Text Size

Stardrive

Sep 11

I am surprised that Stephen cites M-Theory as the basis for his current book because M-Theory is not a real physics theory. Even M-Theorists admit it is merely a hope they have faith in. For the issues see Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics." Lee is himself an M-Theorist. M-Theory is simply string non-theory with an extra dimension 11 instead of 10.
Stephen's co-author is seriously ignorant when he says there is no physics of consciousness.
Deepak and the Jesuit have won the debate as it were in my opinion.

I do agree with Stephen, however, on the politics and the need of space-exploration.

More details on how Grand Design is much too limited can be found at http://stardrive.org

Sep 10

Larry King to Host Robert Spitzer and Stephen Hawking
By: PR Newswire
Sep. 9, 2010 01:06 PM
Leading Authority on Metaphysics to Respond to Hawking's Creation Theory

Cap'n Jack Sarfatti It's Hawking's Grand Illusion - a persistent one. ;-)
26 shots o' rum ago · Weigh in · Arr!
Jack Sarfatti GOD is alive and well on our future event 2D horizon that is the world hologram conscious cosmic computer and we are its back from the future 3D hologram images. This is the craziest idea to come out of the minds of men starting with Wheeler and Feynman to 't Hooft and Susskind put together by me. It's so kooky, so crazy that it may even be true!
22 shots o' rum ago · Arr! · Jack Sarfatti We need to throw in Hoyle, Narlikar, I.J. Good, John Cramer, Fred Alan Wolf, Yakir Aharonov & students, and Paul Davies and probably others (Basil Hiley?). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6eqsOAJL20

If you want a receipt for that popular mystery,
Known to the world as a Heavy Dragoon,
CHORUS. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!
COLONEL. Take all the remarkable people in history,
Rattle them off to a popular tune.
The pluck of Lord Nelson on board of the Victory –
Genius of Bismarck devising a plan –
The humour of Fielding (which sounds contradictory) –
Coolness of Paget about to trepan –
The science of Jullien, the eminent musico –
Wit of Macaulay, who wrote of Queen Anne –
The pathos of Paddy, as rendered by Boucicault –
Style of the Bishop of Sodor and Man –
The dash of a D'Orsay, divested of quackery –
Narrative powers of Dickens and Thackeray –
Victor Emmanuel – peak-haunting Peveril –
Thomas Aquinas, and Doctor Sacheverell –
Tupper and Tennyson – Daniel Defoe –
Anthony Trollope and Mister Guizot! Ah!
Take of these elements all that is fusible,
Melt them all down in a pipkin or crucible,
Set them to simmer, and take off the scum, 

And a Heavy Dragoon is the residuum!
W.S. Gilbert

On Sep 9, 2010, at 9:12 PM, nick herbert wrote:

There are more serious critiques of the recent Aharonov paper than the fact that Jack fails to credit the priority of Aristotle for some of his ideas.

Not true, Nick, in the July 30, 2010 video of my Lecture to the Illuminati of the Theosophical Society I mention Aristotle's Final Cause many many times. Just Google and get the links on http://stardrive.org/. And of course it will be in Destiny Matrix 2012.

Aharonov and Vaidman are certainly more aware of the subtleties of quantum measurement than your average quantum grease monkey. It was they who worked out the details of quantum non-disturbing measurements using the Zeno Effect. However there may be problems with the very concept of a "weak measurement" (not the same as the well-understood Zeno phenomenon) that have not yet been addressed and that might render this kind of measurement a less useful tool than one might hope. I have not read Aharonov's new book so I do not know if he addresses the criticisms raised by Stephen Parrott in his "What does a "weak measurement" actually measure?" a question that neither Aristotle nor Aquinas raised--for obvious reasons (but on the other hand Aharonov completely ignores the question of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.)

But Dan Smith does not! ;-)

A precise definition of "weak [quantum] measurements" and "weak value" (of a quantum observable) is offered, and simple finite dimensional examples are given showing that weak values are not unique and therefore probably do not correspond to any physical attribute of the system being "weakly" measured, contrary to impressions given by most of the literature on weak measurements.

