Text Size

Nov 22

## The Scandal in Quantum Theory's Foundations

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged

Subject: Quantum physicists have been brainwashed since the 1927 Solvay Conference by Niels Bohr

1.
Naive Quantum Gravity
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
2.
Lagrangian Formulation for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: Single-Particle Case
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics – Entangled Many-Particle Case

Roderick I. Sutherland
Centre for Time, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
rod.sutherland@sydney.edu.au

A Lagrangian formulation is constructed for particle interpretations of quantum mechanics, a well-known example of such an interpretation being the Bohm model. The advantages of such a description are that the equations for particle motion, field evolution and conservation laws can all be deduced from a single Lagrangian density expression. The formalism presented is Lorentz invariant. This paper follows on from a previous one which was limited to the single-particle case. The present paper treats the more general case of many particles in an entangled state. It is found that describing more than one particle while maintaining a relativistic description requires the introduction of final boundary conditions as well as initial, thereby entailing retrocausality.

On Nov 22, 2015, at 11:32 AM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

At this point we all need to re-read Sutherland very careful starting with the 2006 paper and instead of making wild unsupported generally false or muddled statements about his work - we all need to copy and paste relevant text and equations point by point in a close analysis because his claims are of such fundamental importance for the foundations of quantum theory. I will start doing just that rather than dealing with the polemics and ersatz metaphysics of the New Agers.

The new physics of R. I. Sutherland is, in my understanding

1) Bohm trajectories are revealed albeit approximately by intermediate Aharonov weak measurements between LOCAL initial and final strong measurements also called boundary conditions. Real experiments by Aephraim Sternberg for photons confirm this.

2) Retrocausality in the weak measurements is shown in the Lagrangian formalism that is locally specially relativistically invariant i.e. all quantities are tensors under the Lorentz group. The boundary conditions are irrelevant to this Lorentz symmetry of the dynamics.

3) Configuration space for entangled particles is replaced by Costa de Beauregard zig zags same as for Cramer’s TI and Hu Price and Ken Wharton’s papers.

4) Aharonov, Sutherland, Price, Wharton et-al are only interested in orthodox quantum limit with no-entanglement signaling assumed.

### No-communication theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
Wikipedia
In physics, the no-communication theorem is a no-go theorem from quantum .... " Begging the Signaling Question: Quantum Signaling and the Dynamics of ...

### [PDF]The No-Signalling Theorems: A Nitpicking Distinction Kent A ...

people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf
University of Lethbridge
by KA Peacock - ‎Cited by 1 - ‎Related articles
Shortly before his untimely death, John Stewart Bell remarked that his famous theoremtells us “that ... There are numerous no-signalling proofs in the literature.

### From the No-Signaling Theorem to Veiled Nonlocality

arxiv.org › physics
arXiv
by S Kak - ‎2013 - ‎Cited by 10 - ‎Related articles
Sep 24, 2013 - Abstract: According to the no-signaling theorem, the nonlocal collapse of the wavefunction of an entangled particle by the measurement on its ...
5) Sutherland’s Lagrangian equations include my “back-reaction” from particle to wave that violates orthodox quantum no-signaling. Sutherland calls this “action-reaction”.

### Subquantum Information and Computation

arxiv.org › quant-ph
arXiv
by A Valentini - ‎2002 - ‎Cited by 57 - ‎Related articles
Mar 11, 2002 - Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph). Journal reference: Pramana - J. Phys. ... From: Antony Valentini [view email] [v1] Mon, 11 Mar 2002 ...
Sutherland’s Lagrangian has the form for weak measurements
L = L(classical be able) + L(quantum) + L(post-quantum back-reaction)
In orthodox no-signaling quantum theory the thought-like mental quantum wave function is a complete description of physical reality.

### Pilot-wave theory: Everett in denial? - Antony Valentini - Vimeo

vimeo.com › Philosophy of Physics › Videos
Vimeo
May 20, 2009
... theory: Everett in denial? - Antony Valentini" by Philosophy of Physics on Vimeo, the home for high ...
Obviously, in that case
L(classical be able)  = 0
L(post-quantum back-reaction) = 0
This is the case for Copenhagen, transactional interpretation, and all forms of many worlds.
This is insane in my opinion and it leads to all sorts of ridiculous Rube Goldberg pseudo-problems well described in Nick Herbert’s books
e.g. collapse of the wave function - this is a literal miracle corresponding to the theological
Wheeler calls this
IT FROM BIT
I claim that mainstream quantum theorists and philosophers have been brainwashed into this Laputan paradigm because of the immense charisma of Niels Bohr and his false victory over de Broglie and Einstein as well as the demonization and isolation of David Bohm. The book by Mara Beller

### Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution, Beller

press.uchicago.edu/ucp/.../bo3628344.html
University of Chicago Press
"Science is rooted in conversations," wrote Werner Heisenberg, one of the twentieth century's great physicists. In Quantum DialogueMara Beller shows that  ...
proves what I am professing here.

### Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 ...

arxiv.org › quant-ph
arXiv
by G Bacciagaluppi - ‎2006 - ‎Cited by 24 - ‎Related articles
Sep 24, 2006 - Quantum Physics. Title: Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference ... From: Antony Valentini [view email]

6) L(post-quantum back-reaction) ~ (be able particle 4-velocity - pilot wave 4-current/invariant 4-current density) ….
Therefore orthodox quantum theory corresponds exactly to de Broglie’s pilot wave condition = zero back reaction = sub-quantum  equilibrium
In this case the pilot wave stream lines are identical to the be able- trajectories.
This is why as a practical matter we can pretend there are no beables for all traditional lab tests and technology on dead matter - closed systems.
My thesis is that pumped open dissipative structures (e.g. Frohlich model) with macro-quantum coherence have back-reaction with violation of the de Broglie piloting.
The pilot wave stream lines no longer match the Bohm be able trajectories.
Cramer’s cancellation of phases in his transaction no longer happens.
Retrocausal signals happen e.g. brain presponse.
Post quantum physics is to quantum physics as general relativity is to special relativity in the sense of the general action-reaction principle.
7) all of the above is for particles. Doing quantum electrodynamics (also weak and strong) and quantum geometrodynamics is more complicated. Sutherland had made some progress on this issue.
8) Finally the back-reaction of classical charges on the EM field is irrelevant to our concern here - that is all classical physics in L(be-able

Jan 04

## UFO Update Jan 4, 2015

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: wormhole, SPECTRA - UFO COMPUTER, Skinwalker Ranch, Nick Bostrum, Jacques Vallee, Internet, Hal Puthoff, ET, DARPA

Jack Sarfatti

16 mins · San Francisco, CA · Edited ·

On Jan 3, 2015, at 11:31 PM, Jacques Vallee wrote:

Beowulf is right on. About 1970 Paul Baran (inventor of packet switching at Rand and arguably the true grandfather of the Internet) tested the first radio prototype of

the Arpanet by spread spectrum on the range of frequencies of the SFO control tower. He could do that without interference with air operations because the spread spectrum signal was undetectable -- low in the noise....

See More

www.nickbostrom.com

NICKBOSTROM.COM

Like ·  · Share

Jack Sarfatti http://stardrive.org

jacksarfatti@icloud.com

On Jan 3, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Jack Sarfatti <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

Ignoring the UFO data in front of our noses is a fatal mistake. Meantime let's see if the fly by anomaly is caused by a small wormhole. There are credible reports by Eric Davis of a small wormhole at the Bigelow ranch in Utah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinwalker_Ranch

On Jan 3, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:

I actually tend to think that few civilizations will end up building Dyson spheres. Again, my suspicion is that it's possible (though not easy in the initial stages) to develop techniques for generating and containing negative energy/mass, and then you have warp drive/wormholes. At that point you can colonize (or terraform and then colonize) new planets. Most likely you don't want more than two or three billion inhabitants per planet (Earth is probably currently overpopulated). You'll primarily use FTL (some sort of wormholes or else readable quantum entanglement) for communication and not put out significant radio signals. So, I would really expect to *only* see regular planetary systems. We can't really say anything for certain until we get enough telescope resolution to see Earth-like planets and whether (1) they show evidence of biological processes like photosynthesis and oxygen-rich atmospheres, and (2) lights illuminating metropolitan areas.

Even such observations would not rule out intelligent life of very different forms than those found on Earth.

From: creon levit NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2015 5:02 PM

To: JACK SARFATTI

Subject: "zeroth order null result" from WISE for free energy and for UFOs.

More evidence of no high level ET civilizations in our galaxy: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.1134.pdf

The Gaia mission, currently in orbit, will provide a much tighter (probabilistic) bound. It is surveying a billion local stars. If any of them have a something like a Dyson sphere, we will know.

The Kepler mission found that most stars have planets, and that a significant fraction have habitable planets. So for those like me who do not at present find UFO evidence convincing, these missions, and the negative results from all SETI searches to date, reinforce the Fermi paradox. It leads one either towards “we are alone” or to the great filter.

For an amusing but serious summary of these issues see Bostrum’s essay "why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing"

Home

Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project

STARDRIVE.ORG

10 mins · Like · Remove Preview

Jack Sarfatti On Dec 29, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Jack Sarfatti <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

From: Hal Puthoff

Date: December 29, 2014 at 2:01:38 PM PST

To: lensman137@sbcglobal.net,

Subject: Re: The RAND Corporation on UFOs !

Though overlooked by many, the recently declassified UK MOD report (so-called Condign Report, interestingly enough!), assembled in 2000 by the Defense Intelligence staff, though written to 'get out of the pubic UFO business,' has within its > 100 pages a number of gems of technical details, including an assessment EM frequencies hypothesized to possibly be involved in the Rendlesham Forest event. Available on the Internet from the UK National Archives - see below.

Hal

<< Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region

The Ministry of Defence has released this report in response to a Freedom of Information request and we are pleased to now make it available to a wider audience via the MOD Freedom of Information Publication Scheme. Where indicated information is withheld in accordance with Section 26 (Defence), Section 27 (International Relations) and Section 40 (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Executive Summary

UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Volume 1

UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Volume 2

UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Volume 3 >>

-----Original Message-----

From: Kim Burrafato <lensman137@sbcglobal.net>

To: Creon Levit

Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 3:19 pm

Subject: Re: The RAND Corporation on UFOs !

What about the testimony of Base Commander, Colonel Charles Halt, and all of the other airmen who were up close and personal witnesses to the highly strange events at Rendlesham forest? All the people involved in Rendlesham were reliable, extensively vetted RAF Bentwaters USAF security personnel — after all, this was a NATO nuclear weapons storage facility. They would never have attained those security positions if they weren’t exemplary soldiers. Unlike Roswell, where key witnesses weren’t interviewed until many years after the alleged incident, the majority of witnesses in the Rendlesham forest incident are alive and well. Halt maintains to this day that the object he and others observed at Rendlesham was extraterrestrial technology. Despite the apparent lack of physical and photographic evidence to that effect, we cannot discount all that important detailed and reliable eyewitness testimony. And it’s a safe bet that if any physical or photographic evidence was gathered, it has been sequestered deep within the black catacombs of the national security establishment.

On Dec 29, 2014, at 9:43 AM, creon levit wrote:

Ok I'll read John's book too !-)

On Dec 28, 2014, at 11:25 PM, Colonel John Alexander wrote:

The evidence in favor of UFOs is simply overwhelming and I agree with Hal's comment on Bentwaters. In my book, UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities that is one of my top cases as it had physical evidence as well as veridical eyewitnesses. In addition, it was not a singular event. Like the Phoenix Lights and Gulf Breeze it recurred over long periods of time. That said, the ETH is only one hypothesis and may not be the best fit when all the evidence is considered. As I end my book, whatever it is (they are) the UFO phenomena are more complex than we ever imagined.

John

4 mins · Like

Jack Sarfatti On Dec 28, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:

My current guess is the same as that of the 50s AF generals; probably a small percentage of reports are caused by interstellar vessels. The rest would have mundane explanations and I'm also willing to entertain other explanations; perhaps a handful are some sort of "interdimensional" clouds of energy/organisms that occasionally show up. Some reports seem to indicate rather odd, amorphous shapes and lights, but others, such as those cited in the RAND report, do seem to clearly indicate mechanical craft.

I would consider "killer" proof to be recovery and verification of a physical artifact in the public domain:

1. A spacecraft or substantial component of a spacecraft (ie. large piece of wreckage with enough intact components and structure to indicate that it could not have come from any other type of aircraft).

2. An EBE (extraterrestrial biological entity). At least a more or less complete body that could not be mistaken for anything else. Preferably a living being who can talk to reporters, academics, government officials etc on camera.

3. Keep in mind the possibility that a mechanical artifact might also be a self aware AI that could talk to us. So, #3 is a combination of #1 and #2.

Now if we prove that we can generate and contain negative mass or negative energy density and go ahead to build a working warp drive or wormhole generator, such a human made artifact would be highly suggestive - you would probably be justified in making the leap of saying that UFOs are mechanical craft driven by this type of technology and so the AFC explanation is correct. However, in the absence of a physical artifact or being, either mechanical or biological, I feel that we must simply treat the AFC explanation for the small percentage of reports unexplainable by mundane reasons as a good one, but we can't be certain.

Given that FTL travel also necessarily implies possible time travel, some of the craft may be ours from our future light cone, or from civilizations that have become connected with us in some way in our future light cone. I treat this as a subset of the AFC hypothesis. Aliens need not be totally alien. How such back from the future interactions might play out we do not yet know - whether there is some chronological protection mechanism law of physics that makes consistent closed timelike curves (CTCs) or whether they are actually changing their past/our present.

