Text Size

Stardrive

Tag » Gerard 't Hooft
  1. Not all three statements are consistent it is claimed.
  2. 1) Hawking radiation is in a pure state.
  3. 2) The information carried by the radiation is emitted from the region near the horizon, with low energy effective field theory valid beyond some microscopic distance from the horizon.
  4. 3) The infalling observer encounters nothing unusual at the horizon.
 
 
Well 1) cannot be true since if Hawking radiation is black body it is not in a pure state it is a mixed state with a reduced density matrix that is not an idempotent projection operator.
 
 
So what is all the fuss about? ;-)
 
Throw away 1) and keep 2) and 3)?
 
Furthermore, there is no reason to go hog wild that the universe obeys unitarity at all levels of organization. Why should probability be conserved in the first place? Life does not seem to conserve probabilities. When Feynman gave an early lecture on his Lagrangian formulation of quantum theory Dirac was there with Einstein and Dirac asked Feynman if his theory was “unitary.” Feynman said he had no idea of what Dirac even meant at that time. Valentini has an extended quantum theory that is definitely not unitary for example. Feynman also asked why observables have to be Hermitian operators. Hermitian operators generate unitary transformations.
 
 
Unitarity is in Hilbert qubit pilot wave space what orthogonality is in the spacetime continuum. There is nothing sacred and absolute in either. There is no compelling reason to say that inner products of quantum states are invariant under time evolution. It works in a limited range of experiments - scattering experiments - very primitive smashing of things together - brute force not very subtle.
 
 
The S-MATRIX is a crude tool that has been elevated into The Golden Calf by the Priests of Orthodox Physics.
 
 
<imgres.jpg>
 

 

I disagree

When the events are complex and significant they are not statistical 
New rules apply Vallee's high strangeness 
When an alleged computer from the future tells me in 1953 of what will happen to me in 1973,which happens in fact and which is the cosmic trigger for the narrative in david kaisers MIT book etc that's a real time loop in a block universe in my opinion.
Remember CIA tape recording of my 1953 memory made in 1973 during SRI visit ties in with uri Geller narrative. 
The rules of the game are more like a homicide police investigation rather than statistical analysis of unitary S matrix measurements.
More is different
Emergence of new rules with increasing complexity uniqueness of historical events.

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events. 


From: beowulfr@interlog.com
To: iksnileiz@gmail.com

Subject: RE: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:35:31 -0400

Yes Z, but Ruth doesn’t seem to have a problem with discussing the implications of precognition as a possibly real phenomenon.  Like me she seems to be willing to discuss it, but not to go out on a limb and wholeheartedly agree with Jack.  So, we were discussing whether precognition would definitely favor Jack’s theory, or whether it could be explained in her theory as well.  She and I both seemed to make the point that viewing of future events doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is viewing the only possible future – there could be a number of possible futures.

 

Actually, on this point I remember reading some books by Lyall Watson back in the 1980s or early 1990s.  Watson had various of these sorts of psychic precognition examples listed.  I remember that he specifically claimed that aircraft, trains or other vehicles that are going to crash statistically have fewer people on them – that there is a rash of last-minute cancellations before the trip.  I don’t know how rigorous his statistics were and whether this is really true.  However, just assuming for a moment that it is, and that people do have an innate precognitive sense, what does Watson’s argument imply about the future?

 

As I remember Watson’s argument, he is not saying that people have a specific vision of dying in a fiery crash (although IIRC he claims that sometimes that does happen) but just that people get a bad feeling about the trip and come up with some excuse to cancel and do something else.  The precognition in his argument therefore happens at a sort of half-conscious level.

 

Either the people who last minute cancel are never going to die/are not “supposed” to die (whatever that means; maybe Jack’s future cosmological horizon quantum computer is post-determining that they live longer), and the precognition happens in order to actualize the future that is there all along.  Or, the cancellations are simply weird effects at a classical level, kind of like a Novikov self-consistency principle that would cause odd coincidences to happen to prevent you from changing history if you travelled to the past through a wormhole.

 

Alternatively, a future existed in which those people did die, and they precognitively sensed it, and so actualized a different future where they avoided death.  This would mean that the future is changeable through precognition, so multiple possible futures must exist.

 

From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com
Sent: April-07-14 9:08 PM
To: Robert Addinall

Subject: Re: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM

 

Except that we were also talking about Ruth Kastner's alternative model for "retro-causality". Which
doesn't agree with Jack's.

Remember?

On 4/7/2014 5:39 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:

 

Anyway, this is exactly what I was saying the other day – for the purposes of this conversation accepting Jack’s concept of precognition as a proven reality is fine.