A possible mathematical error in the seminal paper introducing "weak values" is explicitly identified. A mathematically rigorous argument obtains results similar to, and more general than, the main result of that paper and concludes that even in the infinite-dimensional context of that paper, weak values are not unique. This implies that the "usual" formula for weak values is not universal, but can apply only to specific physical situations.

The paper is written in a more pedagogical and informal style than is usual in the research literature in the hope that it might serve as an introduction to weak values.


WHAT DO QUANTUM WEAK MEASUREMENTS ACTUALLY MEASURE?
Stephen Parrott

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0908.0035

Since you are enthused about weak measurements I expect you might be able to produce some cogent commentary on Stephen Parrott's analysis of their limitations.

I am not enthused so much about weak measurements. You are painting my fence quite nicely. Like you, signal nonlocality a strong result compared to the faint-hearted lily of weak measurement is what whets my appetite. It is obvious to my intuition that back-from-the-future retro-causal influences do not live or die only on the issue of weak measurements. They are not the crucial test, merely a stepping stone along the way. Weak measurements still obey signal locality. They are puny, stunted like Shakespeare's Richard III.

Nick Herbert
http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com/

PS: Jack, you merely took one course in Aquinas. I lived in St. Thomas's world for the first quarter of my life.

Ah so, that explains it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oppHeMlaLVM
3 shots o' rum ago · Arr! ·

Sep 09

2nd draft

On Sep 9, 2010, at 6:10 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Or, The Emperor Really Has No Clothes

Here is an interesting talk with some good points I think clearly. ;-) In any case I agree with his argument because I thought the same myself.

MAKING BOHMIAN MECHANICS
COMPATIBLE WITH RELATIVITY
AND QUANTUM FIELD THEORY
Hrvoje Nikoli´c
Rudjer Bo?skovi´c Institute, Zagreb, Croatia
Vallico Sotto, Italy, 28th August - 4th September 2010

It is frequently argued that:
1. Bohmian mechanics (BM) contradicts the theory of relativity
(because BM is nonlocal)
2. BM based on particle trajectories is not consistent with
particle creation/destruction in QFT
(because particle trajectories are continuous in BM)
The purpose of this talk is to show that BM can be formulated
such that:
- BM is nonlocal but relativistic covariant
- BM with continuous particle trajectories describes
particle creation/destruction in QFT ...

1.1 Relativistic Bohmian interpretation
- Nonlocality in BM requires superluminal (faster than light)
communication between particles.
- The most frequent argument that it is not compatible with relativity:
Superluminal communication
⇒ there is a Lorentz frame in which communication is instantaneous
⇒ there is a preferred Lorentz frame
⇒ the principle of relativity is violated.
- However, this is not a valid argument, because
this is like using the following argument on subluminal communication:
Subluminal communication
⇒ there is a Lorentz frame in which particle is at rest
⇒ there is a preferred Lorentz frame
⇒ the principle of relativity is violated.

The argument on subluminal communication is wrong:
- It is the general law of motion that must have the same form
in any Lorentz frame.
- A particular solution (a particle at rest with respect to some particular
Lorentz frame) does not need to have the same form
in all Lorentz frames.
But the argument on superluminal communication is
completely analogous.
⇒ It is wrong for exactly the same reason:
- A particular solution (communication instantaneous with respect to
some particular Lorentz frame) does not need to have the same form
in all Lorentz frames.


BRAVO! Another analogous case is spontaneous broken symmetry in the (off-shell) virtual particle vacuum/many-real (on-shell) particle ground state in which Goldstone phase rigid macro-quantum coherence emerges (P.W. Anderson's "More is different.") e.g. Penrose-Onsager ODLRO in the reduced density matrices with macroscopic eigenvalues.


CONCLUSIONS
- The usual formulation of BM is not relativistic covariant because
it is based on standard QM which is also not relativistic covariant.
- To make BM covariant ⇒ first reformulate standard QM
in a covariant way!
⇒ Treat time on an equal footing with space:
1. space probability density → spacetime probability density
2. single-time wave function → many-time wave function
- To make particle BM compatible with QFT and particle/destruction:
1. Represent QFT states with wave functions
(depending on an infinite number of coordinates).
2. Use quantum theory of measurements ⇒
effective collapse into states of definite number of particles.