2 mins · Edited · Like

Jack Sarfatti On Dec 27, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Robert Addinall wrote:

They did quite a good job IMO.

1. Cocteau's estimate of how many highly advanced civilizations may exist in the galaxy was very good and almost exactly how I've tried to articulate the problem at times. I'll probably now use this as a reference. I was surprised at the estimate of 100 million advanced civilizations/average spacing of 10 light years between advanced civilizations. My estimates tended to be an order or two of magnitude lower, but his methodology seems solid even ~45 years later. Of course we now know for certain that most, if not almost all, stars do develop planetary systems, but observing earth sized planets is difficult, so we're still not sure how abundant they are. We do know that a fair number of stars appear to have planets too close or too far to be in a habitable zone, but even that is already taken into account by Cocteau; he estimates 1000 million sun-like stars out of 100 billion stars and drops the number with planets in acceptable orbits to somewhere around 600 million.

Interestingly recent observations and computer models seem to suggest that binary and trinary star systems can have planets in stable orbits around each star, so long as the stars orbit a common barycenter at a sufficient distance; indeed some studies claim to have detected planets circling the two main Alpha Centauri stars (the third smaller star would circle the whole system outside of the two local systems). So perhaps Cocteau's estimate is even conservative.

To get ~10 LY average spacing we should expect civilizations in at least two of the following three systems with reasonably sun-like stars: Epsilon Eridani (though it's probably too young), Tau Ceti and Alpha Centauri. To maintain the spacing places like Gleise 86 would probably have to be inhabited too. So, either there should be loads of activity out there, or else: (a) correctly sized planets in habitable zones are very infrequent for some reason we don't yet understand; (b) for some reason we don't yet understand life fails to get started or to evolve beyond relatively small, simple forms; (c) civilizations tend to destroy themselves.

I keep an open mind but in the absence of data all I can say is that my instincts suggest that (a), (b), and (c) are wrong, which should mean that Cocteau's methodology holds and that there is a lot going on around the galaxy.

2. Another point where we now have a bit more to go on - the old light speed limit discussion further down in the paper. We now have the Thorne wormhole and Alcubierre warp metrics and the associated requirement for negative energy or mass, and we also have the accelerating expansion of the universe, which suggests that negative energy does exist in the universe. This is much more than having no clue as to how interstellar travel might work. Possibly we've actually already figured out generally how it works, but not the details yet. Obviously we can't build anything like this until we know how to generate and control negative energy.

Things like Jack's idea about changing the flexibility of spacetime by changing the speed of light might be techniques that further augment FTL travel or reduce the negative energy requirement.

1 min · Like

re:

www.specialoperationsmanual.com

On Jan 4, 2015, at 6:28 AM, Paul Murad <ufoguypaul@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ryan:

There are two problems here. They are that either the document is fake or the document has any disinformation.

ok

If disinformation is to be successful, it has to have some level of truth or honest information.

ok

This is a necessity for establishing credibility for the entire document. Whenever we got any Soviet disinformation, the problem was to find those pieces that had legitimate information for credibility.  The same is to be true if this is real in this document. Regardless, some real information needs to be established.

Personally I feel the document is a fake because there is no clear identification of a government organization. Government types like to make sure people know about where things are going or from where. That involves highly classified documents so you can refer back any questions or what points may cause problems.  I might have missed this but with a quick scan, I did not see such information...

I read the Einstein/Oppenheim meeting and are you implying it was a fake?  If you look at it, this looks like a precursor for what this country has performed with respect to treating UFOs and so on.  Einstein carries significant weight. If it is a fake, then it was well done! This information is similar to what Col. Corso said regarding early UFO activities so there is some correlations. The question is to find out the truth from the lies.

It would be interesting if there was any mention of UFOs in the Einstein papers. I doubt it. Same for John Archibald Wheeler’s papers because he switched to gravity research around 1952 at the peak of the flying saucer craze and he had top security clearance.

Regarding typographic comments, this does not fly for several reasons. Secretaries may have had errors in documents or if critical, the author could have made mistakes.  Remember we did not have WORD or files of documents to the point that people published whatever they could get out of the typewriter.

Finally, the issue about alien communications.  Appearently SETI does not work because aliens may not use electromagnetic communications moving at the speed of light.  If they go supposedly faster than the speed of light, the messages would be months or years after the events. The only possibilities is a torsion field as predicted by the Russians or gravity waves considering recent findings from Podkletnov... Oh, I forgot, it was all disinformation.  So is the Kosyrev star experiment or that jets leave a black hole where this is not particles from an accretion disk but from the black hole itself because of evaporation…

Gravity waves also move at c.

Now to go back to other more meaningful activities...

Morningstar Applied Physics, LLC

www.morningstarap.com

pm@morningstarap.com

From: Ryan Wood <rwood@majesticdocuments.com>

To: 'Robert Addinall' <beowulfr@interlog.com>; 'JACK SARFATTI' <jacksarfatti@comcast.net>; 'IFPA GROUP-EUROPE' <ifpagroup@gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:45 PM

Subject: RE: Majestic-12 Group Special Operations Manual -- REAL

If you think it might be disinformation of some sort, see my 10 page paper on this entire issue on majesticdocuments.com http://www.majesticdocuments.com/pdf/psywar.pdf

Or excerpted under authentication at www.specialoperationsmanual.com

WHY disinformation? Who are we trying to deceive? For what purpose? Scare the Russians in ’54?   If it were disinformation it is so good that the KGB would have decided to assign more assets to penetrate, Wright Patt, Area-51, Kirtland AFB, those people etc.

After all the KGB ripped off the bomb secrets with ease.  Any logical military / political decision team would AVOID attracting attention to this matter.  So the notion of disinformation utterly FAILS.

We know SOM1-01 was printed with a hot lead printing press of the era according to author of the 1958 US Government Printing Office Style Manual. My father (Dr. Bob Wood) and I interviewed him in his home in Virginia, more than a decade ago. His read was that SOM1-01 is authentic because of the raised Z in the typography. The use of “screw driver” as two words and the capitalization of “First Aid” which is now first aid. Even the arrogance of the phrase “Central Intelligence” rather than Central Intelligence Agency suggested to him that the CIA involved.

I can go on, but that’s not the point. Disinformation is not at all probable. Far more likely that it’s all real.

Cheers Ryan

Ryan S. Wood

Author

Majic Eyes Only – Earth’s Encounters With Extraterrestrial Technology

www.majiceyesonly.com

14004 Quail Ridge Drive

Broomfield, CO 80020

720-887-8171 (ph)

Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 8:33 PM

To: Ryan Wood; 'JACK SARFATTI'; 'IFPA GROUP-EUROPE'

Subject: Re: Majestic-12 Group Special Operations Manual - Website - BOGUS

I gave a couple of specific reactions, but as I said none of them positively confirm or deny on their own. Sometimes a manual will use superlatives repeatedly or spend a lot of time on vague generalities about the purpose of an organization which the people reading it should already know (for example, "very highest security" will not often appear since "highest security" already imparts the gravity of the situation in the context). Overall, Col. Alexander and others of us have a fair bit of experience with NATO nation military documents, so you get a sense of whether something smells off or not. Any determined disinformation attempt would do a decent job of forging a control page and initials/signatures of people who should have been there at the time, so again it's very difficult ‎to confirm or reject based on that.

I actually just finished writing another message about why I suspect that a lot of disinformation is out there about UFOs and will send it momentarily.

Incidentally I don't have any problem with you selling reproductions of MJ 12 documents; there is a market for it, and it's also valuable to see what disinformation is out there and to see if there are common threads or bits of good info that can be teased out.

From: Ryan Wood

Sent: Friday, January 2, 2015 9:47 PM

To: 'JACK SARFATTI'; 'IFPA GROUP-EUROPE'

Subject: RE: Majestic-12 Group Special Operations Manual - Website - BOGUS?

If you think it’s a “fabrication and doesn’t ring true” then those comments are useless, it’s just speculation on your part.

This is 1954 Top secret stuff…Why do even think you have a perspective on what would be true or not.

So now, I’ll give you some investigated facts.

So the change control page has initials of JRT and EWL in it where those document control / MJ-12 control officers changed pages from ‘54 to ‘57.

We know the manual came from Kirtland AFB UNIT KB-88, so I checked the phone book exhaustively for the JRT’s and EWL’s in 1955 and sure enough lt. JR Totten (JRT) and Col Edward Levine (EWL) both lived on base on Perimeter road.  Furthermore, our private detectives interviewed EWL’s family and they confirmed his “special” military service.

I could go on, but I think it’s just a waste of time.  Please give me specific reasons why you think it’s a fake.

Cheers Ryan

Ryan S. Wood

Author

Majic Eyes Only – Earth’s Encounters With Extraterrestrial Technology

www.majiceyesonly.com

14004 Quail Ridge Drive

Broomfield, CO 80020

720-887-8171 (ph)

From: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:jacksarfatti@comcast.net]

Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 3:41 PM

To: IFPA GROUP-EUROPE; rswood@majesticdocuments.com

Subject: Re: Majestic-12 Group Special Operations Manual - Website - BOGUS?

Right, but why is Ryan pushing this? Who really wrote it?

On Jan 2, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:

Yes it just doesn't ring true.

Of course it depends on the writers and editors, but military manuals from NATO countries usually avoid use of superlatives like "very." The writing doesn't ring true.

Also, a lot of the content is actually somewhat vague, dressed up a bit to appear specific. Again, this can be a problem with real manuals, but it's a warning sign.

We also know, generally, that the MJ-12 conspiracy stuff is smack in the middle ‎of all the disinformation that floats around on this topic.

Taking all the clues together it just smells like a fabrication.

Certain accurate details may have been inserted in it, which is common with disinformation, but overall it's still misdirection.

On Jan 2, 2015, at 1:12 PM, IFPA GROUP-EUROPE <ifpagroup@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes Jack, I concur ......

Pure disinformation...

This is BS for mass UFO distraction from the real things.

T

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 9:44 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@comcast.net> wrote:

Colonel John Alexander thinks the manual is bogus.

On Jan 2, 2015, at 10:08 AM, IFPA GROUP-EUROPE <ifpagroup@gmail.com> wrote:

Jack et al ..

Here are links to PDF of the "Manual"

PART 1

https://thetruthbehindthescenes.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/5014360-som101-extraterrestrial-entities-and-technology-recovery-and-disposal-april-1954-part-1.pdf

PART 2

https://thetruthbehindthescenes.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/5014354-som101-extraterrestrial-entities-and-technology-recovery-and-disposal-april-1954-part-2.pdf

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:59 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@comcast.net> wrote:

Dec 30

## UFO Update Dec 29, 2014

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: wormhole, Warp Drive, time travel, SPECTRA - UFO COMPUTER

http://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Matrix-Jack-Sarfatti/dp/0759696896

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Hal Puthoff <puthoff@aol.com>

Date: December 29, 2014 at 2:01:38 PM PST

To: lensman137@sbcglobal.net, creon.levit@gmail.com

Subject: Re: The RAND Corporation on UFOs !

Though overlooked by many, the recently declassified UK MOD report (so-called Condign Report, interestingly enough!), assembled in 2000 by the Defense Intelligence staff, though written to 'get out of the pubic UFO business,' has within its > 100 pages a number of gems of technical details, including an assessment EM frequencies hypothesized to possibly be involved in the Rendlesham Forest event.  Available on the Internet from the UK National Archives - see below.

Hal

<< Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region

The Ministry of Defence has released this report in response to a Freedom of Information request and we are pleased to now make it available to a wider audience via the MOD Freedom of Information Publication Scheme. Where indicated information is withheld in accordance with Section 26 (Defence), Section 27 (International Relations) and Section 40 (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Executive Summary

UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Volume 1

UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Volume 2

UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Volume 3 >>

-----Original Message-----

From: Kim Burrafato <lensman137@sbcglobal.net>

To: Creon Levit <creon.levit@gmail.com>

Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 3:19 pm

Subject: Re: The RAND Corporation on UFOs !

What about the testimony of Base Commander, Colonel Charles Halt, and all of the other airmen who were up close and personal witnesses to the highly strange events at Rendlesham forest? All the people involved in Rendlesham were reliable, extensively vetted RAF Bentwaters USAF security personnel — after all, this was a NATO nuclear weapons storage facility. They would never have attained those security positions if they weren’t exemplary soldiers. Unlike Roswell, where key witnesses weren’t interviewed until many years after the alleged incident, the majority of witnesses in the Rendlesham forest incident are alive and well.  Halt maintains to this day that the object he and others observed at Rendlesham was extraterrestrial technology. Despite the apparent lack of physical and photographic evidence to that effect, we cannot discount all that important detailed and reliable eyewitness testimony. And it’s a safe bet that if any physical or photographic evidence was gathered, it has been sequestered deep within the black catacombs of the national security establishment.

On Dec 29, 2014, at 9:43 AM, creon levit <creon.levit@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok I'll read John's book too !-)

On Dec 28, 2014, at 11:25 PM, nonlethal2@aol.com wrote:

The evidence in favor of UFOs is simply overwhelming and I agree with Hal's comment on Bentwaters.  In my book, UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities that is one of my top cases as it had physical evidence as well as veridical eyewitnesses.  In addition, it was not a singular event.  Like the Phoenix Lights and Gulf Breeze it recurred over long periods of time.  That said, the ETH is only one hypothesis and may not be the best fit when all the evidence is considered.  As I end my book, whatever it is (they are) the UFO phenomena are more complex than we ever imagined.