 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Ruth Kastner wrote:
 
Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having
well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events.
_____________________________________________________________
 
 
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:
Every really wealthy person I know well personally has an uncanny talent to make good decisions financially.
I am not talking only about stock market.
For example, the Marshall Naify had extraordinary powers akin to Uri Geller’s and Ingo Swann. I personally experienced “mental time travel” with him (shared telepathic experience) to past events (Ancient Egypt, Middle Ages). He saw the potential of cable TV early and was one of the creators of what led to Comcast.
I have also noticed other evidence in them of paranormal talent.
I am not saying this as a scientific fact - only a subjective observation - folklore.
I am not saying that 100% of the 1% are precognitive but that a significant fraction are.
Even successful criminals and evil leaders are.
 
On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:59 PM, CloudRider@aol.com wrote:
 
Question, for Jack, et al...
Is it possible... or have you considered (seriously, with respect)... that what's in play here is a form of human perception perhaps located somewhere on the autism spectrum, even higher-functioning than Asperger's?
 
I am not a brain neuroscientist. I do not know.
 
If such a condition were to allow "tuning" to different signals from what "typical" receivers (people, brains) are capable of picking up. Not to imply "disability" or abnormality, per se, but a "stretch" in what most people are able to perceive... or perceive and retain in consciousness. Also, Jack's signal had to have a 'sender,' who quite likely would know about the "tuning" aspect of human perception, in the 1950s quite new to us.
 
Exactly my point! HIGH STRANGENESS - REALITY OF THE UNCANNY THAT MANY STRAIGHT SCIENTISTS OUT OF FEAR SUPPRESS.
 
Vallee and Davis Physics of High Strangeness ... - skinwalker ranch
www.skinwalkerranch.org/images/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf‎
by JF Vallee - ‎Cited by 6 - ‎Related articles
Oct 24, 2003 - clarify the issues surrounding “high strangeness” observations by ... Jacques Vallée has a Ph.D. in computer science; Eric Davis holds a Ph.D.
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 3/1/14
High Strangeness by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Arkadiusz Jadczyk
www.cassiopaea.org/cass/high_strangeness.htm‎
The term "high strangeness" is attributed to Dr. J. Allen Hynek who addressed the ... French scientist, Jacques Vallee writes in a paper about High Strangeness:.
High strangeness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_strangeness‎
Wikipedia
Within the domain of Ufology, high-strangeness is a term used to denote a ... It is perhaps of interest that Jacques Vallee, a close colleague of Hynek, has in a ...
 
 
This doesn't explain "contacts" by some kind of external source using conventional physical means (i.e., the telephone); could these have been an effort to "simulate extraordinary stimulation" by scientists studying such phenomena. I.e., if selected for programming, how to reach Jack (others?) without alarming them?
 
Well, the phone calls were real. Who made them is still a mystery.
 
Conversely, "extraordinary" ET or UT entities intending to contact and influence (this young scientist, retrocausally identified from the future) could have used the telephone because "supernatural" modalities of such "contact" might have triggered a psychotic break or other rejection reaction, by Jack's mother or any subsequently engaged psychiatrists brought in to "help" normalize their target, getting him locked away or chemically restrained, as quite obviously has happened to many other such "revelatees" over millennia?
 
That did not happen to me. But remember I was part of the USG superkids project out of Columbia University AFTER the phone calls throughout high-school with early admission into Ivy League Cornell with full scholarship for four years.
 
This project (also associated with Ayn Rand) was funded by born in Brooklyn (where I lived):
 
The Eugene McDermott Scholars Program - The University of Texas ...
www.utdallas.edu/mcdermott/‎
University of Texas at Dallas
Feb 25, 2014 - Established by Mrs. Eugene McDermott in support of her husband's dream, the McDermott Scholars program provides select UT Dallas ...
‎Application Information - ‎The McDermott Award - ‎Meet the Scholars - ‎Contact Us
Eugene McDermott Library - The University of Texas at Dallas
www.utdallas.edu/library/‎
University of Texas at Dallas
Online catalog, list of newly acquired titles, and general information for the lecture series and the McDermott and Callier Libraries.
‎Databases - ‎Library Hours - ‎Journals - ‎eBooks Collections
Eugene McDermott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McDermott‎
Wikipedia
Eugene McDermott (1899-1973) was a geophysicist and co-founder first of Geophysical Service and later of Texas Instruments. Born in Brooklyn, New York, on ...
‎Early career - ‎Geophysical Service - ‎Texas Instruments - ‎Philanthropy
You've visited this page 4 times. Last visit: 11/25/13
 
"IT" used the phone because that approach would not necessarily provoke a panicked response the way a "Biblical" manifestion of revelatory experience likely would have, i.e., "messianic" distortion or psychic break.
 