On Sep 9, 2010, at 2:52 PM, nick herbert wrote: Jack, I consider it silly for you to be making a fuss about who thought first about future influencing the present. It is a very old idea, at least as old as Aristotle (333 BC) and St Thomas Aquinas (1270 AD) who used the term "final cause" to refer to any cause that lies in the future.

Of course. Look who's talking about "silly"! Takes one to know one I guess. At least I am not on "all fours." Kidding aside, there is a serious priority issue here for the history of physics on how the idea of final causation is now creeping back into mainstream physics in a highly technical way (weak measurements, time machines, super oscillations). Hopefully David Kaiser and other serious historians of physics will set the record straight. ?

The notion of a future cause is included in the scope of "teleology"--See "teleology", "Aristotle" and "Aquinas" in Wikipedia. Aharonov came much much later than these fine dudes. If you can prove that Sarfatti came up with the notion of final cause before Aristotle that would be worth putting in the history books.

Like I came back from the future in a flying saucer and became Aristotle? Kidding aside once more, I never made any such claim of course. I am quite familiar with the history having minored in philosophy at Cornell with Max Black et-al. Indeed I got an A in Mario Einaudi's course in Aquinas. I would have made a good Jesuit like Jerry Brown.
Neither Feynman nor Aharonov have priority in proposing the notion of "final cause."

No one is making that claim either of course.

Aharonov's priority is in actually proposing an experiment to test whether "final causes" exist in nature. Whether his experiment actually accomplishes this end is a matter of some dispute.??

It's obvious to me that final cause is the only way to really understand uncontrollable quantum randomness in the present and passion at a distance in the entanglement of space-time separated subsystems. Aharonov et-al are 100% correct on that score. But that's only my opinion and unreasonable physicists who think they are thinking clearly but aren't, have the right not to agree with me! ??Of course, the important issue beyond that is signal nonlocality's strong violation of quantum physics as normally understood. I think that is necessary for life to exist in a non-equilibrium state (at the level of the not-so-hidden variables).

Sep 09

Aharonov had the basic idea back then. I suppose he was influenced by Wheeler-Feynman. I.J. Good in "The Scientist Speculates" may have gotten the idea from Yakir? In any case, from Feynman's path integral POV it's not really a stroke of genius to realize that the future post-selection and the past pre-selection must influence present measurements. Of course, Yakir's development of that insight in the details is impressive work of the highest order. However, only recently with the insight that we have both past and future horizons does the cosmology begin to make sense and come into focus.

 

 

One Evangelical Christian I know said that God has punished Stephen Hawking to life in a wheel chair because he wrote that God was not necessary in his book “The Grand Design.” This would imply that Einstein’s “greatest blunder” was not the cosmological constant, but his saying that God was subtle not malicious. Indeed, the jealous God, Yahweh, would be unsubtle and malicious, more like The Devil. What do you think?

 

Now that the retro-causality that Fred Alan Wolf and I have been suggesting for decades has been made fashionable by FQ Foundation, Templeton Prize winner Paul Davies's promotion of Yakir Aharonov's "weak measurements" with the post-selection reaching back from the future to the present etc, Hawking may have missed the boat. I seem to be the only one connecting all the dots here with the hologram universe and Tamara Davis's 2004 Ph.D. Paul Davies was on her committee and I am surprised he did not see the obvious link - maybe he did?

 

Hawking's "Mind of God" at the end of his "Brief History of Time" is alive and well literally on our 2D future event horizon that is the computer that MIT's Seth Lloyd writes about. The dark energy density in our pre-selected past light cone is the inverse area of our post-selected future light cone's intersection with our future 0bserver-dependent de Sitter horizon hologram. We are its retrocausally projected 3D images in this crazy hologram paradigm unleased by Gerardus 'tHooft and Lenny Susskind. Litttle did they know they had opened Pandora's Box. ;-)

 

Sep 08

Tollaksen - Back FROM The Future

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

I just noticed that that article leaves out Bohm's name lost in the obscurity of "codiscovered" for the shift of the interference pattern in what is normally called the "Bohm-Aharonov" effect.