John

-----Original Message-----

From: JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com>

Sent: Sun, Dec 28, 2014 10:30 pm

Subject: Re: The RAND Corporation on UFOs !

http://stardrive.org

jacksarfatti@icloud.com

On Dec 28, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Robert Addinall <beowulfr@interlog.com> wrote:

Ok, and under such a scenario they would have established an outer solar system base in order to keep the evolving life forms on this planet under surveillance.

No, they would be much closer - very close to Earth. The flyby anomaly may be a clue.

I agree that it's possible. However, given what Thorne and Alcubierre have already produced I actually find the "fantastical" FTL scenario more likely. Cocteau's analysis of the potentially large number of civilizations also suggests to me that if FTL is possible, someone will have figured it out.

But alright, for the purposes of a strategic analysis we should take what you say below as the baseline for the alien craft scenario and then invoke the Alcubierre and Thorne models as the possible FTL travel version of the alien craft scenario.

As you say, fast moving craft should probably leave some EM signal. Are we observing every approach vector to the solar system over an entire spherical zone to rule that out‎? I don't know, but I doubt it. Even if we can, is there any way that they could cloak such a signature?

Would a FTL warp drive create an observable signature?

Could wormholes be the only way to avoid leaving a signature?

It's a nearby wormhole - not very large.

Does anyone have a guess as to whether wormholes will pump out notable EM, visible light and other signatures when they open, close or stay open for a while?

Subject: Re: The RAND Corporation on UFOs !

Robert

There’s also the possibility that some non-terrestrial technological craft may be based in the outer solar system, and do not possess nor require exotic interstellar drive type technology. It’s conceivable that a type 2 or 2 plus civilization may have evolved to the point where they could sustain a slower than C expansion rate throughout large portions of the galaxy, using technology that doesn’t require warp drives or artificially constructed traversable wormholes. And if the craft are AI, and not piloted by biological entities (at least as we know them), that would be a far less problematic scenario.  On the other hand, if the craft are piloted by biological entities, then those entities may have been specifically designed or genetically modified for long distance and duration space travel, and all that it entails. With a propellentless Machian drive, they could get arbitrarily close to C in short order, which would make intra-solar system travel relatively easy and straightforward. And if they were using some kind of anti-matter/matter annihilation rocket, fusion rocket, or laser sail technology, it would seem that we’d have picked up their enormous electromagnetic signature by now (or, would we?). But I suppose that any physical craft of any size traveling at 90% plus of C, would also leave a prominent EM signature. All I’m trying to say is that even if we do ascertain that some kind of extraterrestrial technology is visiting Earth, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they all are traveling here via warp drives or artificially constructed traversable wormholes. That is, the lack of such exotic technology doesn’t necessarily preclude successful interstellar expansion.

On Dec 28, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Robert Addinall <beowulfr@interlog.com> wrote:

My current guess is the same as that of the 50s AF generals; probably a small percentage of reports are caused by interstellar vessels. The rest would have mundane explanations and I'm also willing to entertain other explanations; perhaps a handful are some sort of "interdimensional" clouds of energy/organisms that ‎occasionally show up. Some reports seem to indicate rather odd, amorphous shapes and lights, but others, such as those cited in the RAND report, do seem to clearly indicate mechanical craft.

I would consider "killer" proof to be recovery and verification of a physical artifact in the public domain:

1. A spacecraft or substantial component of a spacecraft (ie. large piece of wreckage with enough intact components and structure to indicate that it could not have come from any other type of aircraft).

2. An EBE (extraterrestrial biological entity). At least a more or less complete body that could not be mistaken for anything else. Preferably a living being who can talk to reporters, academics, government officials etc on camera.

3. Keep in mind the possibility that a mechanical artifact might also be a self aware AI that could talk to us. So, #3 is a combination of #1 and #2.

Now if we prove tha‎t we can generate and contain negative mass or negative energy density and go ahead to build a working warp drive or wormhole generator, such a human made artifact would be highly suggestive - you would probably be justified in making the leap of saying that UFOs are mechanical craft driven by this type of technology and so the AFC explanation is correct.  However, in the absence of a physical artifact or being, either mechanical or biological, I feel that we must simply treat the AFC explanation for the small percentage of reports unexplainable by mundane reasons as a good one, but we can't be certain.

Given that FTL travel also necessarily implies possible time travel, some of the craft may be ours from our future light cone, or from civilizations that have become connected with us in some way in our future light cone. I treat this as a subset of the AFC hypothesis. Aliens need not be totally alien. How such back from the future interactions might play out we do not yet know - whether there is some chronological protection mechanism law of physics that makes consistent closed timelike curves (CTCs) or whether they are actually changing their past/our present.

From: brumac@compuserve.com

Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 10:34

Subject: Re: The RAND Corporation on UFOs !

A very interesting read after all these years.  Shows that, although we have learned a lot in the last 46 years we still don't have universally accepted "proof" - presumably the "killer case" that puts UFO/AFC (Alien Flying Craft) over the top.  We are still trying to answer Ruppelt's Canonical Question:  what constitutes proof?   Proof for one is simply an annoyance to another.

Kocher's example cases are by themselves valid evidence that something strange has been happening.  I have investigated numerous candidates for "killer" status.  I guess they have convinced some people, but the main thing is that they succeed in keeping my interest up.  It turns out that what is important is what the "proof" causes a person to do. such as continue investigating... or lose interest.  Unfortunately for Kocher's discussion and other contemporary discussions (such as presented in the Condon report)  of the Air Force and CIA activities in the late 40's and early 50's, was the lack of access to the actual internal documents of the Air Force intelligence (AFOIN) and the FBI.  These documents, which became available during the latter 70's and through the 80's, show that, although the AF downplayed the importance of UFO investigation and publicly asserted that there was nothing new underlying UFO reports (everything explainable so no flying saucers), privately the top AF generals assumed that at least a small percentage of reports were caused by "interplanetary" craft.   This is documented using authentic documents from the AF, FBI and CIA files in my new book, The FBI CIA UFO Connection (see Amazon)

-----Original Message-----

From: JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com>

Sent: Sat, Dec 27, 2014 3:53 pm

Subject: Re: The RAND Corporation on UFOs !

10-4

http://stardrive.org

jacksarfatti@icloud.com

On Dec 27, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Robert Addinall <beowulfr@interlog.com> wrote:

They did quite a good job IMO.

1. Cocteau's estimate of how many highly advanced civilizations may exist in the galaxy was very good and almost exactly how I've tried to articulate the problem at times. I'll probably now use this as a reference. I was surprised at the estimate of 100 million advanced civilizations/average spacing of 10 light years between advanced civilizations. My estimates tended to be an order or two of magnitude lower, but his methodology seems solid even ~45 years later. Of course we now know for certain that most, if not almost all, stars do develop planetary systems, but observing earth sized planets is difficult, so we're still not sure how abundant they are. We do know that a fair number of stars appear to have planets too close or too far to be in a habitable zone, but even that is already taken into account by Cocteau; he estimates 1000 million sun-like stars out of 100 billion stars and drops the number with planets in acceptable orbits to somewhere around 600 million.

Interestingly recent observations and computer models seem to suggest that binary and trinary star systems can have planets in stable orbits around each star, so long as the stars orbit a common barycenter at a sufficient distance; indeed some studies claim to have detected planets circling the two main Alpha Centauri stars (the third smaller star would circle the whole system outside of the two local systems). So perhaps Cocteau's estimate is even conservative.

To get ~10 LY average spacing we should expect‎ civilizations in at least two of the following three systems with reasonably sun-like stars: Epsilon Eridani (though it's probably too young), Tau Ceti and Alpha Centauri. To maintain the spacing places like Gleise 86 would probably have to be inhabited too. So, either there should be loads of activity out there, or else: (a) correctly sized planets in habitable zones are very infrequent for some reason we don't yet understand; (b) for some reason we don't yet understand life fails to get started or to evolve beyond relatively small, simple forms; (c) civilizations tend to destroy themselves.

I keep an open mind but in the absence of data all I can say is that my instincts suggest that (a), (b), and (c) are wrong, which should mean that Cocteau's methodology holds and that there is a lot going on around the galaxy.

2. Another point where we now have a bit more to go on - the old light speed limit discussion further down in the paper. We now have the Thorne wormhole and Alcubierre warp metrics and the associated requirement for negative energy or mass, and we also have the accelerating expansion of the universe, which suggests that negative energy does exist in the universe. This is much more than having no clue as to how interstellar travel might work. Possibly we've actually already figured out generally how it works, but not the details yet. Obviously we can't build anything like this until we know how to generate and control negative energy.

Things like Jack's idea about changing the flexibility of spacetime by changing the speed of light might be techniques that further augment FTL travel or reduce the negative energy requirement.

From: JACK SARFATTI

Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 4:00 AM

To: Kim Burrafato

Cc: IFPA GROUP-EUROPE; RobertAddinall; Larry Frascella; Dick Farley

Subject: The RAND Corporation on UFOs !

http://stardrive.org

jacksarfatti@icloud.com

http://www.nicap.org/papers/randdoc.htm

The RAND Corporation published a paper titled

"UFOs: What to Do?,

Here is the actual RAND Document in pdf format

Fran Ridge:

Originally, the RAND Corporation, a high level research group that had nothing to do with the business-machine firms and one of the most unpublicized yet highly competent contractors to the Air Force, stated in a letter dated June 25, 1969  that they were unable to identify any RAND publication on UFOs "available for external distribution."

Then, in another letter dated August 8th, 1969 RAND stated, "RAND has done very little on the subject of UFOs: therefore, no publications have been written on the subject."

I also have a copy of a letter dated October ? 1969 from the Department of the Air Force, to Mr. William Laub, of Northfield, Illinois. The letter was written by Lt. Col. James H. Aikman, Chief, Civil Branch, Community Relations Division, Office of Information. It states, "The Rand Corporation has never made any reports on unidentified flying objects (UFOs) for the United States Air Force. If any reports were made by this corporation they were made on their own."

RAND finally had to admit the existence of this paper and later stated that it was originally produced as an internal document and not prepared for or delivered to any of RAND's clients.  RAND decided to make this paper available to the public if they asked for it.

This document, which crops up for discussion every once in a while, is placed here, with commentary at the end of this page, for the record. In regard to the commentary I have made a request to CUFOS (Nov. 2006) to locate a copy of a letter from George Kocher to Dr. J. Allen Hynek to document the contents mentioned by Jan Aldrich and confirm the date of same.

Below is the text version of the Rand Document

The RAND Corporation

RAND DOCUMENT

UFOs: What to Do?

George Kocher

27 November 1968

For RAND Use Only

DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE IN EXTERNAL RAND PUBLICATIONS OR CORRESPONDENCE

-1-

INTRODUCTION

Common sense is the quintessence of the experiences and prejudices of its time. It is a most unreliable advisor when one is confronted with a perfectly new situation. Gustav Naan

UFOs -- unidentified flying objects, or flying saucers as they are often called -- have been on the mind of the public for at least the last 22 years. For a number of reasons, we know little more about them now than we did at the outset. There exists a great amount of misinformation about the phenomenon not only in the minds of the public, but among educated groups such as scientists as well. It is the purpose of this series of essays to describe various aspects of the phenomenon, make clear my prejudices and the reasons for them, and to suggest a means of proceeding on this interesting and potentially very significant problem.

But first, a few words about the term UFO. J. A. Hynek, an astronomer having continuous involvement with UFO study for over 20 years, defines UFOs as "any reported aerial or surface visual sighting or radar return which remains unexplained by conventional means even after examination by competent persons. This definition ... specifies neither flying nor objects." (1) I would agree, but would prefer to replace "or radar return" with "or instrumental observation" and "even after examination by competent persons" to "even after competent examination by qualified persons." This, then, is the definition I have adopted in the five essays that follow.

ii

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 1

Part 1: UFO's: Historical Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Part 2: UFO's: Astronomical Aspects . . . . . . . . 8

Part 3: UFO's: The Character of Reports . . .. . 12

Part 4: UFO's: Phenomenological Aspects . .... 24

Part 5: UFO's: How to Proceed and Why . . . . 29

A REPORT FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

-2-

PART 1: UFOs -- HISTORICAL ASPECTS

Those familiar with the UFO literature are aware that reports of sightings did not begin with Arnold's sighting in 1947, but that phenomenology much the same as is reported today can be found in documents going back to the earliest times. Vallee (2) gives a sampling of this; B.L.P. Trench (3) has made a more thorough study and reports on the research of others able to study the original documents.

