which describes only static LNIFs. It's a representation, a shadow on the wall in contrast to the "light" that is the local invariant

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v

Compute Ruvwl in this representation ~ rs/r^3

The source parameter here is

rs = 2GM/c^2  - that comes from a Tuv.

Now make any GCT you like. M is not changed. The GCT will change the representations of guv, Levi-Civita^uvw, Ruvwl but it will not change the global pattern of the geodesics of the solution that only depends on the source parameter M.

In other words the GCTs are non-physical gauge transformations - that do represent different patterns of possible fleets of LNIF detectors.

The only way to change the geodesic pattern is by changing M which will change the curl of the Levi-Civita connection in any representation.




On Nov 28, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 1:54 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

On Nov 28, 2010, at 1:29 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Look, I'm not trying to undermine your condensate model. I'm just trying to see how it plays out physically. How it may be capable of explaining gravitational attraction in physical terms.

Gravity attraction is explained exactly the same as Einstein explained it - geodesics in curved spacetime.

My condensate - tetrad model gives emergent

Guv + kTuv = 0

as the end product.

Hence gravity attraction is explained.

Your tetrads describe vacuum Weyl curvature as observed from moving reference frames.

Right. In principle they describe Ricci curvature also where Tuv =/= 0 as well. For example, one can imagine tiny strain gauges implanted in the Earth. Or drill holes and lower detectors on cables - those would be static LNIFs.

The E-H field equations determine Ricci curvature at the source. How does you model bridge that gap? How do you get Ricci curvature from the Goldstone phases? Doesn't your formal analogy relate the Goldstone phases directly to the vacuum tetrads?


The vacuum is still there even when Tuv =/= 0. One does not literally have to have actual detectors in place. That is impossible. The point is the Einstein field equations

Guv + kTuv = 0  + initial/boundary/final conditions

describe the GMD field.

A particular representation for guv is a pattern of LNIF detectors that could be there in a counterfactual sense. If you put one there you would get the numbers given by the guv solution.

For example when you write the SSS solution for a black hole outside its horizon

gtt = 1 - rs/r = - 1/grr

rs/r < 1

g(r) ~ (c^2rs/r^2)(1 - rs/r)^-1/2 ---> infinity as r ---> rs from the outside ~ Unruh temperature

that only works for the static rocket detectors in Hawking's picture!

Similarly for the deSitter solution in the static LNIFs where we are at r = 0 in Tamara Davis's Fig 1.1.


gtt = 1 - / ^2 = - 1/grr

r < /^-1/2

g(r) --> 2c^2(/ )(1 - / ^2)^-1/2 ---> infinity as r ---> /^-1/2 from the inside only when / > 0.

g(0) = 0 we are on a de Sitter geodesic.

but which way is g(r) pointing? -  is the question.

gtt = 1 + 2VNewton/c^2

when VNewton  =  -c^2rs/r

-dVNewton /dr = -c^2rs/r^2  attraction pointing toward smaller r

In contrast when VNewton  =  -c^2/ ^2

-dVNewton /dr = +2c^2/

therefore dS / > 0 is virtual boson dark energy repulsion away from r = 0.

In contrast, AdS / < 0 is closed loop virtual fermion dark matter attraction toward r = 0.

Note, there is no event horizon at r = /^1/2 in the AdS case.

Note that the potential / ^2 has QCD-like asymptotic freedom as r --> 0 and it also has confinement as r ---> /^-1/2

when / ~ 1/fermi^2 instead of / ~ 1/Area of future horizon

where the parallel Regge trajectories for hadronic resonances are explained i.e. hadrons as rotating black holes in Salam's f-gravity.

Or is there more to your model than that? Can you really get matter-induced Ricci curvature from the Goldstone phases of the post-inflation condensate?

Since I get Einstein's field equation - short answer is yes.

The point is once I derive the tetrads for LIFs from the gradients of the Goldstone phases then simply use standard arguments that Einstein used to introduce Tuv with his Guv.

Technically I get the curvature 2-form R^I^J from the Goldstone phases including their 3rd order "jerk" partial derivatives - hence the kind nonlocality that we see in radiation reaction in charged particle mechanics leading to Wheeler-Feynman type picture - from Dirac's anticipatory picture using advanced potentials. Clearly the third order partial derivatives demand Aharonov's post-selection final boundary condition.

The basic field partial differential equations of Einstein are really 3rd order not second order in the Goldstone phase Cartan 0-forms from the cohering of the false vacuum into the present vacuum at inflation!

If you impose flat space decoupled from time, i.e. Galilean group that's Newton's gravity force picture.

You can still have Newtonian gravity in Minkowski spacetime, but it would violate the maximum signal propagation speed c.

Curved spacetime eliminates Newton's gravity force and replaces it by the invariant pattern of geodesics in curved spacetime.

Of course.

The equivalence principle is a qualitative PHYSICAL gap that cannot be crossed over to the electro-weak-strong forces.

I'm not sure what this means.

You have a formal analogy between the Goldstone phases and the tetrads of GTR. Why not flesh that out with physical explanations?

I have. The physical explanation is exactly the same as that for superflow in superfluids - except now it's a 4D supersolid with plastic distortions of the point gravity monopole defects in the condensate. You simply do not understand what I have been saying in its fullness.

As to the vacuum fine. But how do you get Ricci curvature at the source? And how do you get from that to the Weyl curvature of the vacuum? No Ricci curvature, no E-H field equations.  What I don't understand is how you get an analog of Ricci curvature from your tetrad-Goldstone phase analogy.  Also why do you need diffeomorphism gauge invariance?

I don't need it. Nature needs it.

Well I disagree.

As you know I think you are mistaken here.

I've given you a clear cut mathematical argument as to why this fails, based on the geodesic equation.

I think your argument is based on a profound misunderstanding of the physical meaning of Einstein's GR. So I don't accept it. It's too easy to get lost in all the excess baggage formalism that is a dense fog hiding the physics.

All that means is that locally coincident accelerating LNIF frames see the same objective curved spacetime invariant patterns of geodesics and their relative deviation.

I have a complete physical picture - not just formalism.

Yes of course Riemann curvature is no problem, it's a tensor quantity. The problem is that gravitational deformation of the geodesics is locally determined by the metric gradients g_uv, w(x), and not the curvature R^u_vwl(x).

You are mistaken here. This is the key error in your attempt. You don't understand that the Levi-Civita connection from first-order partial derivatives of the metric tensor does not affect the gravitational deformation pattern of the tangent bundle of geodesics. The Levi-Civita connection only describes the acceleration of the detectors measuring the non-accelerating geodesic test particles. The gravity deformation is only the covariant curl piece of the Levi-Civita connection with itself. Those are second-order partial derivatives of the metric tensor, but they are, at a deeper level of the Dirac substrate - third-order partial derivatives of the eight coherent Goldstone phases of the post-inflation vacuum superconductor whose point -ike monopole defects form the Kleinert world crystal lattice.