Either way, the net effect was to recontextualize Jack's personality and "genius," providing direction (both overt and subliminally, likely) and opening his mind to a stream of ongoing but more subtle signals later on.
 
Credulity, post-exposure, would be interesting to some scientists contemporaneous to the experience?
 
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cacheof-summary-paper-the-invasion-from-mars-readings-in-social-psychology-1947-hadley-cantril.pdf
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Cantril
 
 
On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:
 
So Jack is not going to be satisfied with retro-causal connections between mere possibilities.
 
For him the future is fully actualized and physically influences the present through CTCs in an
eternal block universe.
 
For him, that is what "precognition" means.
 
On 4/9/2014 11:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I disagree
When the events are complex and significant they are not statistical
New rules apply Vallee's high strangeness
When an alleged computer from the future tells me in 1953 of what will happen to me in 1973,which happens in fact and which is the cosmic trigger for the narrative in david kaisers MIT book etc that's a real time loop in a block universe in my opinion.
Remember CIA tape recording of my 1953 memory made in 1973 during SRI visit ties in with uri Geller narrative.
The rules of the game are more like a homicide police investigation rather than statistical analysis of unitary S matrix measurements.
More is different
Emergence of new rules with increasing complexity uniqueness of historical events.
 
Sent from my iPad
 
On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events.
 
From: beowulfr@interlog.com
To: iksnileiz@gmail.com
 
Subject: RE: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:35:31 -0400
 
Yes Z, but Ruth doesn’t seem to have a problem with discussing the implications of precognition as a possibly real phenomenon. Like me she seems to be willing to discuss it, but not to go out on a limb and wholeheartedly agree with Jack. So, we were discussing whether precognition would definitely favor Jack’s theory, or whether it could be explained in her theory as well. She and I both seemed to make the point that viewing of future events doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is viewing the only possible future – there could be a number of possible futures.
 
 
Actually, on this point I remember reading some books by Lyall Watson back in the 1980s or early 1990s. Watson had various of these sorts of psychic precognition examples listed. I remember that he specifically claimed that aircraft, trains or other vehicles that are going to crash statistically have fewer people on them – that there is a rash of last-minute cancellations before the trip. I don’t know how rigorous his statistics were and whether this is really true. However, just assuming for a moment that it is, and that people do have an innate precognitive sense, what does Watson’s argument imply about the future?
 
 
As I remember Watson’s argument, he is not saying that people have a specific vision of dying in a fiery crash (although IIRC he claims that sometimes that does happen) but just that people get a bad feeling about the trip and come up with some excuse to cancel and do something else. The precognition in his argument therefore happens at a sort of half-conscious level.
 
 
Either the people who last minute cancel are never going to die/are not “supposed” to die (whatever that means; maybe Jack’s future cosmological horizon quantum computer is post-determining that they live longer), and the precognition happens in order to actualize the future that is there all along. Or, the cancellations are simply weird effects at a classical level, kind of like a Novikov self-consistency principle that would cause odd coincidences to happen to prevent you from changing history if you travelled to the past through a wormhole.
 
 
Alternatively, a future existed in which those people did die, and they precognitively sensed it, and so actualized a different future where they avoided death. This would mean that the future is changeable through precognition, so multiple possible futures must exist.
 
 
From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com]
Sent: April-07-14 9:08 PM
To: Robert Addinall
 
Subject: Re: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM
 
 
Except that we were also talking about Ruth Kastner's alternative model for "retro-causality". Which
doesn't agree with Jack's.
 
Remember?
 
On 4/7/2014 5:39 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:
 
 
Anyway, this is exactly what I was saying the other day – for the purposes of this conversation accepting Jack’s concept of precognition as a proven reality is fine.
 
 
 

 

Lenny Susskind hopes to save both unitarity and the equivalence principle. He writes: "
In this paper I’ve made no attempt to prove that firewalls are absent in all circumstances. Indeed ER=EPR raises the possibility that an angry Alice can hit Bob with a nasty shockwave as he crosses the horizon [10]. What I have assumed is that firewalls are not inevitable— particularly so if the black hole begins with a smooth horizon—and then asked what new concepts are required to resolve the various paradoxes. In a sense I am trying to turn the firewall inevitability arguments into arguments for new physical concepts needed to reconcile unitarity and complementarity."
 