What was reported? Luminous discs, shields, globes and elongated objects in the sky, sometimes alone, sometimes in large numbers. Occasional descriptions of interactions with the observers are also mentioned, including landings, and seeing and communicating with occupants. The latter events especially were almost always interpreted in a religious context. A recent example is the repeated appearance of a typical UFO phenomenology at Fatima, Portugal on six successive months in 1917. The October 13 phenomenon was the best reported and was witnessed by a crowd of about 70,000 persons, including a number of scientists, reporters, atheists, and agnostics, as wel as faithful Catholics. One of the scientifically curious was Dr. A Garrett of the University of Coimbra. Rain, which had been falling that day, ceased and the crowd looked up to see the "sun" now visible through the heavy clouds. Professor Garrett wrote, "...I turned toward this (sun) which was attracting all eyes and I could see it like a disk with a clear cut edge, with a vivid rim, luminous and shining, but without hurting one. The comparison I have heard at Fatima with a disk of dull silver, does

-3-

not seem to me exact. It was a clearer, more vivid, richer color and with shifting tints like the luster of a pearl. It was not at all like the moon on a clear transparent night, for one saw and felt it like a living star. Nor was it spherical like the moon, nor did it have the same quality of lighter and less light. It looked like a burnished wheel cut out of mother-of-pearl. Nor could it be confused with the sun seen through a fog -- there was no fog... This disc spun dizzily round. It was not the twinkling of a star: it whirled round upon itself with mad rapidity... The sun, preserving the celerity of its rotation, detached itself from the firmament and advanced, blood-red, towards the earth, threatening to crush us with the weight of its vast and fiery mass. These moments made a terrifying impression." (4) The relationship of the old phenomenology to religion are discussed by Thomas. (5)

An example of earlier celestial displays of interest is illustrated in Figs 1 and 2. These are broadsheets from Nuremberg (1561) and Basel (1566), respectively. The psychologist, C. G. Jung; provides an analysis of the contents of the woodcuts in his interesting book. (6) Reference 7 has a very interesting reproduction of a fourteenth century fresco in a Yugoslavian church.

The modern period of the phenomenon began with a widely publicized sighting made by Kenneth Arnold in Washington state in 1947. A study by Bloecher of North American reports over the four week period bracketing the Arnold sighting lists 853 events, including 38 sightings made before Arnold's heavily publicized Sighting. (8)

Because the early reports seemed to suggest airborne craft of unusual appearance and kinematics, the problem came to rest with the newly organized U.S. Air Force. Initial fears were that the country was being over flown by advanced foreign aircraft, possibly on intelligence missions. The latter was suggested by the large number of sightings from the White Sands, New Mexico area and from the vicinity of the Hanford, Washington atomic plant.

Serious inquiry proceeded for a few years without any positive results. A number of supposedly knowledgeable people spoke out pointing out the sporadic nature of the sightings, and that since the reported

-4-

Both Broadsheets from the Wickiana Collection, Zurich Central Library

-5-

kinematics were inconsistent with current physical theory, the UFOs were not likely to be from a foreign power. Further, they argued, no other planets in our solar system were believed to support life -- certainly not intelligent life -- and since even the nearest star was over four light years away, the hypothesis of extraterrestrial origin was simply unacceptable from a scientific point of view. (9)

The Air Force investigative effort worked as follows: (10) Whenever a sighting was made, a report was to be made out and turned in to the Air Force at base level. The report was forwarded to Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio for study. If the report was interesting enough, follow up inquiry was made. By 1952 the number of reports coming in was so large that the CIA was concerned that an actual attack on the country might not be immediately recognized. A panel of scientists was then convened in January 1953 to study the available evidence and see what conclusion could be reached about UFOs. After seven days of hearing evidence and discussing the matter it was concluded that there was only circumstantial evidence of the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The panel recommended a broadened study effort with full disclosure of investigations. In order to unplug the military intelligence channels, however, the CIA recommended that, since the UFOs apparently posed no threat, the Air Force should debunk UFO reports and try generally to discourage public interest in them, in the hope that they would go away. (11)

It was the CIA's recommendation, apparently, that was made policy, for the investigative procedures used since 1953 have been vestigial and the handling of the subject by the authorities tended to make witnesses look ridiculous. In spite of the unfavorable publicity accorded witnesses, reports persisted, and no doubt in response to official behavior several civilian study groups were formed to receive reports and investigate sightings. The most successful of these groups is the National Investigation Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). NICAP's membership is well dispersed geographically and acts to learn as much as possible from sightings. The large number of scientific and technical personnel in the NICAP membership aids the quality of their evaluations. A summary of characteristics of the UFO phenomenology published by NICAP

-6-

in 1964 (12) contains 575 reports that were extensively checked by NICAP for accuracy.

A series of sightings in 1965 and 1966 received considerable public attention arid after the poor public reception given the official explanations, the Air Force felt compelled to contract for a 15 month (later stretched to l8 months) scientific study to be performed at the University of Colorado under the leadership of E. U. Condon, a highly respected physicist. The Condon Committee is due to complete investigations at the end of June 1968; its report will be reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences (presumably to validate that the study was indeed the objective pearl of the scientific method that was desired), and is expected to be made public in October 1968. Unfortunately, the dismissal of two members of the Committee in February 1968 resulted in publicity suggesting that the study was not, in fact, objective. It remains, therefore, to see the final report to determine the worth of the study.

In the meantime, the respectability accorded UFOs by the \$500,000 study contract permitted a considerable amount of scientific interest to surface. Astronomer Hynek has made a number of public statements on the basis of his long involvement as a consultant to the Air Force; atmospheric physicist James F. McDonald has turned his attention full time to the subject, and a number of scientific and technical journals have printed some dialogue - notably Science, the AIAA Journal, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Journal of the Astronautical Sciences. It is also noteworthy that the University of Toronto has recently formed a UFO study group.

Even the Soviets, who previously refused even to discuss the subject now admit to having a study group with good qualifications. The USSR Academy of Sciences still holds to the orthodox scientific view that UFOs are a nonproblem, however, using the same arguments we heard so long. These arguments are just as invalid in the USSR as in the USA.

It therefore appears that the subject is slowly and finally being regarded as a fit subject of scientific inquiry. It is hoped that enough scientists will acquaint themselves with the subject so that progress can finally be made.

-7-

(Reference 13 is a good account of how the UFO phenomenon was treated in the U.S. and is recommended to those wondering how science came to consciously ignore the subject.)

-8-

PART 2: UFOs -- ASTRONOMICAL ASPECTS

The astonishing thing would be if they did not exist.

Jean Cocteau

We saw in Part 1 that the historical aspects suggest an extraterrestrial explanation to UFOs. While it has not been established that the contemporary phenomena are extensions of the historical, there does seem to be a continuity in the descriptions of the phenomena described. We shall therefore look at contemporary astronomical knowledge and theories and ascertain the likelihood of the existence of other highly developed life forms.

To begin with, the observable universe -- that is, the distance to which we can observe luminous objects -- is several billion light years in radius (a light year is the distance light travels in a year at a rate of 186,300 miles per second. The sun is 8 light minutes from the earth. The next-nearest star is 4.2 light years away). Within this vast volume we find hundreds of millions of galaxies. Our own (Milky Way) galaxy is similar to many of those we see at great distances. It is a lens-shaped assemblage of some 100 billion stars having a diameter of about 100,000 light years. The sun is but one of its component stars and lies about 30,000 light years from the center, close to the plane of symmetry.

Now let us just consider the stars in our own galaxy -- specifically excluding those in neighboring or distant galaxies. We would like to estimate the number of stars having planets roughly similar to the Earth. From the statistics of stars within 15 light years of the sun we find that only about one-third are single, the rest binary or multiple. Since planetary orbits are often unstable in multiple systems (depending on the details of the configuration) we will say that only 30 billion stars in our galaxy now have a dynamical environment that permits planets to exist around them. Will these stars have planets? We cannot state with assurance that they will; however, current knowledge supports the theory that planetary formation is a natural adjunct to formation of the star itself from the interstellar gas cloud.

-9-

We would therefore expect about 30 billion stars to have one or more planets. Now, we can reject certain classes of stars as candidates or habitable planets, because their lifetimes are too short (these are stars of high mass). Others can be rejected because of variability in light output, a characteristic that would make evolutionary development of life much more difficult. In fact if we select only those stars similar to the sun (whose peak of radiation energy coincides with a region of terrestrial atmospheric transparency) we have only a few percent of the total -- about one in 30. Therefore, we would expect about 1000 million suitable solar type stars exist. Of these, it is estimated by various astronomers that 200-600 million have planets at about the right distance and have been around long enough that life forms as developed as our own could exist. Implicit in further discussion are the assumptions that:

1. Planets and/or life evolves to a mutual compatibility;

2. The life force, whether spontaneous or otherwise, is such that whenever the environment is favorable, life will exist;

3. Our own history of past evolution and development is neither slow nor fast, but average and typical for life forms. (Ours is the only example available and no one has yet demonstrated that the "average" galactic life form should be any different.)

Now let us turn momentarily to time scales. The sun and earth are on the order of 5 billion years old. We might define modern man as being about 5000 years old (Stonehenge is 4000 years old) -- just one millionth of the earth's age. The age of science is certainly not more than 500 years, so our scientific and technical development has thus far occupied only one ten-millionth of the earth's life span. We expect the sun will burn another 5 billion years before significant changes in its brightness occur. Now the age of the galaxy is between 5 and 10 billion years; therefore among the 200-600 million stars we would expect to have acceptable planets, some would be older than the sun, some younger (for star formation is still continuing, even though at a lesser rate than in the galaxy's early history) and some the same age. It should be clear from assumption (3) and the example of our own

-10-

development, that among the populated planets those younger than the sun would be peopled by beings very much behind us technologically, while those on older planets would be extraordinarily advanced (remember our progress of 500 years and note that some planets could be as much as a few billion years older). Indeed, we would be surprised to find someone else at just our stage of technological development. For the purposes of this paper, we can ignore both the multitude younger than ourselves and those at our point of development. Even so, we are left with the possibility of 100,000,000 planets in the galaxy having life forms very much advanced from us. (This number would be reduced significantly if life forms destroyed themselves soon after reaching our age of development. This is a philosophical point on which I am optimistic -- I believe the majority of races will learn to survive.) If these stars are uniformly distributed in the galactic disk, the average separation will be about 10 light years.

The usual scientist's reaction at this point is, well, even if the assumptions are correct and this number of advanced civilizations does exist, contact is still impossible because of the speed of light limitation of the theory of relativity. An excellent example of this kind of reasoning can be found in Ref. 14. My reply is that such a statement would appear to be shortsighted. For the moment, let us ignore the possibilities of overcoming the long time of travel by suspended animation and the like. Recall that our own physical theory has been developed in only 500 years. What can we expect in the next 500? Or 1000 or million or even billion years? I suggest that _if_ a way to circumvent the speed of light restriction is possible, it has already been found by someone in our galaxy. (I haven't the faintest idea how this might be done and I fully agree that our own experimental data appear to accurately confirm the existence of this limitation.) If it has been discovered by one, we certainly would expect it to be used; if no other planet's inhabitants independently discovered the means, it makes little difference for such a thing could be taught by the discoverer. Thus we may conclude that it is very likely that at least one, and probably many of the 100 million advanced planetary populations is capable of interstellar travel.

-11-

The next question is, of course, have any of them been here? That question cannot yet be answered definitively. Without knowing what kind of phenomenology extraterrestrial visitors might exhibit, I will fall back on my scientific, mechanistic attitudes and say it makes sense to look for some kind of vehicle or spaceship. It appears that the class of phenomenology called UFO reports may contain, as a subset, actual observations of such craft. We shall now turn to the reports to see when and where things are seen and by whom and what phenomenology, if any) is revealed by the reports.

(Further information about the astronomical and biological possibilities are in Ref. 15, whose principal defects are (1) the authors uninformed rejection of UFO phenomenology as being relevant to the subject under discussion, and (2) their meek acceptance of the speed-of-light restriction as a universal truth. References 16 and 17 provide more detailed and more technical discussions of some aspects of the problem.)

-12-

PART 3: UFOs -- THE CHARACTER OF REPORTS

Any collection of reports of unknown aerial sightings by the public will include a large percent of noise - sightings of something explainable. The reports are made because the appearance falls outside the range of the observer's experience, and the observer believes it is sufficiently anomalous to warrant the attention of authorities. Thus, any large collection of reports will include descriptions of aircraft, balloons) spacecraft, astronomical objects, atmospheric effects and the like. Often the practiced and perceptive analyst can recognize the stimulus, particularly if he has access to records of aircraft, balloon, and satellite movements, meteorological data and astronomical phenomenology. Recognition of stimulus is aided by a high quality report which is as quantitative as possible and which shows the observer to be able to differentiate between observation and interpretation. Of course a number of reports will be so lacking in details that no conclusion can be reached about what was seen. These are of little use; they may, however, serve as corroborating evidence to another, higher quality, report and should not, therefore be rejected. The really interesting class of reports is that reporting phenomenology which is clearly extraordinary. The observer's qualifications may be such that the report is not only highly credible but is articulate and quantitative as well. It is this subclass of reports, variously estimated at 5 to 20 percent of the total, that offer hope of our learning what is going on.

Hynek considers two parameters of reports) credibility and strangeness, and suggests that the investigator really needs only to be concerned with reports having high strangeness and high credibility. The physical scientist is in a position to evaluate strangeness, the social scientist should be able to provide some measure of credibility. Hynek also comments on a number of beliefs about UFOs and reports stating, (18) among other things, that most reports are made by people who previously never gave much thought to UFOs; that reports are not always vague; and that well educated, well trained, reliable, stable people also contribute reports. These conclusions have been reached by most people who have taken the trouble to collect and investigate reports first hand.

-13-

To illustrate the character of reports, I will quote several narratives from the literature. (Narratives, of course, are just the beginning of any report. Quantitative information, usually not given in the narrative must be obtained by careful interview of the witness.) The first is taken from a collection of 160 reports by Olsen. (19) It was originally made to NICAP.

Date: 24 April 1962

Place: Springfield (Delaware County), Pennsylvania

First witness, J. A. Gasslein, Jr. (Lt. Colonel, USAR Ret.) reports: "Time: Approximately 1945 hours, weather: clear, cloudless, medium blue sky, visibility good.