Active diffeomorphism invariance implies that there is no physical distinction between coordinate artifacts

g'_u'v', w(x') =/= 0                         (1)

on the one hand, and actual geometric gradients

g'_uv, w(x) =/= 0                           (2)

on the other. I say this is simply wrong. The gradients (2) deform the geodesics; the gradients (1) do not. The transformations (2) accelerate free test with respect to the source (or vice versa); while the transformations (1) do not. That is a physical distinction. I would have thought you'd be better off without  it. I know this is Rovelli's hobby horse, but I think I can knock it and the "hole" argument down in 3-4 lines. Babak and Grishchuk didn't get that far in their paper.

I don't believe you.

I showed you the argument based on the geodesic equation Jack. Ball's in your court.
OK, explain why there is no physical distinction between (1) and (2) above, with reference to the geodesic equation.
FYI some top people in foundations of physics reject active diffeomorphism invariance as distinguishing  GTR from any other theory based on a spacetime manifold -- e.g., Cartan's spacetime formulation of  Newtonian theory.

I don't believe them because they do not understand the physical meaning of Einstein's GR. They know how to manipulate the formal symbols, but lack the physical understanding.

You can disagree Jack, but don't try to tell me this is a "crank" position. It's not.
Z.

It is a mistaken model. It's wrong because you have made a false premise. Your starting point is mathematically and conceptually wrong. The first-order metric gradients do not change the objective pattern of the geodesics as you assume.

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
The real gravity field comes from the set of coherent vacuum phase gradients analogous to superflow.









Nov 28

Nonlocality of gravity energy 2

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 



Begin forwarded message:

Subject: Cambridge University physicists say that nonlocality of gravity field energy still stands BG attempt fails and is trashed.

B-G do not use tetrads and in the end their theory fails - excess formal baggage like Yilmaz's failed attempt - another bites the dust.

I suspect any theory needing a second shadow connection in addition to the Levi-Civita connection will fail, i.e. not be Popper falsifiable, but only an artifact of a redundant mathematical extension not demanded by experiment.

The physical significance of the Babak-Grishchuk
gravitational energy-momentum tensor
Luke M. Butcher,∗ Anthony Lasenby, and Michael Hobson
Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laboratory, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK.
(Dated: November 4, 2010)

"We examine the claim of Babak and Grishchuk [1] to have solved the problem of localising the energy and momentum of the gravitational field. After summarising Grishchuk’s flat-space formulation of gravity, we demonstrate its equivalence to General Relativity at the level of the action. Two important transformations are described (diffeomorphisms applied to all fields, and diffeomorphisms applied to the flat-space metric alone) and we argue that both should be considered gauge transformations: they alter the mathematical representation of a physical system, but not the system itself. By examining the transformation properties of the Babak-Grishchuk gravitational energy-momentum tensor under these gauge transformations (infinitesimal and finite) we conclude that this
object has no physical significance."

However, this spacetime coordinate gauge transformation is unlike the internal symmetry redundant gauge transformations of the U1 SU2 SU3 electro-weak-strong forces because the equivalence organizing principle makes the former physical in terms of the locally coincident detectors measuring the same events (which can be distant on or inside their light cones). I am not aware of any detector configurations that can distinguish A from A' = A + df where d^2 = 0 in the U1 SU2 SU3 cases. In contrast:

We have three classes of local spacetime transformations for COINCIDENT detectors:

1) Local Lorentz subgroup O1,3(x) LIF <---> LIF'

LIFs have no angular momentum about their Centers Of Mass (COM) that move on timelike zero g-force geodesics.

2) Einstein's 1916 "General Coordinate Transformations" (GCT), i.e., the local translation subgroup T4(x)

LNIF <---> LNIF'    each LNIF detector is not on a timelike geodesic and may or may not have angular momentum about their COMs.

A non-gravity force is needed to push the detector off the objective invariant local geodesic whose global pattern with its neighbors defines the real T4(x) tensor gravity field.

3) Finally the local Tetrad subgroup

LIF <----> LNIF

Indeed I suspect that we can make a commutative diagram in the sense of abstract algebra

LNIF <---> LNIF'
  |                 |
LIF   <---> LIF

This argues against extra-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theories, but not against fiber-bundle theories connecting internal and external symmetries.
Note that supersymmetry is the square root of T4.

Back to the Cambridge physicist's discussion of BG:

"Despite the central role played by the energy-
momentum tensor of matter in General Relativity, there
is no widely accepted way to localise the energy and mo-
mentum of the gravitational field itself. In the place
of a genuine solution to this problem, we are forced to
make do with an over-abundance of energy-momentum
pseudotensors, objects designed to display some or other
property befitting a measure of gravitational energy-
momentum, but whose coordinate dependence renders
them of little physical significance beyond giving the cor-
rect integrals at infinity in asymptotically flat spacetimes.
Even for weak gravitational waves, the best measures at
our disposal only become meaningful once we have aver-
aged over many wavelengths.

The canonical response to the gravitational energy-
momentum problem is to dismiss it as “looking for the
right answer to the wrong question”[2]; but while the
well-known argument presented by Misner, Thorne and
Wheeler is certainly compelling, it is far from watertight.
They remind us that the equivalence principle ensures
that all “gravitational fields" (i.e. Levi-Civita connection)
can be made to vanish at a point by a suitable choice of coordinates, and
conclude that because gravity is locally zero, there can
be no energy density associated with it.

However, this argument fails to consider tensors containing second deriva-
tives of the metric, which unlike (Levi-Civita connection)
cannot be made to vanish by choice of coordinates, and really do reflect the
local curvature of spacetime: for example, the Riemann
tensor can be used to construct objects such as the Bel-
Robinson tensor [3]. Misner, Thorne and Wheeler also
point out that, while the matter energy-momentum tensor derives its physical significance by curving space, a similar tensor for gravity would not be a source term for
the field equations. However, this stance is based around
a prejudice for writing the Einstein field equations as
Gab = kTab with gravity on the left and matter on the
right; there is nothing to stop us splitting up Gab in a
covariant fashion, grouping one part with Tab, and interpreting this as the total energy-momentum source, taking the remainder of Gab to be the gravitational ‘response’.
Despite these reservations, the argument in [2] remains
vindicated as yet by the failure of these escape-routes to
yield anything which can be physically interpreted as an
energy-momentum tensor.