Lenny makes a mistake here in my opinion: "This is a twist on two commonly held incorrect sci-fi ideas; the first being that super-luminal signals can be sent through wormholes; and the second that superluminal signals can be sent using entanglement. ER=EPR does not allow superluminal signals, but it gets very close, in the sense that there is no limit on how soon after horizon crossing Bob can receive Alice’s message."
 
Yes, what he says is true for orthodox quantum theory, but not for its extension that corresponds to traversable wormholes held open with either exotic matter, or couplings to a scalar field as described in current literature cited by Enrico Rodrigo in his Stargate book.
 
I prefer to keep the equivalence principle and junk unitarity because then we have entanglement signal nonlocality - that's a game changer - Brave New World, Men like Gods and we then understand the physical mechanism for consciousness leading to naturally conscious artificial intelligent androids.
 
“For years it was thought that the Schwarzschild spacetime did in fact exhibit some sort of radial singularity at r = 2GM/c2. Eventually physicists came to realize that it was not Schwarzschild spacetime that was behaving badly. It was his choice of coordinate system. … the true singularity at r = 0.” P. 126, Enrico Rodrigo, “The Physics of Stargates” (Eridanus Press, New York, 2010). This is true, yet it also does not address an important question. While it is true that a freely falling observer Alice can pass through the event horizon of a large non-rotating black hole without feeling lethal tidal stretch-squeeze Weyl curvature tensor forces, nevertheless the universe will start to look weird to her. More importantly, if Bob is in a spaceship hovering at a fixed distance outside the event horizon with rockets firing radially inward, he will quickly find that there is a minimum distance he can get to without being sucked into the black hole. Indeed, if Bob does not want to exceed a 1g weight that minimum distance is even larger. This is because, the real proper acceleration of hovering, also called the “static LNIF” shoots up to a classical infinity at the event horizon because of the square root of the time-time component g00 that approaches zero at the event horizon in the denominator of the relevant equation in Einstein’s General Relativity. One over zero is infinity. Of course quantum gravity will prevent an actual infinity, but practically speaking that does not change the basic situation. Not only that, but Bob will see a very hot thermal blackbody bath of real photons proportional to his actual tensor proper acceleration that will burn him to a cinder. This will be very peculiar and tragic to Alice who passes close by him in her radial free fall into the black hole. Alice will not feel the heat unless she catches fire etc. from Bob’s burning ship that explodes and flings debris hitting her. This is related to recent speculations by Leonard Susskind et-al on black hole firewalls. 
There is a creative tension conflict between Gerard ‘t Hooft’s pontifical proclamation that the S-Matrix must be unitary even in cosmology and Einstein’s equivalence principle that nothing happens to a freely falling observer passing through a horizon g00 = 0 whether that of a black hole whose horizon is observer independent, or whether through our future dark energy de Sitter cosmological horizon, which is observer-dependent. Roughly, unitarity of the S-Matrix of the universe says that there is nothing new under the Sun that quantum information cannot be created or destroyed. This seems to fly in the face of human creativity. Does it really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics) 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=black-hole-firewall-paradox&print=true 
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/spotlight-live-falling-into-black-holes 
http://physics.aps.org/articles/print/v6/115
Firewall (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
A firewall is a hypothetical phenomenon where an observer that falls into an old black hole encounters high-energy quanta at (or near) the event horizon. The "firewall" phenomenon was proposed in 2012 by Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski, and Sully[1] as a possible solution to an apparent inconsistency i...
  • The Quantum Mechanics of Time Travel http://t.co/zNuT1Ru94e
    The Quantum Mechanics of Time Travel
    lnkd.in
    Dr. Seth Lloyd, an MIT professor and self-described "quantum mechanic," describes the quantum mechanics behind time travel during a guest lecture at the Inst...
  • Jack Sarfatti Nice intuitive explanation of quantum teleportation in terms of Cramer's transaction explanation of entanglement - due to Charlie Bennett. Post-selected Aharonov weak measurement CTC not same as David Deutsch's. Indeed time traveler to past loses all memory in Deutsch's scheme, though not in Seth Lloyd's. Aephraim Sternberg actually did a real experiment proving that Gerard 't Hooft's claim about Grandfather Paradox is wrong. Some argue that it's only a simulation not the real thing. Hmmnn I have heard that one before.
  1.  
  2. Phys. Rev. D » Volume 87 » Issue 4
    < Previous Article | Next Article >
    Phys. Rev. D 87, 041301(R) (2013) [6 pages]
    Observing the multiverse with cosmic wakes
    Abstract
    References
    No Citing Articles
    Download: PDF (724 kB) Buy this article Export: BibTeX or EndNote (RIS)
    Matthew Kleban1,*, Thomas S. Levi2,†, and Kris Sigurdson2,‡ 1Department of Physics, CCPP, New York University, New York, New York 10003, USA
    2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z1, Canada
    Received 28 January 2012; revised 26 May 2012; published 21 February 2013
    Current theories of the origin of the Universe, including string theory, predict the existence of a multiverse with many bubble universes. These bubble universes may collide, and collisions with ours produce cosmic wakes that enter our Hubble volume, appear as unusually symmetric disks in the cosmic microwave background, and disturb large scale structure. There is preliminary evidence consistent with one or more of these disturbances on our sky. However, other sources can produce similar features in the cosmic microwave background, and so additional signals are needed to verify their extra-universal origin. Here we find, for the first time, the detailed three-dimensional shape, temperature, and polarization signals of the cosmic wake of a bubble collision consistent with current observations. The polarization pattern has distinct features that when correlated with the corresponding temperature pattern are a unique and striking signal of a bubble collision. These features represent a verifiable prediction of the multiverse paradigm and might be detected by current or future experiments. A detection of a bubble collision would confirm the existence of the multiverse, provide compelling evidence for the string theory landscape, and sharpen our picture of the Universe and its origins.
    Like · · Share
    • Ram Ayana and Miriam Strauss like this.
    • Jack Sarfatti Kuch, you are not communicating intelligibly in many of your sentences.
    • William Kuch My apologies for that it's a habit Ive been trying to break.
    • Theodore Silva I like the Multiverse idea, it leaves open the concept of a kind of "natural selection" for evolving Universes -- even a kind of sexual selection, like the exchange of genes between bacteria. Universes exchanging Constants?
    • Paul Zielinski "No Z you are confused. Tegmark's Levels 1 and 2 are a simple consequence of Einstein's GR + INFLATION." No Jack I am not confused. The mainstream view is that as things stand the existence of a Tegmark Level II multiverse is a *hypothesis*, and I agree with that view.