"My wife was driving her mother home following the latter's visit to our home. They had driven around the block to higher ground when my wife's mother looked out the car window and saw a large object. It was moving slowly and silently in an east-to-west direction at not over 50 ft. above street level. (Determined by the proximity to and relationship to the size of the Cape-Cod-type bungalows over which the object was passing.) My wife then plainly saw the object herself.

"Anxious to have me see the object, my wife quickly drove the car back to our house and attracted my attention. I had been working in the basement. I ran out of the house and up the street for a view. by the time I saw it, the object appeared to be about a quarter to a half-mile away, moving in a westerly direction. I saw it as an object smaller at the top than at the base, seemingly suspended in the air at an angle of about 45 degrees from my position, and giving off colored lights. I know that the object was not any kind of conventional aircraft of balloon.

"Having had the advantage of a closer viewing than I, my wife describes the object as follows..

" 'The UFO appeared to be about the size of one of the Cape Cod houses over which it passed, which would make it approximately 30 ft. in diameter and about the same dimension in height. It was circular, surmounted by a dome giving off flashes of green light. The center section rotated a series of square shaped "windows", each giving off a brilliant white light. The base section was somewhat saucer-shaped,

-14-

curved upward. Shafts of white light were directed downward from the base.' Unfortunately, my wife cannot recall if the exterior was metallic in appearance. In any event, the object had a well-defined outline. Again, it moved silently. There was no evidence of occupants of the UFO.

"Approximately 20 to 25 minutes following the first sighting described above, the following sighting occurred: "Returning from taking her mother home, my wife drove the car into our driveway alongside the house, headed westward. In the rear of our home was a wooded park area. My wife walked down the driveway to enter the house. Coming up the driveway was a neighbor friend, a young lady 20 years of age. In a tone of astonishment, she called my wife's attention to the park area, from which was emerging an object of the same description as outlined above moving easterly at low level -- not over 50 ft. above ground level, as judged by the trees in the area -- the UFO proceeded relatively slowly and without sound. It was approaching the rear of our home and adjacent properties.

"Again, my wife called me from the basement. By the time I got outside, the object had made a 90 degree turn northward and was proceeding parallel to the backs of the houses in the same line as ours. It was perhaps 150 - 200 yards distant. My observation of the characteristics of the UFO tallied with my wife's and the young lady's. Each of them independently made a pencil sketch within a few minutes after the sighting, and the sketches were substantially alike. "All told, there were at least 15 persons in the vicinity who acknowledged seeing the object at about the same time as the sightings made by my wife and myself."

Another witness, P. T. Scattergood, reports: "Around 8 (p.m.) I stepped out the front door, facing south and saw a brilliantly lighted object low in the southern sky. At first I took it to be a jet taking off from Philadelphia Airport, which is in that general direction. But I could hear no engine noise and it was traveling too slowly to be a plane. Also it did not have the usual blinking lights.

"It appeared to have a row of yellowish lights (which I took for the windows of the "jet") with a clear green light at the top. As I

-15-

watched, the row of lights appeared to be obscured as though a large paddle-wheel were revolving and blotting them out, beginning with the rear lights and proceeding forward. Since the object was moving west, I saw the right hand side of it. The periodic appearance and disappearance of the lights was perfectly regular. The top green light was constantly visible. I stood on the pavement and watched the object sail leisurely to the west until it disappeared behind some trees. The observation probably lasted from 5 to 10 minutes."

This report has the desirable features of the UFO being seen by a number of people (about 15) of which two actually made reports. (Hynek estimates the number of sightings to be about 10 times the number of reports turned in) . Other desirable aspects of this sighting are that it was made during daylight; that it was near enough that some details of its configuration were observable; and, it was visible long enough to allow the observers to consider "explanations" as they watched it.

The second example is reported by James F. McDonald in T. Bloecher's book on an intense period of UFO activity in 1947. The report was made 20 years after the sighting to Prof. McDonald for the reasons given at the end of the quotation.

"Mrs. Olavick was in her kitchen at 2101 East Hawthorne Street, Tucson, while Mrs. Down was out in the back-year patio. Suddenly Mrs. Down called her out excitedly, and both proceeded to observe what had caught Mrs. Down's eye. The time was just after the noon hour; Tucson's skies were completely cloudless. Somewhat north of their zenith lay an unusual, isolated, "steamy-fleecy" cloud at an altitude which Mrs. Olavick found difficult to estimate, though she recalled that it seemed lower than average for that time of year (thus, perhaps at or below 10,000 feet, say.). No other cloud was to be seen in the sky. In and out of the cloud moved a number of dull-white disc-like objects that rose and fell in an erratic manner, occasionally disappearing into or above the unnatural cloud. She said that these objects were round in planform but were not spherical, for they frequently tipped a bit, exposing a flattened-sphere form. She estimates that they watched these objects cavorting near the cloud for perhaps five or six minutes before the entire group suddenly disappeared within the cloud or perhaps above it.

-16-

"After a minute or so, as she now recalls it, a new object, perhaps three of four times as large as the little objects, came out of the cloud on its east side. After it emerged, the small objects began to emerge also, taking up a V-formation pattern behind it. The V comprised a line of four-abreast just to the rear of the large object, then a line of three-abreast behind that, and finally two-abreast in the rear. Thus the point of the V was to the rear (in the sense of the emergent and subsequent motion). This formation permitted the first accurate count of the small objects, nine in all. No sooner had the last pair emerged than all ten objects shot off to the northeast, climbing out of sight in a time that she thought was probably two to three seconds. She does not recall what happened to the cloud after the ten objects departed.

"I (McDonald) have spoken with Mrs. Olavick several additional times, following her first call. Her account was presented in an unembellished manner, and her descriptions were carefully framed, specifying just which parts had become less distinct in her memory. But the basic vividness of her memory of this observation she stressed repeatedly. I had to explain that it was by no means clear that the objects she saw were identical with those reported by Kenneth Arnold two months later. When I queried her as to why she had not reported them, she pointed out that she and Mrs. Down were entirely convinced that they had been fortunate enough to witness some new American military vehicles about which the general public had not yet been informed. Later she heard of the "flying saucers," and she and Mrs. Down, when they rejoined their husbands in mid-summer in Iowa, told them about their own observation. The husbands, she recalled, made such a joke of it that they ceased mentioning it.

Again we have a daytime sighting of several minutes duration, with two witnesses. As is often the case when.the phenomenon appears mechanical, it was interpreted as some secret government development. Ridicule of the sighting by family members and friends (if not by authorities) is frequently mentioned as a reason for delayed reporting of sightings.

-17-

A third report is taken from a paper Prof. McDonald presented at the 12 March 1968 Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute Astronautics Symposium, Montreal.

"At about 5:15 am., PDT, on the morning of July 4, 1967, at least five witnesses (and reportedly others not yet locatable) saw an object of unconventional nature moving over Highway 5 on the edge of Corning, California. Hearing of the event from NICAP, I began searching for the witnesses and eventually telephone-interviewed four. Press accounts from the Corning Daily Observer and Oakland Tribune afforded further corroboration.

"Jay Munger, operator of an all-night bowling alley, was drinking coffee with two police officers, James Overton of the Corning force and Frank Rakes of the Orland force, when Munger suddenly spotted the object out the front windows of his bowling alley. In a moment all three were outside observing what they each described as a dark gray oval or disc-shaped object with a bright light shining upwards on its top and a dimmer light shining downward from the underside. A dark gray or black band encircled the mid-section of the object. When first sighted, it lay almost due west, at a distance that they estimated at a quarter of a mile (later substantiated by independent witnesses viewing it at right angles to the line of sight of the trio at the bowling alley). It was barely moving, and seemed to be only a few hundred feet above terrain. The dawn light illuminated the object, but not so brightly as to obscure the two lights on top and bottom, they stated.

"Munger, thinking to get an independent observation from a different part of Corning, returned almost immediately to telephone his wife; but she never saw it for reasons of tree-obscuration. At my request, Munger re-enacted the telephoning process to form a rough estimate of elapsed time. He obtained a time of 1-1.5 minutes. This time is of interest because, when he completed the call and rejoined Overton and Rakes, the object had still moved only a short distance south on Highway 5 (about a quarter of a mile: perhaps), but then quickly accelerated and passed off to the south, going out of their sight in only about 10 seconds, far to their south.

-18-

Paul Heideman, of Fremont, California, was driving south on Highway 5 at the time of the above sighting, along with a friend, Robert King. I located Heideman and obtained from him an account of his observation made from a point on the highway north of Corning. He saw the light from the object, and had veered east (a turn not seen from the more restricted viewing point of the bowling-alley parking lot). Heideman said that, when first seen, it lay almost straight down Highway 5, serving to check the estimate of the other observers that the object lay only a few city blocks to their west.

The weather was clear, no haze, no wind, according to the witnesses. Munger's concise comment was "I've never seen anything like it before." He estimated its "diameter" at perhaps 50-100 ft, and its vertical thickness as perhaps 15-20 ft, with some kind of edge (band) perhaps 5-10 ft thick. No sound was ever heard. Overton stated to me that he had no idea what it was, but that "there was no doubt it was a craft of some sort."

The next example is from a report I personally investigated. It occurred in the area where I was reared; the observers are known to my family; I am familiar with the natural phenomenology of the area.

Date: 10 October 1966

Place: Near Newton, Illinois

First witnesses: Mrs. A (she prefers not to be publicly identified because of the reaction of friends and neighbors). Time: 5:20 p.m.

"Mrs. A was in her kitchen preparing supper; five of her children were playing outdoors. The children shouted to her to "come out and see the silent plane". She writes "I glanced out the south window and there it was coming into sight just south of our 72 foot silo moving very slowly from east to west. It was about 35 feet high. My first thought was that it was a plane making an emergency landing, but when I saw it in full view, I knew it was no plane, not like anything I have ever seen. I hurried outside to join the children in the yard. It

-19-

continued to move in a straight line to the west. We could see it clearly as it drifted over a 50 by 100 foot machine shed being built at the time [the workers were, however, in the fields this day]. It appeared to be larger than our car, and was more oval. There was a bluish glow around the ends, top, and bottom of it. It (the glow) wasn't bright, since it was daylight yet, but more like a low cloud, haze, or fog; or a mixture of bluish-grey tiny bubbles floating along around it. The object was seen clearly. It was blue in color and appeared to be made of metal. You could see [longitudinal] seam lines. There was one black window. I thought they (assuming someone was in it) could see out but we could not see them. I kept looking for someone to peep out and wave, but don't recall seeing or feeling anything at the time. There was a brownish-gold design on the lower back half. A raised part was on the top near the back which was noticed by all the children. It moved very quietly, making no sound at all except for a whirling or vibrating sound for 1 or 2 seconds as it drifted on toward the west... We followed it down the yard and lane, continuing to watch it as it was 300 feet, then 200 feet from the north and south gravel road and the REA electric line which is on the west side of the road. We were talking together, all very excited about what it was, where it came from, if there were people in it, and if it would rise to clear the electric line. It did; it rose so quickly and was out of sight in just a few seconds. Our eyes could not follow it fast enough. This was certainly a fantastic thing."

The questionnaire, a lengthy correspondence, an interview in June 1967 and other checking produced the following details:

Meteorology: Clear, warm, dry weather, cloudless.

Astronomical: Moonset 3:51 p.m. EST

UFO: Prolate spheroidial shape.

-20-

The surface appeared to be non-spectacular, like dull aluminum or metal, and blue, the color probably deriving from the self-luminous halo. Longitudinal seams were apparent, but no rivets or such were seen. The black rectangle was assumed to be a window and appeared to be recessed. It was not shiny, but "like the dark of night." The surrounding glow was partly opaque, yet self luminous. It was darker than the sky and extended about 1/4 the object's length in all directions. The halo was particularly opaque at the ends: of the object, obscuring the underlying parts. The design at the lower rear looked like a pattern of crosses and dots.

Mrs. A says the glow obscured the design and in any case her attention was fixed on the "window". The only sound heard occurred when the UFO was nearest the unfinished shed, being constructed of a wooden framework covered with ferrous sheets. It is possible that some sheets were caused to vibrate. No electromagnetic effects were noted (TV was off) and no electrostatic or other effects were noted by Mrs. A or her children. As the UFO disappeared, Mrs. A was just looking along the road for a car; two of the children said the UFO pitched nose-up and as it went up a light or flame of orange color was seen at the rear.

Enough angular data was provided from building and landmark placement and sizes that it is possible to estimate the size of the metallic portion of the UFO at 16 to 20 feet in length, seen at a distance of 150 to 300 feet. Its linear speed was about 4 to 8 miles per hour, based on the above distances and timings obtained by re-enactment. It was visible for 4 minutes. Angular size was 2 3/4" at arms length. In an effort to quantify the colors somewhat, a Nickerson color fan was used by the witnesses to select the colors most nearly like those on the UFO. The color selections were made independently in direct sunlight with the color fan held in front of a white field. The colors given were

-21-

Metallic surface

Mrs. A.         7.5 PB - 7

Child 1         2.5 PB - 8/5

Child 2         7.5 B  - 3/5

Glow (The color of "grayness" was not uniform)

Mrs. A.         5   PB - 8/5

2.5 PB - 8/5

Child 1         5   PB - 7/7

Child 2         2.5 PB - 6/8

Orange flare on ascent

Child 1         5   YR - 7/11

Child 2         5   YR - 7/11

Second event: Same day, 6:30 p.m., sky is now dark. Location is in town of Newton, Illinois, about seven miles north west of first event.