It might appear that the only straightforward solution
to the problem is to extend the definition of the matter
energy-momentum tensor Tab (a functional derivative of
the matter Lagrangian with respect to the metric) to the
gravitational field, and conclude that the gravitational
energy-momentum tensor is −Gab/k, where  k= 8piG/c4.
The Einstein field equations could then be interpreted
as a constraint that everywhere sets to zero the sum
of gravitational and matter energy-momentum. While
one might claim this simple idea conveys some impor-
tant physical insight, it suffers from numerous problems.
Firstly, −Gab/k lacks the analytical power one expects
from an energy-momentum tensor: the ability to split
the set of all physical systems at a particular time into
classes of different total energy and momenta, so that
conservation laws alone can reveal that two particular
systems could never be part of the same spacetime. Sec-
ondly, it leads us to conclude that the gravitational field
only has energy where matter is also present, precluding
the use of this prescription to describe the energetics of
gravitational waves, or define a gravitational tension in
the vacuum between massive bodies. Thirdly, the energy-
momentum tensors for gravity and matter are conserved
separately (∇aGab = 0 and ∇aTab = 0) so that although
there is a delicate balance that keeps their sum zero, it
is not the case that energy or momentum simply ‘flows’
between gravity and matter, as ∇a(Tab − Gab/k) = 0
alone would imply. Lastly, we note that the conserva-
tion law ∇aGab = 0 actually tells us nothing at all about
the gravitational field; it is satisfied identically, without
any need for the equations of motion to hold. Because of
these drawbacks, if we are to regard −Gab/k as a solu-
tion to the gravitational energy-momentum problem, we
consider it rather a trivial one. Clearly, the reason for
this triviality is that we have over-worked the metric: we
cannot use the functional derivative with respect to a dy-
namical field as a way of defining the energy-momentum
tensor for that same field, as we will only end up writing
down the equations of motion twice. This line of rea-
soning leads us to consider that one method of attack
for this problem may be to separate the two roles played
by gab in General Relativity, that of dynamic field and
spacetime metric. 


In [4], Grishchuk develops a “field-theoretical” approach to gravitation, which expresses the physical content of General Relativity (GR) in terms of a dynamical
symmetric tensor field in flat Minkowski spacetime. Although this formulation has been carefully designed to agree with the empirical predictions of GR, in [1] Babak and Grishchuk claim that the flat-space approach allows them to define a unique, symmetric, and non-trivial energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field.
...

We cannot fault Grishchuk’s formulation of gravitational dynamics within the realm of General Relativity, as agreement over predictions of ‘geometrical phenomena’ (as they would be interpreted in GR) has been achieved by design.6 However, in comparison with General Relativity, the flat-space theory possesses additional mathematical structure: two tensors hab and &ab fulfil the role played by gab alone. This extra structure endows the flat-space theory with an increased range of expres-sion, making possible the definition of tensors that cannot be constructed within the framework of GR. As we shall show, the gravitational energy-momentum tensor is one of these ‘non-GR’ quantities.7 We investigate here
whether tab (or any non-GR quantity) can be physically significant, or whether it can only ever be interpreted as an artefact of the mathematics.

Besides allowing us to interpret gravity as a force-field on flat space, the presence of &ab has had the important side-effect of increasing the space of gauge transformations of the theory. The core reason for this is that the flatness constraint (2) is not enough to define a unique
&ab for a given gab, a tensor which, through the correspondence with GR, can be used alone to construct the observable predictions of the theory. In this section we examine two transformations and justify their status as gauge transformations, i.e. that they alter the mathematical representation of a physical system, but not the system itself.
...

Clearly, no ‘geometric’ measurements can ever reveal which &ab is hidden beneath the gab metric, because ‘geometric’ phenomena are invariant under the &-transformation. The only possibility of revealing &ab empirically would be if we could directly measure a non-GR
tensor like tab. However, to assume that such a measurement could be carried out would make our logic circular, as for that to be possible the tensor would certainly need to be physically meaningful, and it is the truth of precisely this assertion that we have been trying to determine!

...

Thus we must finally conclude that the &-transformation (10) is a gauge transformation of
B &Grishchuk’s formalism, and that not only is the flat metric &ab unobservable it is impossible to define a ‘canonical’ choice of &ab in a diffeomorphism gauge covariant, systematic, and natural fashion. ...

Of course, the expected form of these invariants rather depends on what one supposes the physical content of tab to be. If it is, indeed, an energy momentum tensor, then an observer with 4-velocity ua would expect to ‘find’ some energy density



or possibly



It is easy to check that neither of these quantities are invariant under a  &-transformation,
despite the fact that we were forced to conclude that these transformations do not alter whatsoever the physical system we are examining. From this we deduce that, whatever physical meaning tab may have, since it cannot define a meaningful energy-density in the standard way, it is definitely not an energy-momentum tensor. ...

The formulation of gravity presented in [4] succeeds in
recasting General Relativity as a flat-space theory of a
symmetric tensor field. While we do not find fault with
the formalism itself, we assert that care must by taken
in its interpretation, as we believe we have demonstrated
that only those quantities which can be defined solely in
terms of GR tensors are of any physical importance. The
physically insignificant content of the flat-space formalism is a consequence of an unmeasurable field &ab, which is not uniquely determined by the requirement that it be
a flat metric tensor. ...

Accepting that &-transformations and &-fixed transformation are maps between different mathematical representations of the same physical system, we conclude that the exotic gauge transformation properties of tab cannot allow us to interpret this tensor as a local measure of the energy and momentum content of the gravitational field. Although tab is a perfectly legitimate mathematical construction, its dependence on the unmeasurable and non-unique tensor &ab renders it ill-defined, and devoid of physical meaning.


On Nov 27, 2010, at 10:20 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Thanks these are useful references on the nonlocality of gravity field energy

5. Luke M. Butcher, Anthony Lasenby, and Michael Hobson, The physical significance of the Babak-Grishchuk gravitational energy-momentum tensor, arXiv:0807.0112v1 [gr-qc]

"The canonical response to the gravitational energy-momentum problem is to dismiss it as “looking for the right answer to the wrong question” [2]; but while the well-known argument presented by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is certainly compelling, it is far from watertight.

"They remind us that the equivalence principle ensures that all “gravitational fields” [X] can be made to vanish at a point by a suitable choice of coordinates, and conclude that because gravity is locally zero, there can be no energy density associated with it. However, this argument fails to consider tensors containing second derivatives of the metric, which unlike [X] cannot be made to vanish by choice of coordinates, and really do reflect the local curvature of spacetime: for example, the Riemann tensor can be used to construct objects such as the Bel-Robinson tensor.
....

"Despite these reservations, the argument in [2] remains vindicated as yet by the failure of these escape-routes to yield anything which can be physically interpreted as an energy-momentum tensor."


6. Luke M. Butcher, Michael Hobson, and Anthony Lasenby, Localising the Energy and Momentum of Linear Gravity, arXiv:1008.4061v2 [gr-qc]; Phys. Rev. D 82, 104040 (2010)


On Nov 27, 2010, at 5:36 AM, Dimi Chakalov wrote:

Thank you very much. An alternative proposal can be read at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Margenau.html

All the best,

Dimi

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Carlos Castro
wrote:

Dear Colleagues :

Since Exceptional algebras like E_8 were discovered thanks to the Octonions.

you might be interested in the article



"Nonassociative Octonionic Ternary Gauge Field Theories"

that was submitted to the J. Phys. A : Math and Theor.