      The anthropic conundrum is solved in the Tegmark Level II multiverse model by random generation of new universes, in a kind of cosmic Darwinian lottery -- as discussed for example by Penrose. I see nothing in contemporary physics that *requires* the existence of such a multiverse, and the observational support at this point is rather weak. All kinds of things can be derived in theory that may or may not be realized in nature.

      Of course a Tegmark Level III multiverse (a la Everett) is another issue, and is even more conjectural than Level II, since it is based on an alternate interpretation of QM, and is thus not subject to direct empirical confirmation. So I agree with you on that.
    • William Kuch The term "Multiverse" is an oxymoron, resolvable IFF all of these alternate universes are trivial. BAM.
    • Jack Sarfatti Kuch U r babbling like a loon and do not at all understand this subject. You are way out of your depth and do not know that you do not know.
    • Jack Sarfatti Z yes multiverse Level II is a hypothesis that is a "theorem" if you accept the mainstream theory of "chaotic inflation" for which actual evidence is accumulating and more decisive tests are coming. Level 1 is much more certain as it only requires Einstein's GR - this is explained in Tamara Davis's PhD. There are many "causal diamonds" we are inside one of them and they are observer-dependent.
    • William Kuch Indeed I am, with one caveat. I do not babble like a loon. I babble as one.
    • Jack Sarfatti A moment of lucid self-awareness - good for you.
    • Jack Sarfatti OK Z I think we agree Level I very probable - effectively a fact given Tamara Davis's PhD Level II less certain e.g. Penrose's qualms about chaotic inflation, Level III even less certain, I actually reject it. Level IV seems to be of no scientific value. BTW string theory is getting more testable it seems from Lenny Susskind's Stanford online videos.
    • Paul Zielinski OK Jack let's agree that GR + cosmic inflation strongly suggests the possibility of a Level II multiverse being realized in nature. But let's also acknowledge that the inflation model is still itself hypothetical in character. So yes if you are committed to the inflation model then it is reasonable to take the existence of a Level II multiverse seriously.
  3. Like · · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 24, 2013, at 5:27 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

      problem is that it does no work so we cannot apply it to fly an airplane or a space ship there always seems to be a Catch 22 preventing a useful application :

      "perpetual motion"? fir
      st thought "crackpot"

      second thought: "Wilczek's time crystal"

      Rotating Casimir systems: magnetic field-enhanced perpetual motion, possible realization in doped nanotubes, and laws of thermodynamics
      M. N. Chernodub
      CNRS, Laboratoire de Mathematiques et Physique Theorique, Universite Francois-Rabelais Tours,
      Federation Denis Poisson, Parc de Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France and
      Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Gent, Krijgslaan 281, S9, B-9000 Gent, Belgium
      (Dated: August 24, 2012)