Mrs. B was walking down the steps of a friend's house toward her car. "As I started down the steps my eyes were drawn by something in the south eastern sky. I stopped a moment and saw very clearly a luminous bluish object moving quite rapidly from east to west. It seemed to be rather low in the sky, but at night it is difficult to judge distance either as to how high it was or how far away it was. It did appear larger than a full moon, but instead of being round it had a definite oval shape. I would say an elongated oval. There was no sound that I could detect, and while it appeared to be blue and purple, there was also a whitish glow in it. The outline of the object was very distinct. I watched it until it disappeared behind some trees and a house a little less than a block from me.

Further correspondence and discussion brought forth the following information: The major axis of the oval was horizontal; its path was not perfectly horizontal) but somewhat undulatory. Its color was brightest and whitest at the center, becoming more blue and darker toward the edges. Mrs. B. estimated the colors as shown below (Since the interview was conducted in the evening) the color fan was illuminated by an incandescent lamp).

-22-

In itself, this last report, which describes a sighting of 15 to 20 seconds duration, contains insufficient information to come to any conclusion. However, when put alongside the earlier report there is the possibility of a relationship -- could these be reports of the same thing seen under differing conditions of illumination? We'll never know positively but the suggestion is quite strong.

As far as Mrs. A's sighting is concerned, we have obtained enough data from follow-up inquiry and on-site investigation to rule out known airborne craft, meteorological, and astronomical phenomenon. Yet the observations are sufficiently detailed to give us adequate confidence that some sort of machine was present, behaving in a very extraordinary way. Some parts of the object are similar to other reports (the effervescent glow, the orange color on acceleration, the very black "window" (which sounds like a block-body absorber)). Other parts are unusual -- the UFO's prolate spheroidal shape and the pattern (although seeing the pattern would require the observer to be quite close). The original correspondence and data sheets on Mrs. A's sighting run to over 40 pages. In correspondence and interviews over a period of 8 months no substantial inconsistencies could be found. The geometric data, particularly, are so intricately related that it is most unlikely that the witness could have fabricated a story so well. In addition, acquaintances made it clear that Mrs. A. is not prone to story telling and that "she is too busy to dream up such a tale". Mr. A, who returned from the fields that evening found the household still considerably agitated four hours after the event. He said he had no idea what it was his wife and children saw, but he obviously treated the sighting seriously for he went to considerable trouble to comply with a request to measure the sizes and locations of each building and tree on the farm.

It is this kind of sighting - the kind which is clearly inexplicable in contemporary terms, which causes me (and other interested persons) to take the whole subject so seriously. Hynek suggests that it is just this kind of sighting that often goes unreported, because the witness -- especially if his education or training are appropriate -- knows that what he saw was unambiguously extraordinary. And machine-like. A number of such reports were belatedly made after the University of

-23-

Colorado study effort got underway. Apparently the witnesses waited for the respectability the UOC study brought to the subject. It is hoped that the scientific and intellectual climate will change to the point where witnesses, particularly those having the best qualifications, can feel free to report sightings and know that they are being taken seriously.

Not all reports are visual reports only. An example of a photographic observation studied in detail is given in reference 20. Here, a 16mn movie of two objects sighted in the daytime provided the analyst enough information to conclude that no known phenomena could have caused the images. This report is, hopefully, the first in a series of instrumented sightings carefully and adequately studied.

-24-

PART 4: UFO'S - PHENOMENONOLOGICAL ASPECTS

Since I have made a first hand study of only a dozen sightings, the phenomenology described in this section will necessarily be based on descriptions of reports collected by others, particularly NICAP, APRO, UFOIRC, and Vallee. There is, unfortunately, no central file of reports accessible to the interested scientist, although large numbers of reports are in the hands of the organizations mentioned above. (The extensive Air Force files are of very limited use, from what I can tell, because of the extremely inconsistent quality of investigation.) In an unfortunate number of cases the report consists of little more than a narrative. My experience with the Newton sightings suggests that quantitative information is available if the investigator takes the trouble to personally make an on-site study. True, it may not be the quality of an instrumented sighting, but enough quantitative data are available to permit meaningful study of sighting reports.

NICAP's document "The UFO Evidence" contains a summary of patterns in appearance and behavior as determined from cases they had studied through 1963. Regarding appearance, the most common type is a disc shape, followed by spherical, oval/elliptical, cylindrical, and triangular. The breakdown of NICAP's 575 cases goes as follows

Disc                            26  %   149      cases

Round                           17  %    96      cases

Oval/elliptical                 13  %    77      cases

Cylindrical                     8.3 %    48      cases

Triangular                      2   %    11      cases

Other (Radar, light source,     33.7%   194      cases

not stated)

Obviously, there may be some mis-classification within the first three groups because of projective effects. Discs may be coin-shaped or lens shaped (double convex). The domed disk is plano-convex, (sometimes double convex) with a smaller radius bulge atop the convex side. The saturn disk is a sphere or oblate spheroid with a thin ring projecting from the equator. Similar objects are

-25-

seen without the equatorial ring also. Another subset are the hemispheric variety, sometimes with a small protrusion at the apex and usually seen with the flat side down. All the above mentioned objects are generically oblate with the axis of symmetry usually seen oriented vertically. Another group are prolate, having the major axis horizontal, usually. This includes the elliptical (football) variety, the triangular or tear drop variety, and the cylindrical or cigar shaped species.

Reported colors depend strongly on the luminous environment. NICAP finds that of the 253 cases of daytime observations where color is stated, the results are

Silver or metallic              34.8 %  88 cases

White                           32.0 %  81 cases

Specular                        13.4 %  34 cases

Gray                            7.5  %  19 cases

Black                           12.3 %  31 cases

It should be noted that a few reports exist suggesting that the brightness of the object first thought by the observer to be reflected sunlight, was in fact self luminosity, as ascertained by the geometry, presence of clouds and the like.

In the dark-sky observations, the outline or shape of the UFO is often not seen. What is seen is a light or series of lights, sometimes extremely bright. Luminous rays are also reported, going up sometimes (particularly from domed discs) downward (from hemispheric types principally, also from discs) and from one UFO to another (spherical types). The luminous column is usually not divergent. Excluding these interesting rays, the reported colors of UFOs seen at night are, for 162 cases

Red                             38.3 %  62  cases

Orange                          15.4 %  25  cases

Yellow                          17.3 %  28  cases

Green                           13.0 %  21  cases

Blue                            16.0 %  26  cases

Purple                          0       0

-26-

Brightness and color changes are also noted, and while the sample is small (82 cases) NICAP found the following: Of the 25 cases showing a change in brightness, 23 of the changes occurred at the moment of a velocity change (a change of either magnitude or direction). Concerning the change of color, 23 cases showed a color change related to acceleration. While the supporting data are not conclusive, it appears that the spectral shift is to the red upon acceleration.

It should also be noted that UFOs reported at night have only a star-like appearance unless very close. Distant UFO's sometimes turn off and on. When closer to the observer, reports often indicate a number of lights, located at the top and around the rim usually. Sometimes the lights flash on and off or change color rhythmically. Several cases have been reported of the UFO flashing its lights in response to the witness flashing hand or vehicular lights. In other cases the lights winked off with the approach of another car or an aircraft, only to turn on again when the vehicle had passed.

While practically any luminous behavior could be produced by someone with sufficient time and money, kinematic behavior at odds with experience or, preferably, at odds with Newtonian behavior are suggestive of non-terrestrial origin.

A common kind of motion is called oscillation by NICAP and is subdivided into "wobble on axis" (frequently described also as fluttering, flipping, and tipping); pendulum motion on slow ascent, hovering and decent (also called "falling leaf motion"); and occasionally a side-to-side oscillation observed as the UFO proceeds horizontally. These motions are most often performed by discs, although examples of similar behavior by other forms also exist.

The last class, that of violent and erratic maneuvers, most clearly lacks an explanation from current physical theory. Using terms like bobbing, erratic, jerky, zigzag, dark, and shot away, witnesses describe motions involving high angular accelerations and velocities. A number of radar observations appear to substantiate this anomalous behavior. Among the 40 cases showing such characteristics, NICAP finds that 28 percent were reported by scientific or other appropriately experienced personnel.

-27-

Variation of Sightings with Time

It appears that the UFO phenomenology has been with us from the earliest times. In the last twenty-five years, however, there seems to be a drastic increase in the number of sightings. It is practically impossible to estimate the number of world-wide sightings because of the lack of suitable data collection means. In the U.S., the principal depositories are currently the Air Force, NICAP and APRO. It is estimated that currently these sources together receive about 2000 reports per year. Since only about one sighting in 10 is reported, the number of sightings is about 20,000. But of these, 80 to 95% are not interesting, leaving us with "only" 1000 to 4000 worthwhile sightings per year for North America.

In addition to the background of reports more or less constantly flowing in, occasional periods of intense activity are also noted. One such period was October 1954 over most of France. NICAP lists a number of these "flaps". Sometimes they are very localized, covering only a small portion of a state for a period of a few weeks.

APRO concludes, on the basis of the reports available to them, that the patterns of appearance follow phases - atomic test areas and installations in the late 1940s and early 50s, rivers, reservoirs and bodies of water in the late 50s and early 60s and now electrical distribution systems. Convincing evidence to support this hypothesis has not been published; however, if the hypothesis were true it would certainly raise a lot of question.

McDonald and others suggest that reports of the last few years show more sightings of objects at low altitude (or landed) and more sightings made from urban areas (in the 40s and 50s sightings were generally inversely correlated with population densities).

Interactions with the Environment

Interactions of UFOs with the environment produce a kind of believability that pure visual observations will never do. Some examples of interaction are cases showing electromagnetic disturbances in practically every kind of device -- radio, TV, auto ignition, aircraft electronics, compass, magnetometer, magnetic automobile speedometer, etc. NICAP lists 106 examples. NICAP also lists 81 cases of radar

-28-

tracking of UFOs, most of which were simultaneous with visual sightings, and a number of which involved use of interceptors. Among the physiological effects noted are burns, temporary paralysis, prickling sensation, and eyes irritated as by ultraviolet light. A number of witnesses claim to have observed landings; depressions in the ground and damaged vegetation usually result. At a landing site in France, only weeds grow in a nine foot circular area where a disc was seen to land two years ago, despite efforts to replant. (21) At another landing site, French railway officials calculated that a weight of 30 tons would be required to make the depressions found in some railroad ties where a UFO was reported to have landed.

While most UFO's are silent, some have made sounds described as hissing, rushing, swishing, humming, whirring, whining, droning, like thunder, like shotgun, and a series of staccato explosions. In the past the absence of sonic booms from supersonic UFO's bothered many scientists; it appears now that that problem might be overcome by surrounding the craft by a corona discharge (which incidentally would be a luminous blue glow around the object). (23)

I will purposely not comment much on occupants, except to say that there are a few (very few) reasonably reliable and carefully investigated reports of UFO occupants. For the time being, I would prefer to concentrate on reports of the objects, however, as the frequency of reliable occupant reports is so low. I have no bias one way or the other along these lines. If UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin, they may or may not be "manned". If manned, one should expect an occasional appearance. Readers more interested in this aspect of UFOs are referred to reference 24.

In summary, we see a wide, almost exasperating range of reported phenomenology. By careful interviews with witnesses and analysis of a large number of reports the significant patterns in phenomenonology should appear. If the UFOs are a new manifestation of nature, they should exhibit some patterns of appearance or behavior which would aid in identifying and predicting them. If of extraterrestrial origin and intelligently guided it may be possible to anticipate appearances. This will be discussed in the next and final essay.

-29-

PART 5: UFOs -- HOW TO PROCEED AND WHY

We are so far from knowing all the forces of Nature and the various modes of their action that it is not worthy of a philosopher to deny phenomena only because they are inexplicable in the present state of our knowledge. The harder it is to acknowledge the existence of phenomena, the more we are bound to investigate them with increasing care.

Laplace

Laplace's remarks are certainly as true and significant for us today as for his contemporaries. In the preceeding essays I have suggested that there exists a class of phenomena rather widely occuring today (and perhaps since earliest times) that is elusive, puzzling and often at variance with known scientific and technical experience. What are we going to do about it? What should we, what can we do about it?

J. E. MacDonald suggests that the UFO phenomena lie somewhere in the following categories of explanation:

1. Hoaxes, fabrications, and frauds. Report files contain examples of these; investigators believe about 5 percent of all reports made are in this category. Detailed study, however, usually uncovers such reports.

2. Hallucinations, mass hysteria, and rumor phenomena. Present understanding of psychology does not admit many of the significant reports to be explained in this way.

3. Misinterpretations of well known physical phenomena (meteorolo- gical, astronomical, optical, etc.). By far the largest percentage of reports fall in this category. Study by an experienced investigator can usually identify these.

4. Poorly understood physical phenomena (rare electrical or moteorological effects, plasmas). Certainly a distinct possibility in a number of cases, it is a category worthy of careful study. Some of the most interesting cases, however have sufficient observational datail to eliminate this possibility (I am referring to reports of unambiguously machine-like objects).

-30-

5. Advanced technologies (test vehicles, satellites, reentry effects). Again, some reports can be attributed to this cause, but most cannot.

6. Poorly understood psychic phenomena (psychic projections, archetypal images, parapsychological phenomena, etc). It is difficult to comment on this possibility because the current lack of knowledge of parapsychology. While a (small) number of UFO reports do exhibit aspects of parapsychological phenomenology (25) general relationships have yet to be convincingly demonstrated. Reference 6 deals with this explanation.

7. Extraterrestrial probes. A possibility commonly held by the public and commonly rejected by scientists. Prof. McDonald believes a number of sightings are best explained by this hypothesis.