Best wishes

Carlos





Nov 26

Memorandum for the Record
Subject: Destiny of the Universe - Back FROM the Future
Here are some excerpts http://www.well.com/gopher/Publications/Miscellaneous/sarfatti.x Note that the idea of the future influencing the past today professed by Yakir Aharonov, Paul Davies and their students, is clearly articulated in this 1992 document archived on the internet.

Note at this time in 1992, like Nick Herbert in his FLASH, I was still trying to find a loophole in orthodox quantum theory for signal nonlocality. I no longer think that's possible of course. The turning point was about 1993 or so when I read Bohm and Hiley's The Undivided Universe when it first came out and noticed their discussion of the fragility of the quantum potential - action of Q on particle with no direct back-reaction of particle on Q needed for Born probability rule - and I immediately grasped my conceptual error - the missing piece of the puzzle. By the time of the 1996 Hameroff Tucson Conference where I gave a talk, I had clearly formulated the signal nonlocality idea independently as the breakdown of the test particle approximation for the hidden variables. I had not heard of Antony Valentini's concept of "sub-quantal nonequilibrium" in 1996. Indeed, I am under the impression he did not publish it until 2002. The connection between these two notions is yet to be understood.

Aharonov's two state post-selection plus Seth Lloyd's teleportation P-CTC paper gives us a different kind of signal nonlocality from the two types discussed below. What is most interesting in Seth Lloyd's approach is his allegation about super-computing if it can be done in the lab and not only inside black holes.
Back From the Future | Subatomic Particles | DISCOVER Magazine
Aug 26, 2010 ... A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in thefuture can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a ...
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future
Begin forwarded message:
From: JACK SARFATTI Date: November 26, 2010 9:20:20 AM PST
To: David Gladstone Subject: Re: god phone
no it's digital
http://www.well.com/gopher/Publications/Miscellaneous/sarfatti.x
On Nov 26, 2010, at 7:18 AM, David Gladstone wrote:
Really? A hard copy? I have several versions, not sure if it's what you have.
1992! 18 years ago, hard to believe!
Let me know if it's a hard copy or digital.
Sent from my iPod
On Nov 26, 2010, at 2:04 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
i found 1992 version - did you lose your copy?

Nov 26

Juicy excerpts follow distilling the exciting essence for lazy dogs.
The quantum mechanics of time travel through post-selected teleportation
Seth Lloyd1, Lorenzo Maccone1, Raul Garcia-Patron1, Vittorio Giovannetti2, Yutaka Shikano1,3
"This paper discusses the quantum mechanics of closed timelike curves (CTCs) and of other potential methods for time travel. We analyze a specific proposal for such quantum time travel, the quantum description of CTCs based on post-selected teleportation (P-CTCs). ... We derive the dynamical
equations that a chronology-respecting system interacting with a CTC will experience. We discuss the possibility of time travel in the absence of general relativistic closed timelike curves, and investigate the implications of P-CTCs for enhancing the power of computation. ... Einstein’s theory of general relativity allows the existence of closed timelike curves, paths through spacetime that, if followed, allow a time traveler – whether human
being or elementary particle – to interact with her former self. ...This paper explores a particular version of closed timelike curves based on combining
quantum teleportation with post-selection. The resulting post-selected closed timelike curves (P-CTCs) provide a self-consistent picture of the quantum mechanics of time-travel. ... Because the theory of P-CTCs rely on post-selection, they provide self-consistent resolutions to such paradoxes: anything that happens in a P-CTC can also happen in conventional quantum mechanics with some probability. Similarly, the
post-selected nature of P-CTCs allows the predictions and retrodictions of the theory to be tested experimentally, even in the absence of an actual general-relativistic closed timelike curve. ... closed timelike curves are a generic feature of highly curved, rotating spacetimes: the Kerr solution for a rotating black hole contains closed timelike curves within the black hole horizon; and massive rapidly rotating cylinders typically are associated with closed timelike curves ... Hawking’s chronology protection postulate, for example, suggests that the conditions needed to create closed timelike curves cannot arise in any physically realizable spacetime [13]. ... Hartle and Politzer pointed out that in the presence of closed timelike curves, the ordinary correspondence between the path-integral formulation of quantum mechanics and the formulation in terms of unitary evolution of states in Hilbert space breaks down ... General relativistic closed timelike curves provide one potential mechanism for time travel, but they need not
provide the only one. Quantum mechanics supports a variety of counter-intuitive phenomena which might allow time travel even in the absence of a closed timelike curve in the geometry of spacetime. ... time travel effectively represents a communication channel from the future to the past. Quantum time travel, then, should be described by a quantum communication channel to the past. A well-known quantum communication channel is
given by quantum teleportation, in which shared entanglement combined with quantum measurement and classical communication allows quantum states to be transported between sender and receiver. We show that if quantum teleportation is combined with post-selection, then the result is a quantum channel to the past. The entanglement occurs between the forward- and backward going parts of the curve, and post-selection replaces the
quantum measurement and obviates the need for classical communication, allowing time travel to take place. The resulting theory allows a description both of the quantum mechanics of general relativistic closed timelike curves, and of Wheeler-like quantum time travel in ordinary spacetime. ... P-CTCs appear to be less pathological [17]. They are based on a different self-consistent condition that states that self-contradictory events do not happen (Novikov principle [29]). Pegg points out that this can arise because of destructive interference of self-contradictory histories
[22] ... any quantum theory which allows the nonlinear process of postselection supports time travel even in the absence of general relativistic
closed timelike curves. ... The mechanism of P-CTCs [17] can be summarized by saying that they behave exactly as if the initial state of
the system in the P-CTC were in a maximal entangled state (entangled with an external purification space) and the final state were post-selected to be in the same entangled state. When the probability amplitude for the transition between these two states is null, we postulate that the related event does not happen (so that the Novikov principle [29] is enforced). ... Note that Deutsch’s formulation assumes that the state exiting the CTC in
the past is completely uncorrelated with the chronology preserving variables at that time: the time-traveler’s ‘memories’ of events in the future are no longer valid.

"If nature somehow provides the nonlinear dynamics afforded by final-state projection, then it is possible for particles (and, in principle, people) to tunnel from the future to the past."

Linear unitarity axioms preclude signal nonlocality, guarantee no cloning and the untappability of quantum entanglement encrypted C^3. This is a Maginot Line in Cyber War. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/maginot_line.htm

"it has been pointed out many times before (e.g. see [30, 53]) that when quantum fields inside a CTC interact with external fields, linearity and unitarity is lost."