      Recently, we have demonstrated that for a certain class of Casimir-type systems ("devices") the energy of zero-point vacuum fluctuations reaches its global minimum when the device rotates about a certain axis rather than remains static. This rotational vacuum effect may lead to the emergence of permanently rotating objects provided the negative rotational energy of zero-point fluctuations cancels the positive rotational energy of the device itself. In this paper, we show that for massless electrically charged particles the rotational vacuum effect should be drastically (astronomically) enhanced in the presence of a magnetic field. As an illustration, we show that in a background of experimentally available magnetic fields the zero-point energy of massless excitations in rotating torus-shaped doped carbon nanotubes may indeed overwhelm the classical energy of rotation for certain angular frequencies so that the permanently rotating state is energetically favored. The suggested "zero-point driven" devices, which have no internally moving parts, correspond to a perpetuum mobile of a new, fourth kind: They do not produce any work despite the fact that their equilibrium (ground) state corresponds to a permanent rotation even in the presence of an external environment. We show that our proposal is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.
      PACS numbers: 03.70.+k, 42.50.Lc, 42.50.Pq

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Jun 24, 2013, at 2:05 PM, art wagner wrote:

      http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1207.3052.pdf
    • Dean Radin rebuts the failure to replicate Bem's "Feeling the Future" done on line without proper controls Radin says - bogus rebuttal
    • Jack Sarfatti From: Dean Radin
      Subject: Re: Possible nuclear detonation detected by anomalous mental phenomena
      Date: June 24, 2013 5:02:48 PM PDT
      To: JACK SARFATTI
      ...See More
    • Jack Sarfatti From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>
      Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Reality of Possibility
      Date: June 25, 2013 11:08:05 AM PDT
      To: Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
      Reply-To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics <exoticphysics@mai
      ...See More
      www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk
      This paper is dedicated to three great thinkers who have insisted that the world is not quite the straightforward affair that our successes in describing it mathematically may have seemed to suggest: Niels Bohr, whose analyses of the problem of explaining life play a central role in the following di...
    • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:27 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

      On Jun 24, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

      See Chapter 7 of my book. One can see the usual subject/object dichotomy as the absorption/emission dichotomy in TI, and can think of 'qualia' as the subjective aspects of any absorption event.

      This is strange. You seem to say that in the simplest Feynman diagram ---< --- = photon < = scattered electron

      there is a conscious experience?

      I think you go too far. First of all quantum electrodynamics is built upon linear unitary Born probability rule orthodox quantum theory with signal locality "passion at a distance" (A. Shimony), no perfect cloning of an unknown quantum state etc. built in. David Deutsch has correctly argued that consciousness is not possible in orthodox quantum theory.

      Basically your distinction is equivalent to Bohm's simply a change of nouns in my opinion.

      Your "possibility" = Bohm's "quantum potential" Q = Wheeler's BIT = Stapp's "thought like" field = David Chalmers "intrinsic mental field"

      Your "actuality" = Bohm's not so "hidden variables" i.e. material particles/classical EM-gravity field configurations that are piloted by Q i.e. "beables."

      Valentini's recent claim that Q is unstable leading to deviations from Born probability rule where it shouldn't of course needs to be addressed. Basil Hiley did so.

      As you will see in Lecture 8 of Michael Towler's http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

      The no-signal theorems of Adrian Kent et-al only apply in the approximate limit where the generalized action-reaction principle of Einstein's relativity is violated.

      In other words, no stand-alone entanglement signaling (without a classical signal key to decrypt the coded message) depends upon lack of a direct back-reaction of Q on the beables it pilots. This is equivalent to Antony Valentini's "sub-quantal thermal equilibrium" of the beables.
      Indeed, orthodox quantum theory is not background independent to make an analogy of Q with space-time geometry. Q is not itself a dynamical field (in configuration space) it has no sources! This violates Einstein's relativity principle in a very deep sense of no absolute fields in physics. Any field that acts on another field must have back-reaction. Now of course we have test particles in the gravity & EM fields that are not sources. But we all understand that is an approximation. Orthodox quantum theory depends upon beables being test particles, i.e. not sources of the Q BIT field in configuration space. Therefore, orthodox quantum theory is an approximation of a more general theory, e.g. something like Valentini's, and is not complete. The most obvious breakdown of orthodox quantum theory is living matter.