" ... when a physicist named Yakir Aharonov visited the neighboring Boston University. Aharonov, now at Chapman with Tollaksen, was renowned for having codiscovered a bizarre quantum mechanical effect in which particles can be affected by electric and magnetic fields, even in regions where those fields should have no reach.  ... 'Aharonov was one of the first to take seriously the idea that if you want to understand what is happening at any point in time, it’s not just the past that is relevant. It’s also the future" Tollaksen says." - Discover

Tollasken is ignorant here - unaware that Feynman had the idea, so did I.J. Good, Hoyle et-al.

Higher-order corrections to mass-charge relation of extremal black holes
The String Landscape, Black Holes and Gravity as the Weakest Force
Equivalence of twistor prescriptions for super Yang-Mills
Cubic Twistorial String Field Theory
Matrix string theory, contact terms, and superstring field theory
Heterotic plane wave matrix models and giant gluons
Asymptotic black hole quasinormal frequencies
An analytical computation of asymptotic Schwarzschild quasinormal frequencies
PP-Wave / CFT_2 Duality
PP-wave string interactions from perturbative Yang-Mills theory
Nonperturbative Formulations of Superstring Theory (Phd Thesis)
Two-parametric zeta function regularization in superstring theory

Are these papers physics or pseudophysics? Are they Popper falsifiable for example. Do they make any predictions? Do they explain any physical anomalies?
See "The Trouble With (String) Physics" by a repentant string theorist Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute set up by the founder of the Blackberry.
Also "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit.
Motl attacks them of course.

Motl's first paper on extremal black holes might be testable if quarks and leptons really are Bohmian hidden variables that are little black holes that do not Hawking radiate as I suggested back in 1971 when I was at Birkbeck College with David Bohm (in Nature Physical Science). This model requires Abdus Salam's old Yukawa f-gravity G* ~ 10^40G to work. Since black holes are really tangled strings - why not? His giant gluon paper should be testable in the LHC if the paper is really any good? I don't know, maybe it is.

No one doubts that Lubos can snow people with elaborate mathematics, but as Feynman said math is like ....  compared to physics which is the real thing. ;-)

Sep 08

More media coverage of Back FROM The Future

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Aharonov and his student's work on weak measurements is good and his interpretation is what I have been proposing since the late 1960's motivated by Wheeler-Feynman and Fred Hoyle. I hope historians like David Kaiser at MIT will set the record straight that Fred Alan Wolf and I were thinking along these lines since we were on the faculty at San Diego State more than 40 years ago. We do not wish to take away any of Aharonov's glory and we thank him for filling in vital details and testing the ideas in a Popper falsifiable way.

Click here.

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

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

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

by Zeeya Merali; photography by Adam Magyar
From the April 2010 issue; published online August 26, 2010

Fred Alan Wolf and I also independently thought what Aharonov thought here:

His answer—which seems inspired and insane in equal measure—was that we cannot perceive the information that controls the particle’s present behavior because it does not yet exist.

So did I.J. Good who elevated this idea to a GOD(D) entity with signal nonlocality violating the quantum theory restrictions. Now I know that I. J. Good's GOD(D) is located on our future dark energy hologram event horizon. I.J. worked with Alan Turing breaking the Nazi War Code in WWII. Turing ate a poisoned apple because he was, like Oscar Wilde, hounded by the police for being gay.

This is not to deny the reality of the observations by real scientists like reported on NIDS, Maccabee, Stanford, Sturrock and in some of the Weird Desk postings on http://stardrive.org
Disclosure is the secular sci-fi equivalent of The Second Coming e.g., Dan Smith.
The most successful sci-fi moral equivalent of Christian Fundamentalism is L. Ron. Hubbard's Scientology. Indeed, the Operating Thetan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_Thetan
is what metric engineering is really all about, i.e. the psychokinetic manipulation of the gravitational curvature and possibly torsion fields - Uri Geller on steroids so to speak.
Start by bending metal, end by bending 4D spacetime for warp drive and star gates. That is Magick without Magic.

Sep 03

Global Warming Debate Heats Up

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

For the record, I have no position on this either way. It is not my field and I am too busy to properly study the opposing arguments.