"any quantum theory that allows the nonlinear process of projection onto some particular state, such as the entangled states of P-CTCs, allows time travel even when no spacetime closed timelike curve exists. ... Non-general relativistic P-CTCs can be implemented by the creation of and projection onto entangled particle-antiparticle pairs. ... projection is a non-linear process that cannot be implemented deterministically in ordinary quantum mechanics, it can 7 easily be implemented in a probabilistic fashion. Consequently, the effect of P-CTCs can be tested simply by performing quantum teleportation experiments, and by post-selecting only the results that correspond to the desired entangled-state output. If it turns out that the linearity of quantum mechanics is only approximate, and that projection onto particular states does in fact occur – for example, at the singularities of black holes [18–21] – then it might be possible to implement time travel even in the absence of a general-relativistic closed timelike curve. The formalism
of P-CTCs shows that such quantum time travel can be thought of as a kind of quantum tunneling backwards in time, which can take place even in the absence of a classical path from future to past."

"It is this demand that closed timelike curves respect both statistics for the time-traveling state together with its correlations with other variables that distinguishes PCTCs from Deutsch’s CTCs. The fact that P-CTCs respect correlations effectively enforces the Novikov principle [29], and, as will be seen below, makes P-CTCs consistent with path-integral approaches to CTCs. ... because of the huge recent interest on CTCs in physics and in computer science (e.g. see [35, 36, 39–43]), it is important to point out that there are reasonable alternatives to the leading theory in the field. We
also point out that our post-selection based description of CTCs seems to be less pathological than Deutsch’s: for example P-CTCs have less computational power and do not require to separately postulate a “maximum entropy rule” [17]. Therefore, they are in some sense preferable, at least from an Occam’s razor perspective. Independent of such questions of aesthetic preference, as we will now show, P-CTCs are consistent with previous path integral formulations of closed timelike curves, whereas Deutsch’s CTCs are not. ... The “conventional” strategy to deal with CTCs using path integrals is to send the system C to a prior time unchanged (i.e. with the same values of x, x? ), while the other system (the chronology-respecting one) evolves normally. ... we briefly comment on the (Aharonov) two-state vector formalism of quantum mechanics [48, 51]. It is based on
post-selection of the final state and on renormalizing the resulting transition amplitudes: it is a time-symmetrical formulation of quantum mechanics in which not only the initial state, but also the final state is specified. As such, it shares many properties with our post-selection based treatment of CTCs. In particular, in both theories it is impossible to assign a definite quantum state at each time: in the two-state formalism the unitary evolution
forward in time from the initial state might give a different mid-time state with respect to the unitary evolution backward in time from the final state. Analogously, in a P-CTC, it is impossible to assign a definite state to the CTC system at any time, given the cyclicity of time there. This is evident, for example, from Eq. (5): in the CTC system no state is assigned, only periodic boundary conditions. Another aspect that the two-state formalism and P-CTCs share is the nonlinear renormalization of the states and probabilities. In both cases this arises because of the post-selection. In addition to the
two-state formalism, our approach can also be related to weak values [48, 52], since we might be performing measurements between when the system emerges from the CTC and when it re-enters it. Considerations analogous to the ones presented above apply. It would be a mistake,
however, to think that the theory of post-selected closed timelike curves in some sense requires or even singles out the weak value theory. Although the two are compatible with each other, the theory of P-CTCs is essentially a ‘free-standing’ theory that does not give preference to one interpretation of quantum mechanics over another. ... a chronology-respecting system in a state  that interacts with a CTC using a unitary U will undergo the transformation


where we suppose that the evolution does not happen if



The comparison with (7 ordinary open system QM with dissipation but no CTC) is instructive: there the non-unitarity comes from the inaccessibility
of the environment. Analogously, in (9) the non-unitarity comes from the fact that, after the CTC is closed, for the chronology-respecting system it will be forever inaccessible. The nonlinearity of (9) is more difficult to interpret, but is connected with the periodic boundary conditions in the CTC. ...

V. COMPUTATIONAL POWER OF CTCS
It has been long known that nonlinear quantum mechanics potentially allows the rapid solution of hard problems such as NP-complete problems [56]. The nonlinearities in the quantum mechanics of closed timelike curves is no exception [41–43]. Aaronson and Watrous have shown quantum computation with Deutsch’s closed timelike curves allows the solution of any problem in PSPACE, the set of problems that can be solved using
polynomial space resources [41]. Similarly, Aaronson has shown that quantum computation combined with postselection allows the solution of any problem in the computational class PP, probabilistic polynomial time(where a probabilistic polynomial Turing machine accepts with probability 1
2 if and only if the answer is “yes.”). Quantum computation with post-selection explicitly allows P-CTCs, and P-CTCs in turn allow the performance of
any desired post-selected quantum computation. Accordingly, quantum computation with P-CTCs can solve any problem in PP, including NP-complete problems. Since the class PP is thought to be strictly contained in PSPACE, quantum computation with P-CTCs is apparently strictly less powerful than quantum computation with Deutsch’s CTCs ... Bennett et al. argue, the programmer who is using a Deutschian closed timelike curve as part of her quantum computer typically finds the output of the curve is completely decorrelated from the problem she would like to solve: the curve emits random states.

In contrast, because P-CTCs are formulated explicitly to retain correlations with chronology preserving curves, quantum computation using P-CTCs do not suffer from state-preparation ambiguity. That is not so say that PCTCs are computationally innocuous: their nonlinear nature typically renormalizes the probability of states in an input superposition, yielding to strange and counterintuitive effects. For example, any CTC can be used
to compress any computation to depth one, as shown in Fig. 2. Indeed, it is exactly the ability of nonlinear quantum mechanics to renormalize probabilities from their conventional values that gives rise to the amplification of small components of quantum superpositions that allows the solution of hard problems. Not least of the counter-intuitive effects of P-CTCs is that they could still solve hard computational problems with ease! The ‘excessive’ computational power of P-CTCs is effectively an argument for why the types of nonlinearities that give rise to P-CTCs, if they exist, should only be found under highly exceptional circumstances such as general-relativistic closed timelike curves or black-hole singularities. ... Our hope in elaborating the theory of P-CTCs is that this theory may prove useful in formulating a quantum theory of gravity, by providing new insight on one of the most perplexing consequences of general relativity, i.e., the possibility of time-travel."

Nov 24
"In the past, Penrose has investigated cyclic cosmology models because he has noticed another shortcoming of the much more widely accepted inflationary theory: it cannot explain why there was such low entropy at the beginning of the universe. The low entropy state (or high degree of order) was essential for making complex matter possible. The cyclic cosmology idea is that, when a universe expands to its full extent, black holes will evaporate and all the information they contain will somehow vanish, removing entropy from the universe. At this point, a new aeon with a low entropy state will begin." http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-scientists-glimpse-universe-big.html

In the future event horizon hologram theory I propose there is a natural explanation why there was such low entropy at the beginning of the universe.