8. Messengers of salvation and occult truth. This explanation is listed because of the nature of certain reports (particularly "contact" reports -- reports involving communication of UFO occupants and the witnesses) and because of the historical aspects of the phenomenology. See reference 5 for elaboration.

Perhaps, to play it safe, an additional category should be listed:

9. Other

Clearly, the explanation of UFOs will interest someone. Psychologists have an interest in 1, 2, 3 and 6; theologians in category 8, scientists in 4 and 7. Therefore, whatever the explanation, it is a problem of at least average interest. If, by chance, the explanation is 7, or even 8 (and possibly 6) the value to society would be profound and significant. In this sense, an identification of the phenomenon would be a task of highest potential urgency.

How might it be done?

Because of the transient nature of UFO's we cannot expect to have the interested scientist rush to the spot to make his own observations. Reports so far accumulated, however, show that UFO's sometimes appear frequently in certain areas for a short period of time (a so-called "flap"). One characteristic of the flap is a larger percentage of sightings of objects at low levels than one normally obtains. If the reporting and analysis system were responsive enough, men and instruments

-31-

could be dispatched when a flap was recognized with a reasonable hope of making first hand observations. I would therefore suggest the following:

1. Organization of a central report receiving agency, staffed by a permanent group of experienced UFO investigators and having on call specialists in astronomy, physics, optics, atmospheric physics, psychology and the like for application when needed.

3. A loose organization of interested scientists should be available to investigate reports in their local areas. A good start toward this has been made by NICAP. It is important that investigations be made rapidly and by properly qualified people.

4. The press should be encouraged to report sightings accurately and in a non-sensational manner. Suitable reporting would encourage other witnesses to come forth.

-32-

5. Existing sensor records could be examined for anomalies, particularly if visual reports are made nearby. Since we don't know what to expect, it is difficult to say what is needed; however records of electric, magnetic and gravitational fields, radioactivity, optical and radio frequency anomalies would be a logical place to start. Radars could also contribute, if they are designed for general purpose use. As it is, most current radar detection and tracking devices are designed to ignore anomalous objects.

After a few years' operation in this mode, it should be possible to study the resulting report statistics to draw generalities about appearance and behavior (such as was done in Part IV) and most importantly to anticipate times and locations of appearances. Only when this is done will it be possible to instrument sightings and therefore obtain the objective data so badly needed If the explanation is #4, some environmental correlations are bound to occur. For #7 it is possible that appearances could be anticipated, if we are clever enough; for #6 and #8 we will likely not be able to anticipate appearances.

Certainly the conclusions drawn by NICAP from reports in their file are startling and, if valid worthy of considerable scientific effort. It would be much more convincing if data could be collected worldwide and if the most interesting reports could be intensively and completely investigated. I believe current reports justify the expanded data collection and analysis effort.

Pages 33 to 40 consist of the basic report form used by the University of Colorado UFO project which have not been included here. A copy of this reporting form is reproduced in "The Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," Bantam Books, 1968, published in association with Colorado Associated University Press.

-40-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Christian Science Monitor, May 23, 1967

2. Anatomy of a Phenomenon, J. Vallee, Ace Books, Inc H-17

3. The Sky People, B. LePoer Trench, London, Neville Spearman, 1960.

4. The Meaning of Fatima, C. C. Martindale, S. J., P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York 1950, p. 77.

5. Flying Saucers Through the Ages, Paul Thomas, Neville Spearman, London, 1966.

6. Flying Saucers - A Modern Myth, C. C. Jung, Harcourt, Brace & World New York, 1959

7. Sputnik, January 1967 issue, p. 174

8. Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, Ted Bloecher, 1967; Available from NICAP, 1536 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20036

9. Bloecher, pp. 1-9, 10, 12

10. The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, E. J. Ruppelt, Ace Books, Inc. G-537

11. UFO's: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times? J. E. McDonald UFORI, Suite 311, 508 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pa., 15219

12. The UFO Evidence, NICAP, 6536 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington D.C., 20036, 1964

13. Flying Saucers: Hoax or Reality? L. Jerome Stanton, Belmont Books B50-761

14. "The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects", William Markowitz, Science, 15 Sept. 1967

15. Intelligent Life in the Universe, J. S. Shklovskii and Carl Sagan, Holden-Day, Inc. 1966 (San Francisco)

16. Habitable Planets for Man, S. H. Dole, Blaisdell Publishing Co., New York, 1964

17. Interstellar Communication, Edited by A. C. W. Cameron, Benjamin, New York, 1963

18. Science, 21 October 1966, letter by J. A. Hynek, p. 329

19. The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports, T. M. Olsen, UFO Information Retrieval Center, Inc., Box 57, Riderwood, Md. 21139

-24-

20. Observations of an Anomalistic Phenomenon, R. M. L. Baker, Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, January/February, 1968

21. Flying Saucer Review, 14, 1, January/February, 1968, cover and pp. 6-12.

22. Vallee, p. 109

23. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 22 January, 1968, p. 21

24. The Humanoids, special issue of Flying Saucer Review, 49a Kings Grove, Peckham, London, S.E. 15, England (1967)

25. An interesting example appears in the July, 1968 issue of Science & Mechanics, starting on page 30

26. A highly recommended collection of recent views on this subject are contained in the Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects, Hearings Before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, July 29, 1968

____________________________________________________________________________________

Short Commentaries

30 Dec 1966

Jan Aldrich:

George Kocher worked at RAND. He was interested in the UFOs. He wrote up a short paper for circulation within RAND. It was personal. It was not an official RAND document. Kocher got little or no response to his privately circulated document. One copy of it did make its way to Wright-Patterson. LTC Quintanilla wrote RAND a blazing letter. Once again, Quinanilla's letter was not an official ATIC response, but from Quintanilla's address and his personal opinion.

Kocher's supervisor turned Quintanilla's letter over to Kocher. RAND never responded to Quintanilla. Kocher did not follow up on his paper. The matter went no further. Kocher confirmed all this in a letter to Dr. Hynek which is now at CUFOS with a copy of Quintanilla's letter. CUFOS made copies of Kocher's document available years ago. You can, I believe, still purchase copies from them.

Ruppelt, I believe in his papers, mentioned that the chief of RAND in the early 1950s was hostile towards UFOs. Prior to that RAND had done a "Spaceship" study that COL McCoy requested in 1948. Parts of the study were used in the Project Grudge report.

There were several RAND scientists who, like Kocher, had at one time or another a personal interest in UFOs. NICAP was in contact with one or two. However, over the years contact was lost with these people.

There was one request from a scientist at RAND in 1965 to the Air Force for UFO material. The Air Force forwarded the request to Hynek. Nothing seems to have come of it. Again, it may have just been a personal interest item.

16 Nov 2006

Dick Hall:

It would be perfectly legitimate and accurate to list this document as an "internal RAND document." It is exactly the same sort of thing as the NSA think piece generated by an employee, which was not an "official" NSA document. These documents are part of the history and are revealing and important in their own right. What people in positions like theirs were thinking and trying to do is significant for historians (of which I are one).

The hostile RAND official mentioned by Ruppelt in his papers was NOT the President and founder of RAND, Franklin Collbohm, it was James Lipp, chief of the Missile Division of RAND.  Ruppelt also mentioned that RAND astronomer James Thompson was pro-UFO and used to visit him at BB.

The RAND "spaceship" UFO study was done by Lipp in Dec 1948 and included as an appendix to the Sign Report, not the Grudge Report.,

What is Jan's source for what Kocher said or did?  Is it solely Kocher's letter to Hynek?  Why is there no date or copy of it?

Kocher's RAND report seems to have more status as a RAND document than the NSA paper, given that it has RAND letterhead and the NSA paper has no NSA letterhead or routing.

17 Nov 2006

Jan Aldrich:

There were some UFO fans at RAND.  Mary Rorig comes to mind.  However, this paper is about as significant as some NICAP member writing a paper supporting contactees.  It should be made clear that this was an individual effort within an organization which took no action, and had no discussion on the matter as the result of his effort other than to file it.

Dick Hall:

The agencies represented are not private, pro-UFO citizen groups. They are major Government agencies. So what they did and tried to do even on an in-house basis and the results (or non-results) is very significant for the purposes of historical analysis. The people mentioned all were highly qualified, reasonably high-level or respected employees. To simply label them as "fans" (sounds like "UFO buffs") and compare what they did to an internal NICAP paper is not a reasonable comparison. History has more to do with only what "officially" is said and done.  A more apt comparison would be what Ruppelt or Fournet did and tried to do on the subject, and what had success and what didn't.

Aug 27

## Black Hole Firewall Puzzle, The Golden Calf?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Unitarity, Stephen Hawking, S-Matrix, Richard P. Feynman, P. A. M. Dirac, Lenny Susskind, Gerard 't Hooft, firewall paradox, Black Hole
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.

Aug 27

## Is our universe a conscious hologram?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Leonard Susskind, hologram universe
Yes, and I have solved it

See slides 25 & 31 of lecture 8 of mike Towler's Cambridge Bohm lectures

Pilot Q BIT field is mental in sense of David Chalmers

Feedback back-reaction IT hidden variable matter to Pilot Field excites qualia excitations in Pilot

This back-reaction is missing in orthodox QM and that is why no-cloning et al

Back-reaction induces Valentini's signal nonlocality with non-random post quantum strings like what I am writing right now.

It's same idea Einstein used to go from special relativity to general relativity.

Simple.

Post quantum gravity = Conscious Universe

Post Quantum Wheeler Dewitt Pilot Wave Function of Universe QBIT with back reaction from 3-geometry IT is Hawking's conscious mind of I.J. Good's GOD(D) retrocausal CTC software running on past and future horizon hologram plates (screens) in sense of dS/CFT RG flow from future post selection dS Omega UV fixed point to past Alpha IR fixed point at inflation phase transition. See Strominger's Harvard paper. CFT dilation on the horizon hologram screens maps to time evolution in bulk 3 geometry hologram image. Small entropy at IR Alpha Creation is explained as is Arrow of Time without fine tuning. Pretty picture.

On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Menas Kafatos <mkafatos@gmail.com> wrote:

Or to put it another way, to by-pass the fundamental issue of conscious experience. To claim that the multiverse "solves" this problem is to go outside of science. Sure, the multiverse may indeed be a reality. But that should come out of fundamental physics AND be a falsifiable assertion, not to solve qualia, the hard problem or whether consciousness is the fundamental reality in the universe or not.

Jul 07

## Important new physics on July 7, 2014

Posted by: JackSarfatti |

Goodbye to linear unitary S-Matrix conservation of information in the black hole firewall debate.

On Jul 7, 2014, at 2:24 PM, art wagner <wagnerart@hotmail.com> wrote:

Now, combine that with this ....

The ability of the Bohmian formalism to analyze this last type of problems

for (open) quantum systems remains mainly unexplored by the scientific community. The authors of this

review are convinced that the nal status of the Bohmian theory among the scientific community will

be greatly infuenced by its potential success in these type of problems that present non-unitary and/or

nonlinear quantum evolutions.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.3151.pdf

Abstract. Bohmian mechanics provides an explanation of quantum phenomena in terms of point particles
guided by wave functions. This review focuses on the formalism of non-relativistic Bohmian mechanics,
rather than its interpretation. Although the Bohmian and standard quantum theories have different
formalisms, both give exactly the same predictions for all phenomena. Fifteen years ago, the quantum
chemistry community began to study the practical usefulness of Bohmian mechanics. Since then, the scientific
community has mainly applied it to study the (unitary) evolution of single-particle wave functions,
either by developing efficient quantum trajectory algorithms or by providing a trajectory-based explanation
of complicated quantum phenomena. Here we present a large list of examples showing how the Bohmian
formalism provides a useful solution in different forefront research elds for this kind of problems (where
the Bohmian and the quantum hydrodynamic formalisms coincide). In addition, this work also emphasizes
that the Bohmian formalism can be a useful tool in other types of (non-unitary and nonlinear) quantum
problems where the influence of the environment or the global wave function are unknown. This review
contains also examples on the use of the Bohmian formalism for the many-body problem, decoherence
and measurement processes. The ability of the Bohmian formalism to analyze this last type of problems
for (open) quantum systems remains mainly unexplored by the scientific community. The authors of this
review are convinced that the final status of the Bohmian theory among the scientic community will
be greatly influenced by its potential success in these type of problems that present non-unitary and/or
nonlinear quantum evolutions. A brief introduction of the Bohmian formalism and some of its extensions
are presented in the last part of this review.

PS

# Are entangled particles connected by wormholes? Support for the ER=EPR conjecture from entropy inequalities

If spacetime is built out of quantum bits, does the shape of space depend on how the bits are entangled? The ER=EPR conjecture relates the entanglement entropy of a collection of black holes to the cross sectional area of Einstein-Rosen (ER) bridges (or wormholes) connecting them. We show that the geometrical entropy of classical ER bridges satisfies the subadditivity, triangle, strong subadditivity, and CLW inequalities. These are nontrivial properties of entanglement entropy, so this is evidence for ER=EPR. We further show that the entanglement entropy associated to classical ER bridges has nonpositive interaction information. This is not a property of entanglement entropy, in general. For example, the entangled four qubit pure state |GHZ_4>=(|0000>+|1111>)/sqrt{2} has positive interaction information, so this state cannot be described by a classical ER bridge. Large black holes with massive amounts of entanglement between them can fail to have a classical ER bridge if they are built out of |GHZ_4> states. States with nonpositive interaction information are called monogamous. We conclude that classical ER bridges require monogamous EPR correlations.
PPS
On Jul 7, 2014, at 2:11 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

Yes, this is consistent with what I told Addinal today about Tegmark multiverse Levels 1, 2 & 3

3 is pilot “mind" field for “material" 1 & 2 that must be linked with wormholes as in ER = EPR, but they must not pinch off for consistent
CTC  time travel to past histories.
Those wormholes that do pinch off are perhaps the “discontinuities” that Fred Wolf mentioned.