Cap'n Jack Sarfatti Is Man-Made Global Warming Science Fraud For Money? http://bit.ly/aNdjZq
'bout 6 turn o' yer hourglass ago from the port o' AutoTweet Connector · Weigh in · Arr!


Randy Tinkerman Jack, why do you keep getting sucked into this crap. Do you actually think you should rely on the New Yawk Post for a discussion of real science? Can't you stick to your field? You detract from your real value.
'bout 6 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Jack Sarfatti Not at all, but it needs to be discussed rationally not shouted down. I have no position on this issue. You are reacting like an ideologue fanatic. The issue is complex and rather than personal attacks you should give an intelligent refutation of the article. The first sign of totalitarian fascism is the shouting down of dissenting opinions and making it a crime to ask unpopular questions.
'bout 5 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! ·  2 mateys · Jack Sarfatti A good example of the creeping totalitarianism is the British Ban on Michael Savage - and one does not have to agree with his opinions to see that.
'bout 5 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Randy Tinkerman There was no personal attack. And i will not refute this article's pablum, nor stoop to a discussion of it. The refutation, including placing in context, is in the peer-reviewed literature. There is not a whit of ideologue in my comment, and you know that.
'bout 5 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Jack Sarfatti Randy these are emotional remarks. It may be that the article is wrong. I don't know. I do not have time to investigate it, but am interested in people's informed opinions on the details. Is the reporter lying about the Indian scientist for example? Could be, I haven't a clue and I have no position on this. Man-made pollution is bad for health of course and no one in his/her right mind wants to increase it in any case.
'bout 5 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Randy Tinkerman There is nothing emotional about leaving the discussion to peer reviewers, nor not refuting a particular claim. Trumping an outlier among tens of thousands of data points is new to the politics of science, i suppose.
'bout 5 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Greg Chilik It's entirely appropriate to offer criticism of the IPCC for making unverifiable predictions of future climatic effects (and for not performing basic, standard checking of their conclusions and the mathematics which supported their premise). They allowed the claim of the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers to be the centerpiece of their report, a claim which would raise red flags to anyone with a basic knowledge of oceanography or atmospheric science.

The IPCC falls into the trap that their detractors can easily take advantage of: publicizing dramatic examples of their predicted forecasts of the effects of extrapolating the current warming trend X number of years into the future. Specific predictions will nearly always be wrong, and gives opponents ample ammunition to discredit the prognosticator.

That being said, the writer of the Post article cannot be considered to be an objective commentator either -- the byline is not a Post writer but a spokesperson for a group which does have a specific political agenda. The writer also accuses the IPCC of making predictions without being able to back them up with evidence or mathematically correct formulation, yet engages in the same behaviour when throwing out politically charged phrases like "...economically ruinous 'cap and trade' anti-warming bill" without providing any substantive analysis in support.

More troubling is the writer continuing the political smear against all scientists: that their work is motivated by and results influenced by grant money which funds most academically-based research. Jack, I know you're particularly sensitive to the sense that scientific disciplines can get caught in their own feedback loop and end up in close-minded groupthink....but that's quite different from saying that entire scientific disciplines would deliberately falsify data en masse for the gross pursuit of money.

You can find countless scientists who work either individually or in independent groups studying climate data who can draw the conclusion that human civilization has fundamentally altered our atmospheric chemistry, but stop short of inferring that they know what the future results of this change will be. They don't fall into the intellectual or publicity-motivated traps that the IPCC finds itself in, but they do share a deep concern for what the [very unpredictable] results will be of increasing the carbon dioxide level of Earth's atmosphere far past the ceiling of normal historical fluctuations.

'bout one turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Jeff Kooistra The article is fairly accurate but I don't think except that the AGW "cause" isn't deliberate fraud. The 2035 claim was included in the IPCC report even though experts pointed out it was a mistake. The recently completed review of the IPCC was highly critical (find it here: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate Change Assessments, Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC.pdf) Speaking of peer review, it turns out large portions of the IPCC reports relied on anything but peer reviewed literature (not that peer review impresses me one damn bit) despite claims to the contrary.