Of course that still leaves Penrose's:

"The CMB is the radiation that exists everywhere in the universe, thought to be left over from when the universe was only 300,000 years old. In the early 1990s, scientists discovered that the CMB temperature has anisotropies, meaning that the temperature fluctuates at the level of about 1 part in 100,000. These fluctuations provide one of the strongest pieces of observational evidence for the Big Bang theory, since the tiny fluctuations are thought to have grown into the large-scale structures we see today. Importantly, these fluctuations are considered to be random due to the period of inflation that is thought to have occurred in the fraction of a second after the Big Bang, which made the radiation nearly uniform.
However, Penrose and Gurzadyan have now discovered concentric circles within the CMB in which the temperature variation is much lower than expected, implying that CMB anisotropies are not completely random. The scientists think that these circles stem from the results of collisions between supermassive black holes that released huge, mostly isotropic bursts of energy. The bursts have much more energy than the normal local variations in temperature. The strange part is that the scientists calculated that some of the larger of these nearly isotropic circles must have occurred before the time of the Big Bang.
The discovery doesn't suggest that there wasn't a Big Bang - rather, it supports the idea that there could have been many of them. The scientists explain that the CMB circles support the possibility that we live in a cyclic universe, in which the end of one “aeon” or universe triggers another Big Bangthat starts another aeon, and the process repeats indefinitely. The black hole encounters that caused the circles likely occurred within the later stages of the aeon right before ours, according to the scientists."


Nov 22


Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff invite you to publish in a special
edition of the Journal of Cosmology:

Consciousness in the Universe

Edited by:
Sir Roger Penrose, Ph.D., University of Oxford
Stuart Hameroff M.D. University of Arizona

Is consciousness an epiphenomenal happenstance of this particular
universe? Or does the very concept of a universe depend upon its presence? Does
consciousness merely perceive reality, or does reality depend upon it? Did
consciousness simply emerge as an effect of evolution? Or was it, in some
sense, always "out there" in the world?


If we are post-selected back from the future hologram images from our future event horizon then the cosmic computer on the horizon must be conscious. In that sense, as in Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point consciousness is the substrate of material reality.

Entropy is trace of density matrix x log of the density matrix

The trace of any quantum bit object is invariant under a unitary transformation

That unitarity should work at all even between measurements in a closed system is very peculiar if one thinks about it.  Throw ice in boiling water seal off the system and the entropy increases even though it's closed. I really don't see why everyone is so hung up on unitarity to begin with. That is works at all is the miracle. In any case, with creative evolution the emergence of new order is paid for by an increase in total Bekenstein-Hawking area-entropy of our future post-selected de Sitter dark energy horizon hologram, which in our observable universe is shown by Tamara Davis's PhD Figs 1.1 & 5.1

Of course unitarity U = exp(iH/hbar) works for dead matter and gives the linear Schrodinger eq. The question is whether linear unitary quantum theory with signal locality is only a limiting case of a more fundamental nonlinear non-unitary post-quantum theory with signal nonlocality that applies on our future dark energy event horizon that Seth Lloyd at MIT's work suggests to my mind a holographic cosmic conscious computer - P.K. Dick's VALIS, I.J. Good's "GOD(D)", Hawking's "Mind of God."

Dear Colleagues,

We are pleased to announce that Sir Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford,
and Dr. Stuart Hameroff of the University of Arizona, will be serving as
Executive Editors of the April 2011 edition of the online, open access,
Journal of Cosmology, the theme of which is "Consciousness in the Universe."

Dr. Penrose shared the "Wolf Prize" in physics with Stephen Hawking, and is
renowned world-wide for his work in general relativity, quantum mechanics,
geometry and consciousness. He is the author of many important papers
and books including The Emperors New Mind, Shadows of the Mind, The Road to
Reality, and his latest Cycles of Time, which proposes serial universes.

Dr Stuart Hameroff, of the University of Arizona, is an anesthesiologist,
consciousness researcher and organizer of the conference series Toward a
Science of Consciousness.

Drs. Penrose and Hameroff invite you to submit a scientific article, up to
3,000 words in length, in this special issue. Articles will be peer reviewed and
must be received by March 1, 2011.

Reviews, speculation, theory, or research findings related to the following
themes are invited:

1)  Evolution and origin of consciousness
2)  Consciousness and quantum measurement
3)  Brain, biology and consciousness
4)  Altered states, dreams and near-death experiences
5)  Free will, causality, determinism, and time-symmetric physics
6)  The role of quantum information, entanglement, and non-locality
7)  The anthropic principle in speculative and fundamental physics
8)  Consciousness and reality in Eastern and Western philosophy
9)  Consciousness in sexual reproduction as an evolutionary drive
10) Non-human consciousness

All articles will be peer reviewed and must be written for a broad range of
scientists who are not experts in your field.  Please see the Journal of
Cosmology for manuscript specifications.

http://journalofcosmology.com/ManuscriptPreparation.html

All processing and publication fees are waved for this special edition.

All articles will be published online within days of acceptance, and
also bound in a hardback book edition, edited by Dr. Penrose and Dr. Hameroff,
and published by Cosmology Science Publishers.

The Journal of Cosmology is also proud to sponsor the conference:

Toward A Science of Consciousness
Brain, Mind and Reality
Aula Magna Hall
Stockholm, Sweden, May 2-8, 2011
www.consciousness.arizona.edu

Consciousness in the Universe will be a featured conference theme,
including a Keynote talk by Sir Roger Penrose, along with plenary and
concurrent sessions on the topic.

In addition to a paper for the Journal of Cosmology special edition, you are
also invited to attend and submit an abstract related to Consciousness in the
Universe for the Stockholm conference. Abstracts must be submitted by December
31, 2010.

JOC is free, online, open access, and averages over 500,000 Hits a month. The
October edition featured 50 articles written by over 120 top scientists and 4
astronauts (two who walked on the Moon). Dozens of news articles have appeared
about articles in JOC, including in the Los Angeles Times, Wired, Discovery
News, MSNBC, Associated Press, ABC TV, etc.

JOC is abstracted by NASA Astrophysical Data Systema, Google Scholar,
Open J-Gate, Polymer Library, ProQuest, ResearchGATE, adsabs.Harvard...


This is an excellent opportunity to present your work to a large community of
scientists in a new and exciting field, and publish in the prestigious
Penrose-Hameroff edition Consciousness in the Universe. As an invited paper,
there are no processing or publication charges.

Coauthors are welcome and you may share this invitation with your colleagues.