      Orthodox Quantum Theory is simply John Archibald Wheeler's

      IT FROM BIT

      It is incomplete because it does NOT have direct back-reaction

      BIT FROM IT.
    • Jack Sarfatti Consciousness is, in my view, an emergent property of very complex highly entangled many-particle pumped open-systems which are Prigogine's "dissipative structures" corresponding to Tony Valentini's "sub-quantal non-equilibrium". The big defect in Valentini's theory is that he does not properly address pumping of the system. He only really includes closed systems relaxing to thermal equilibrium.

      Consciousness is imprinting of information directly from the classical IT material degrees of freedom, e.g. CLASSICAL Fuv = Au,v - Av,u on their (super) pilot field Q, which is intrinsically mental.

      <ureye.gif>

      CONSCIOUS QUALIA = IT FROM BIT + BIT FROM IT

      in a creative self-organizing loop of a nonlinear non-unitary post-quantum theory.

      We need the "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) Higgs-Goldstone spontaneous breakdown of ground state symmetry to get the Glauber coherent states that obey a nonlinear nonunitary Landau-Ginzburg equation in ordinary space - not configuration space - that replaces the linear unitary Schrodinger-Dirac equations. This is why 't Hooft's S-Matrix for black hole horizons may fail. This is why Tegmark's Level 3 may fail as well.

      <multiverse.jpg>

      In particular, as I note in the book, the 'Now' (with its attendant qualia) is a primal, irreduceably local phenomenon, defined relative to an absorption resulting in an actualized transaction. Biological organisms are very sophisticated absorption systems. Note that my model does not presume that the physical entities are mind-free Cartesian matter, so allows for a subjective component within the interacting systems, although the model is not observer-dependent.

      RK

      From: adastra1@me.com
      Subject: Re: Reality of Possibility
      Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:26:50 -0700
      To:

      It's much more than that. I have a clear picture of qualia. What's yours?

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Jun 24, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

      You're depending on the Bohmian model here. I'm working with a different model, so these arguments don't apply.

      RK
      Subject: Re: Reality of Possibility
      Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:34:05 -0700
      To: rekastner@hotmail.com

      I don't think u can have consciousness qualia without signal nonlocality violating quantum theory.

      Sure free will is simply the piloting of matter by Bohm's Q. However, you cannot have qualia imprinted on Q from the matter Q pilots. Quantum theory violates the generalized action-reaction principle.

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Jun 24, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Ruth Kastner wrote:

      Jack,

      Thanks for the feedback.
      My interpretation of the quantum realm as physical possibility certainly leaves room for the theory to apply to consciousness and biological systems. For example, I don't go into this in detail in my book, but 'offer waves' (i.e. the entities described by quantum states) are excitations of the relevant fields. The creation of these entities (involving 'creation operators' in QFT) is inherently unpredictable. This leaves room for things like volition and creativity within the standard theory.
      So I disagree that one needs a Valentini-type model i.e., going beyond standard QM, for these things.

      I welcome thoughts on my guest post on George Musser's Sci Am blog (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/06/21/can-we-resolve-quantum-paradoxes-by-stepping-out-of-space-and-time-guest-post/)

      Ruth

      From: adastra1@me.com
      Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:07:52 -0700
      Subject: Reality of Possibility

      To: rek

      Ruth, I disagree with your basic thesis that orthodox quantum theory is complete.
      This would deny Antony Valentini's sub-quantal non-equilibrium with signal nonlocality for example.
      My basic thesis is that orthodox quantum theory is incomplete. That it cannot explain biology and consciousness.
      Both the latter depend upon signal nonlocality in strong violation of orthodox quantum theory.

      1) linear Hermitian operators for all observables

      2) orthogonal eigenfunctions for all observables

      3) unitary time evolution

      4) linear superposition of quantum states

      5) Born probability interpretation

      6) consciousness

      are incompatible

      I also accept retro-causation in mind/brain data as a working hypothesis, i.e. Libet, Radin, Bierman, Bem.
      blogs.scientificamerican.com
      Next month will be the 100th anniversary of Bohr's model of the atom, one of the foundations of the theory of quantum mechanics. And look where ...

The thin sheet of reality of the hologram universe is the brane of Hawking's Mind of God. ;-)
Destiny

1) S-Matrix?


S-Matrix is an input-output black box model for scattering of simple beams of non-interacting particles (ensembles) on similar ensembles of targets (true each target can be a complex system like a crystal or fluid with quasiparticles and collective mode excited states of the ground state).

The inputs and outputs are external lines corresponding to poles of the Feynman propagators in the complex energy plane. In other words they are real particles on-mass-shell. If massless bosons in the classical limit they are radiative far fields of only two transverse polarization if spin 1 (EM) or spin 2 (gravity).