Sincerely,
Rudy Schild, Ph.D.
Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Cosmology

Consciousness Requires Retro-Causal Signal Nonlocality Violation of Quantum Unitarity

(second draft typo-corrected prefex "non" before "locality" deleted in two places)

 

Jack Sarfatti

 

Internet Science Education

San Francisco

adastra1@me.com

 

 

Abstract

 

Henry Stapp makes the distinction into intrinsically thoughtlike and rocklike objects in theoretical physics. This is in accord with David Chalmers criteria for a theory of qualia that solves the binding problem and the hard problem. I use the Bohm ontology where the quantum potential is thoughtlike and the spinor particles and boson classical field hidden variables are rocklike. The unitarity axiom of quantum theory is that information is conserved. This seems to blatantly violate the Second Law of thermodynamics because entropy and information are two sides of the same coin. The idea of collapse of the quantum state in a measurement is invoked to avoid the conflict. The entropy increase is swept under the rug in the non-unitary collapse. Information is then only conserved between measurements on a closed system. This is not good enough because living matter is an open system continually being measured as well as pumped with energy flux. Our accelerating expanding observable universe sandwiched between past and future horizons, is also not closed for the matter fields that are pumped by the geometrodynamical fields. Linear unitarity is used to prove the no-cloning a quantum theorem that precludes the use of entanglement as a stand alone communication channel not requiring a classical signal key to unlock the delocalized entangled message. Abner Shimony has called this “passion at a distance” and others call it “signal locality”. Quantum cryptography is built upon the quicksand of signal locality. Even Yakir Aharonov’s post-selected back-from-the-future flow of time assumes signal locality as does John Cramer’s “transaction” based on Wheeler-Feynman’s classical retrocausality-without-retrocausality “future total absorber.”  The fly in the ointment are the presponse experiments of Ben Libet independently replicated by Dean Radin, Dick Bierman, Daryl Bem and by the controversial Puthoff and Targ in their CIA precognitive remote viewing tests of the Chinese nuclear weapons program. Indeed, there is more data here than there is for string theory. Josephson and Pallikari and independently myself have suggested theoretical explanations for signal nonlocality at the Tucson conferences in the mid-90’s as has Antony Valentini more recently since 2002. Progress in these ideas are the topic of this paper.


On Nov 22, 2010, at 12:48 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
As I said, the paper to my mind seems totally off the wall - the night thoughts of a mad mathematician.
It totally eludes me what his point is? Paper seems to be obscure metaphors + probably correct math.
To my way of thinking the emergence of consciousness (qualia) requires only two physics ideas
1) Wheeler-Feynman ---> Aharonov post-selection e.g. end of November 2010 Physics Today article
2) Signal nonlocality (starting with my Tucson II 1996 Bohm back-reaction talk & abstract & Josephson's paper with Pallikari - more recently Valentini's papers)
3) The experiments of Libet, Radin, Bierman on presponse.
4) The Bekenstein-Hawking thermodynamics of horizons plus discovery of dark energy's future event horizon + Seth Lloyd's computer as horizon does suggest the hologram conjecture that we are retro-causal computed images back from the future post-selected computer. Signal nonlocality gets over the Penrose non-computability objection in my opinion.
I think we need the non-unitary post-quantum bit. That information is conserved seems to my mind the stupidest idea to ever enter physics. Down with unitarity!
:-)
On Nov 22, 2010, at 8:02 AM, Jonathan Post wrote:
Your point is well taken, Jack, that mere Philosophy without the right
equations does not add to our Physicists' paradigm.  I'd posted the
abstract and arXiv link on Facebook, where I've had two discussions
going on whether or not the Brain is analog or digital, and whether
Reality is analog or digital.  I've contended that either claim, in
either case, is a Philosophical Category Error. What are your thoughts
on that, and is there a connection to the paper in question, AND with
the Einstein field equations?
On Facebook, the responses to the arXiv paper include:
Jonny Cache
?
“These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity and revolves
according to a law of number.”
Plato, “Timaeus”, Benjamin Jowett (trans.), in Edith Hamilton and
Huntington Cairns (ed.), ''The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Including
the Letters'', Bollingen Series LXXI, Pantheon, New York, NY, 1961.
(p. 1167).
Jonny Cache ? See “Verities Of Likely Stories” —
? http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-August/thread.html#713
Ay?e Mermutlu What about Berkeley and Hume?..
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:28 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
I really don't get it.
If this paper is a physics paper, then the author should show the emergence of Einstein's field equations, quantum field theory etc from some more fundamental mathematical structure. I don't see anything like that, but I did not spend a lot of time on it. What am I missing? I don't see the point of this paper.
On Nov 21, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Jonathan Post wrote:
Supports my claim that reality and the brain are neither analog nor digital:
More than discrete or continuous: a bird's view
Authors: Marius Buliga
(Submitted on 19 Nov 2010)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4485
  Abstract: I try to give mathematical evidence to the following
equivalence, which is based on ideas from Plato (Timaeus): reality
emerges from a more primitive, non-geometrical, reality in the same
way as the brain construct (understands, simulates, transforms,
encodes or decodes) the image of reality, starting from intensive
properties (like a bunch of spiking signals sent by receptors in the
retina), without any use of extensive (i.e. spatial or geometric)
properties.
Subjects:     Metric Geometry (math.MG); Neurons and Cognition (q-bio.NC)
Cite as:      arXiv:1011.4485v1 [math.MG]
Submission history
From: Marius Buliga [view email]
[v1] Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:54:41 GMT (13kb)

 

On Nov 22, 2010, at 1:50 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Let me clarify, unitarity works for dead matter in the domain of validity of quantum theory where S-Matrix theory can be applied.
I am questioning its application to living forms of matter (the sub-quantal non-equilibrium region of the "hidden variables" where approach to equilibrium is prevented by an external pump like in a laser or the metabolism of a biological entity). Whether we can treat pixelated horizon hologram computers completely in terms of S-Matrix theory is still an open issue in my opinion - I could be wrong. I mean more precisely that we may need to include vacuum condensate terms explicitly into the S-Matrix formalism analogous to the way Gorkov did for superconductors - and also not assume thermal equilibrium.

Basically in terms of second quantization for the gravity degrees of freedom

tetrad = c-number condensate term + second quantized operator term

On Nov 22, 2010, at 1:34 PM, Jonathan Post wrote:

Jack, I like your 4 points addressing the Hard Problem of Qualia with
Wheeler-Feynman as modified by Aharonov; signal nonlocality via
Sarfatti-Bohm-Josephson-Pallikariri; Libet el al (which won me a
fiction award when I contextualized it in narrative about the Space
program's need to do teleoperation at distances where speed-of-light
lag might be compensated for by signal extraction of intent for
muscular action in the brain in the 200 milliseconds before one can be
consciously aware of those intentions); and Bekestein-Hawking-Lloyd.
Great!

Here is a summary of some thoughts of mine on Computational
Metaphysics relating to "Theory of Everything" -- which is a Term of
Art, a phrase with a special meaning to those "in the club" -- but
that I have metaphysically questioned whether there can even BE such a
theory. In my scholarly publications and in the blogosphere I have
raised metaphysical questions about any putative Theory of Everything
(ToE).

Let me compress some of these into a few telegraphic sentences.

(1) If a ToE is a PHYSICAL THEORY then it falls within the set of
ALL POSSIBLE PHYSICAL THEORIES.

(2) This set is itself a proper subset of what Astronomer/Philosopher
Fritz Zwicky called the IDEOCOSM: the space of all possible ideas.

(3) Specifically, if we restrict ourselves to THE SPACE OF ALL
POSSIBLE MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS THEORIES, then we are faced with a
question that I keep asking:

(4) Is there a hyperplane or hypersurface that separates the SPACE OF
ALL POSSIBLE PHYSICAL THEORIES from the SPACE OF ALL MATHEMATICAL
THEORIES MANY OF WHICH ARE "UNPHYSICAL"?

(5) Suppose we try to avoid paradoxes that stem from such spaces of
theories being infinite, and further restrict ourselves to THE SPACE
OF ALL FINITELY GENERATED MATHEMATICAL PHYSICAL THEORIES.

(6) this includes, therefore, all MATHEMATICAL PHYSICAL THEORIES
represented in some LANGUAGE which has a finite number of symbols from
a finite alphabet, and thus a finite number of syntactic terms, is
based upon a finite set of axioms, and derives from those by a finite
set of rules of inference.

(7) We need to be extremely careful about whether we have
recursively-defined axioms, recursively-defined rules of inference,
and the like.

(8) we try to make no a priori assumptions about structure, finiteness
and the like, of EXPERIMENTALLY true observations in the PHENOMENOLOGY
of this SPACE OF ALL FINITELY GENERATED MATHEMATICAL PHYSICAL
THEORIES. INDEED, WE EXPECT THIS PHENOMENOLOGY TO HAVE INFINITE
POSSIBLE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.

(9) NOW WE ARE LEFT WITH VERY SUBTLE META-QUESTIONS ABOUT
*completeness* AND *consistency.*

(10) GIVEN GODEL'S RESULTS, WE SUSPECT THAT A CONSISTENCY PROOF OF THE
SPACE OF ALL FINITELY-GENERATED MATHEMATICAL PHYSICAL THEORIES IS NOT
POSSIBLE FROM WITHIN THAT SPACE.

(11) BUT WHERE DO WE LIVE? WE HUMANS WITH OUR SCIENCE, OUR EQUIPMENT,
OUR LOGIC -- ARE WE MADE OF MATTER AND ENERGY AND INFORMATION THAT CAN
BE DESCRIBED BY A PUTATIVE THEORY OF EVERYTHING? GODEL'S METHODS ARE
CONSTRUCTIVE, NOT NEEDING TRANSFINITE INDUCTION AND OTHER SUCH
SUPER-METHODS.

(12) IF NO SINGLE SUFFICIENTLY POWERFUL THEORY OF MATHEMATICS EXISTS
(PER GODEL) THEN IT SEEMS THAT NO SUFFICIENTLY POWERFUL SINGLE THEORY
OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS EXISTS.

(13) THIS IS LIKELY EVEN IF DIFFERENT UNIVERSES IN THE METAVERSE EACH
HAVE THEIR OWN THEORY OF EVERYTHING, OR EVEN IF OUR UNIVERSE, THOUGH
FINITELY-GENERATED, HAS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF "LAWS" THAT OPERATE AT
DIFFERENT ENERGY LEVELS OR COMBINATORICS OF INITIAL CONDITIONS AND
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS.

(14) In this metatheoretical sense, I question that there is any
"Ultimate Reality" -- and am thus unable to answer Einstein's question
(I paraphrase) "Did God have a choice when he created the physical
laws of the universe?"

(15) I discussed this a number of times with my mentor, Richard
Feynman. Each day he seemed to have a different take on this.

Does anyone here have any constructive comments?  Is this worth
expanding into a draft paper for the Penrose-Hammeroff issue? Is there
a clear way to combine this with Jack's lovely 4 points on the
preconditions for Qualia?

Thank you in advance.

"Time thus propagates forward from the past boundary condition and backward from the future boundary condition." Aharonov et-al
I have been saying this for decades of course. It started with Wheeler and Feynman in 1940.
Aharonov avoids the real revolution, which is signal nonlocality. He is like Moses with me like Joshua - the wall of light will come tumbling down when we cross the Great Divide. :-)
The radical conservative physicist pushes the envelope of mainstream battle-tested physics by minimally tweaking the control parameters and suggesting new ones. The extended models must always have the orthodox physics as a limiting case. This is in contrast to the numerous clueless cranks and/or well-meaning eccentrics who have not mastered mainstream models try to reinvent the wheel, and fix what is not broken based on not even wrong-primitive-concepts of no scientific meaning in any operational empirical laboratory sense. Feynman called that "Cargo Cult Science."
Subject: Re: Beating Heisenberg's microscope with a meta-material super-lens and super-oscillating weak measurements? (Dr. Quantum) Part 4
 "However, physics would be fundamentally different. If we break the uncertainty principle, there is really no telling what our world would look like."
      Magick without magic.
I announce the conjecture:
Nature is as weird as it can be.
The nonlocal action principle of maximal weirdness, e.g. consciousness.
Post-quantum theory has maximum weirdness (aka signal nonlocality) beyond the minimal weirdness of orthodox quantum theory.
Part 4, Commentary on the rest of Yakir's Physics Today paper November 2010
The weak expectation value of an observable A is
Aw = /
future = post-selected
past = pre-selected
Ordinary quantum mechanics is when future & past merge in the present.
This immediately tells us how to reformulate Bohm's quantum potential Q as a Cramer transaction.
In the static limit neglecting light cone special relativity causality
Q ~ R^-1 LaplacianR
Psi = Re^iS
Obviously, therefore replace R by
Rw = (RfutureRpast)^1/2
to get Qw
Aw and Qw can be complex, i.e. non-unitary allowing signal nonlocality? as well as far outside range of eigenvalues permitted in orthodox quantum mechanics. Under certain conditions when Aw is pure imaginary and the pointer's state is Gaussian it can get an impulse kick in momentum.
The "three box paradox" can be used to get anti-gravity!
"The probe that measures the gravitational field of Box 3, instead of being attracted to the box, is in fact repelled by it."
This is a rare zero point quantum fluctuation "error" that happens with "virtual certainty." Analogous anomalous effects for the electromagnetic interaction also predicted.
In addition pre & post-selected weak values of negative kinetic energy exist for "genuine tunneling particles" through a potential energy barrier.
Actual lab experiments confirm the correctness of Aharonov's back-from-the-future extension of quantum mechanics including the "time-translation-machine".
Can the time-translation effect be tweaked to violate the no-cloning theorem modifying Nick Herbert's FLASH to weak amplification?
Obviously weak amplification can be applied to LIGO & LISA gravity wave detectors with advantage.