Virtual particles are inside the black box (internal lines of the Feynman diagrams).

However, for cosmology and the hologram universe - for horizons the S-Matrix is incomplete. Sure you can use it for collapsing matter increasing the area-entropy of the horizon (black hole) or matter flowing out of the causal diamond in the case of our observer-dependent future cosmological event horizon.

However, the stable state is completely off-mass-shell, i.e. coherent Glauber states of off-mass-shell virtual bosons like the EM near fields of electrical power engineering of our grid and our every day electrical machines and home appliances. PG & E mainly deals with near fields. High energy physicists seem to draw a blank on near fields. The most important parts of the universe are near fields.

Thus the two most important toy model SSS metrics in Einstein's GR are

g00 = 1 - rs/r  etc. black hole


g0'0' = 1 - r'^2/A

with horizons g00 = 0 and g0'0' = 0

Quantum mechanically speaking these metrics are made out of Glauber coherent states of off-mass-shell gravitons of zero frequency and a continuous spectrum of wave vectors.

GRAVITY WAVES PLAY NO ROLE in this static limit.

Yes, they do when excited states of the pixeled stretched membrane (Kip Thorne) with scrambled BITs for distant observers is included, i.e. Hawking radiation. But that is treated in perturbation theory around the above static solutions.

Now I do remember that the S-Matrix can be extended to treat bound states so maybe that is the way out of the dilemma?

2) 't Hooft's naive rejection of Aharonov's destiny post-selection &Wheeler-Feynman Cramer's transactions, CTCs in quantum computing, and invoking the Red Herring of the Grandfather paradox - see the World Science Festival 2011 video with 't Hooft, Susskind, Verlinde, Buosso - moderated by Hockenberry of PBS.

  1.  
    • Gerard 't Hooft's Biggest Blunder on Causality? http://t.co/myn111rTcg
      Gerard 't Hooft's Biggest Blunder on Causality?
      lnkd.in
      Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
    • Are We Holograms in the Destiny Matrix Simulation (Lenny Susskind's Theory and Beyond) V2
      lnkd.in
      Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
    • Godzilla in the room. When is the hologram we are inside of? http://t.co/qIpgSEOjZs
      Godzilla in the room: WHEN ARE the past and future hologram screens?.pdf
      tinyurl.com
      Do we live inside a hologram destiny matrix?
    • http://t.co/6TkC0yb9rt are we holograms in the Destiny Matrix? http://t.co/uPQLeBGX05
      Are We Holograms in the Destiny Matrix Simulation (Lenny Susskind's Theory and Beyond)
      tinyurl.com
      Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
    • A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full): http://t.co/SzJY7HrgON via @youtube
      A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full)
      youtu.be
      2011 World Science Festival panel discussion on the holographic principle. http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/a_thin_sheet_of_reality_the_universe_as_a_h...
    • Jack Sarfatti That's Buosso, Verlinde, 't Hooft and Susskind - the top guys in hologram universe theory at cutting edge of physics today. Briane Greene also briefly in a clip.
    • Jack Sarfatti 't Hooft toward the end does begin to notice Godzilla in the room. He is mistaken when he says there is no evidence for back-from-the-future retro-causal (e.g., Cramer handshake transactions, dark energy itself, Libet - Radin - Bierman - Bem brain EEG presponse, Aharonov destiny post-selection, Valentini signal nonlocality effects). However 't Hooft is correct to note a tension between the hologram idea and retarded causality. The future light cone of the observer where it intersects its future horizon is responsible for dark energy and most of the hologram voxel imaging. Of course he is right to notice the conflict between the hologram idea and his conception of ONLY past causes of future effects.

      It's curious that Lenny thinks it's a c-BIT per pixel. Why is it not a SPINOR q-BIT per pixel?
    • Jack Sarfatti Information being lost or hidden is not same as information being destroyed - they say. But how about information being created? - like works of art, music, literature, theoretical physics equations etc. Also the area-entropies of both our past and future horizons increase from the moment of inflation, though the future horizon has a finite upper bound asymptote of about 10^122 pixels in our causal diamond patch of the multiverse.

Gerard 't Hooft despite his Nobel Prize is incredibly naive about causality. He thinks advanced causation is irrational and threatens science. He does not seem to be aware of Wheeler-Feynman - hard to believe, nor of David Deutsch's, Seth Lloyd's et-al work on CTCs in quantum computing, Aharonov's destiny post-selection, Tony Valentini's signal nonlocality etc. He still thinks the Grandfather Paradox is a real obstacle.