"It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives
rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). Here we derive the second order Friedmann
equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction
terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate
of its observed value), or as dark matter, while the second as a radiation term in the early universe,
which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe."

On Jul 7, 2014, at 2:01 PM, art wagner <wagnerart@hotmail.com> wrote:

PPPS

On Jul 6, 2014, at 11:20 PM, fred alan wolf <fawolf@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Actually there may be inconsistencies in the Deutsch model.  See attached paper.  I visited with these physicists who discovered them (Tom Imbo is the head physicist for the group) at UIC when I was in Chicago last May.  The bottom line is that there are CTCs that are discontinuous.  I quote their paper’s conclusion (in black with a different font):

Discussion:

We have considered Deutsch's model of a non-time traveling system interacting with a time traveler confined to a bounded region, and have demonstrated that the state of the non-time traveler in the asymptotic future can be a discontinuous function of the state in the asymptotic past. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that these discontinuities occur independent of the method of choosing a unique consistent time traveling state, as well as independent of whether Deutsch's assumption regarding the initial composite state or Politzer's generalization is used. Given the phenomenon of discontinuous evolutions within the Deutsch model, we note several possible reactions.

(1) Question the assumptions upon which Deutsch's model is based. However, relaxing the two most obvious
of these, as stated in the previous paragraph, does not provide any respite. Thus, the only remaining natural
assumptions to be questioned are that (a) the spatial degrees of freedom can be treated classically, (b) the effect of the systems on the surrounding spacetime can be neglected, and finally that (c) a quantum mechanical (as opposed to field-theoretic) model captures the relevant dynamics. Although over-idealizations can indeed lead to apparent discontinuities, none of (a)-(c) above seems obviously responsible for the discontinuous behavior in Deutsch's model. In particular, it is difficult to believe that there is no imaginable configuration utilizing a discontinuous gate for which these approximations are sufficiently justified.

(2) Accept the assumptions of the Deutsch model, but further assume that nature either does not utilize those
gates which are physically discontinuous, or does not allow initial states of the non-time traveler which are near a discontinuity. (Analogous tactics have been considered in the classical case as a way of avoiding the grandfather paradox .) However, this solution is somewhat ad hoc and inelegant. In addition, placing such restrictions on initial states and/or gates sacrifices one of the great strengths of Deutsch's approach which purports to provide a viable model for any set of initial conditions and any dynamics.

(3) Accept that the Deutsch model is correct as writ, but interpret the existence of discontinuous evolutions as
evidence that CTC's are unphysical.

(4) Acknowledge that quantum mechanics in the presence of CTC's is sufficiently strange that the existence of these discontinuities is a fitting physical consequence. Further study will be required not only to adequately
address these reactions, but also to answer other interesting questions raised by our results, such as: What are the exact properties of the gates which give rise to such peculiar evolutions? For any such gate, how are the points at which the evolution is discontinuous distributed in the space of initial states? Do these discontinuities occur in other approaches to quantum systems in the presence of CTC's? Regardless, it is clear that discontinuous evolutions are an unavoidable feature of the Deutsch model, and are yet another strange and fascinating consequence of the attempt to bring together quantum mechanics and gravity.

Generally speaking discontinuities indicate that we may be lacking a required extension of the model.  My PhD thesis was about discontinuities appearing in large amplitude (nonlinear) plasma waves wherein such discontinuities vanished when appropriate care was taken to add charge separation between ions and electrons in the plasma (which had previously been neglected in such studies, hence my thesis) when such waves pass through the plasma.
Perhaps we are missing some physics here in the nonlinear Deutsch CTCs as was the case in the nonlinear plasma wave model I looked at a long time ago.
Such discontinuous behavior is absent from the Lloyd CTC model and I would be surprised if any cropped up, since it is based on linear quantum physics.  Remember the Deutsch model is inherently nonlinear and a new idea (nonlinearity) being added to quantum physics, so we might expect discontinuous behavior to crop up, whereas the Lloyd model is not—it is based on linear quantum physics.

Best Wishes,

Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D.  aka Dr. Quantum ®
Have Brains / Will Travel
San Francisco
mailto:fred@fredalanwolf.com
web page:
http://www.fredalanwolf.com
Blog page:
http://fredalanwolf.blogspot.com/

From: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:jacksarfatti@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 6:34 PM

Yeah

Fred Wolf has been working on that difference

On Jul 6, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Robert Addinall <beowulfr@interlog.com> wrote:

Seth Lloyd’s talk at the Perimeter Institute was good, and it appears that the Deutsch and P-CTCs models are incompatible.

However, I wonder if it is possible that both could happen – there are consistent CTCs (maybe a lot of them, as in your theory of consciousness), but there are also some inconsistent ones that can bump a time traveler across to a parallel universe.  Do you have any thoughts on that?

there are never any inconsistent CTCs not even in Deutsch’s theory - jumping to the universe next door is a consistent narrative.

John Gribbin has the best pop explanation of Deutsch’s theory in his new quantum computer book.

From: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:jacksarfatti@gmail.com]
Sent: July-05-14 2:09 PM
To: JACK SARFATTI
Subject: Re: H. Wiseman-- "Bell's Theorem Still reverberates" & Hauke Traulsen's entanglement swapping "FLASH"

Thanks Nick

Of course your proof is expected because Traulsen only uses linear unitary orthodox quantum theory. Antony Valentini’s post-quantum theory, in contrast, is a totally new physics of a nonlinear non-unitary post-quantum theory.

However, Nick it is not yet clear to me that your density matrix computation applies to Traulsen’s use of the HOM Effect below?

# Subquantum Information and Computation

(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
Also Seth Lloyd’s schemes on post-selection simulations of QM computing on CTCs, which should not be same as linear unitary orthodox QM if it is really a faithful simulation.

## Search Results

### 1.   Time travel theory avoids grandfather paradox - Phys.org

o
o
o
Jul 21, 2010 - The model of time travel proposed by Seth Lloyd, et al., in a recent paper at arXiv. org arises from their investigation of the quantum mechanics ...

### 2.   The quantum mechanics of time travel through post-selected ...

o
o
o
arXiv
by S Lloyd - ‎2010 - ‎Cited by 32 - ‎Related articles
Jul 15, 2010 - We analyze a specific proposal for such quantum time travel, the quantum ... Seth Lloyd, Lorenzo Maccone, Raul Garcia-Patron, Vittorio ...

### 3.   Quantum Time Machine Solves Grandfather Paradox | MIT ...

o
o
o
MIT Technology Review
Jul 19, 2010 - A new kind of time travel based on quantum teleportation gets around ... forward by Seth Lloyd at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and ...

### 4.   Should Time Travel Be A Moral Imperative? - Forbes

www.forbes.com/sites/.../should-time-travel-be-a-moral-imperativ...
o
o
o
Forbes
by Bruce Dorminey - Aug 28, 2013 - That's the question I posed to MIT quantum mechanic Seth Lloyd, who ... If time travel is possible, should society be ethically obligated to try and ...

### 5.   The Quantum Mechanics of Time Travel - YouTube

o
o
Dec 16, 2010 - Uploaded by QuantumIQC
Dr. Seth Lloyd, an MIT professor and self-described "quantum mechanic," describes the quantum ...

### 6.   Quantum mechanics of time travel - Wikipedia, the free ...

o
o
o
Wikipedia
Jump to Lloyd's prescription - . An alternative proposal was later presented by Seth Lloyd based upon post -selection and path integrals.

### 7.   Grandfather paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

o
o
o
Wikipedia
The grandfather paradox is a proposed paradox of time travel first described by the ...Seth Lloyd and other researchers at MIT have proposed an expanded ...

### 8.   NOVA | A Quantum Leap in Computing - PBS

o
o
o
Jul 21, 2011 - MIT's Seth Lloyd, a pioneer of quantum computing, explains its ... you can think of time travel, the process of going from the future into the past, ...

### 9.   Quantum time machine 'allows paradox-free time travel ...

o
o
The Daily Telegraph
by Tom Chivers - Jul 22, 2010 - Scientists have for some years been able to 'teleport' quantum states from one place to another. Now Seth Lloyd and his MIT team say that, ...

On Jul 5, 2014, at 9:26 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Saul-Paul --

"Bell's Theorem still reverberates." What a great word "reverberate"!
Thanks for the update on BT.

Did a bit more work on Traulsen's PSBA proposal by calculating the Density Matrix BS for a random mix of the 4 Bell States, compared to the Density Matrix PS for a random mix of the 4 uncorrelated polarization states |H>|H>, |H>|V>, |V>|H> and |V>|V>.

The result (not surprising) is that PS = BS. The density matrix for both of these situations is the same.

Thus quantum mechanics predicts that all statistical averages for these two situations will be the same. Hence no FTL signal (on the average).

Hence the only way that Traulsen's PSBA scheme could work is that if individual measurement events give distinguishable results for the BS and PS cases, while the average of these results remains identical.Traulsen has proposed a couple of measurement schemes (Fig 4 on his paper). It would be interesting to calculate the expected outputs of these two measurement schemes to the eight possible inputs (4 BS states and 4 PS states) to see if one can observe patterns in the individual detector responses that might be able to reveal whether a Bell State (BS) was the input, or whether the input was an uncorrelated polarization state (PS).

Nick Herbert

On Jul 4, 2014, at 7:14 PM, Saul-Paul and Mary-Minn Sirag wrote:

NIck,

The June 26 issue of Nature has a very interesting article by Howard Wiseman: "Bell's theorem still reverberates".  Wiseman emphasizes the fact that Bell's 1976 paper went somewhat beyond the 1964 paper. In this 1976 paper "local causes" are ruled out.

Wiseman also has a 35 page paper on the Arxiv on this same topic.

<HowardWiseman-TwoBell'sTheorems-19Jun14.pdf>

He has posted many other Arxiv papers.

<HowardWiseman-ArXivPapers-4Jul14.pdf>

All for now;-)
Saul-Paul
----------------------

On Jul 4, 2014, at 4:52 PM, nick herbert wrote:

Dear Hauke Traulsen --

One of my hobbies is attempting FTL communication using quantum entanglement. I have found, like you, that almost nobody is interested in these schemes because "everyone knows this is impossible" so one's time is better spent on the "physics of the possible". However, tho I agree in principle with this consensus it seems to me that there are at least three reasons to devise refutations for FTL schemes:

1. to show off what a good physicist you are -- if a scheme is impossible, it should be easy to refute;

2. Constructing a refutation might deepen your own knowledge of, say, the physics of entanglement, and

3. might lead, if not to FTL signaling, possibly to some new result that no one had ever seen before.

I might also add a fourth reason:

4. sheer intellectual curiosity -- a quality in rare supply in these days of "hurry-up" physics.

My FTL efforts started with Alice deciding whether to collapse her A photons in the circularly-polarized basis (R and L photons) or in the plane-polarized basis (H and V photons). Because of entanglement, Bob's photons (previously polarization-undecided) collapse into the same basis. Alice sends a coded  message by switching between CUP (circularly unpolarized light) and PUP (plane-unpolarized light). If Bob can distinguish between a stream of random  R and L photons and a stream of random H and V photons, then he can decode Alice's (FTL) message. Since both CUP light and PUP light (altho seemingly  physically distinct beams of photons) possess exactly the same density matrix, quantum theory predicts that no experiment exists that can distinguish these two (ostensibly different) kinds of light.

[Lots of room for philosophy here: H, V, R and L photons are physically different. Yet a random beam of H and V photons cannot be distinguished from a random beam of R and L photons. No one can really say why.]

I have spent a lot of time devising clever schemes to make the CUP/PUP distinction and have learned a lot of physics. One of my schemes (called FLASH) led directly to the famous quantum no-cloning rule.

But that is all in the past.

The quest for FTL signaling via quantum entanglement has moved beyond these early failures into fresh new ground -- your clever scheme being the newest.

I would characterize second-generation FTL schemes as an attempt to expand the dimensions of Bob's measurement space. In Demetrios Kalamidas's recent FTL device, Bob's photons were coherently mixed with a truncated coherent state which increased the number of Bob's output possibilities. Kalamidas's scheme was recently refuted by a small team of experts.

In my ETCALLHOME proposal I used a scheme similar to yours to permit Bob to look at TWO CONSECUTIVE PHOTONS -- hence to expand Bob's Hilbert space from 2 complex dimensions to 4.

By "similar to yours" I mean a thought experiment in which, in addition to the common SOURCE O producing a pair of entangled photons (sent to A and B) The SOURCE O also sends a TIMING SIGNAL to A and B so that ALICE and BOB can, if they wish, coherently mix two consecutive photons  by knowledgably adjusting optical delay lines. (This is cheap and easy to do with a thought experiment) This timing information (in your case, you envision "storing the photons" -- also easy to do in the mental lab) allows for a more complex measurement on Bob's part which might allow him to perform a more subtle kind of measurement than is encoded into the density matrix.

In my ETCALLHOME experiment, Alice makes no use of her timing signal, she just sends 2-ples of photons, either both CUP or both PUP. Bob using his timing signal combines his two photons coherently in a 50/50 beamsplitter and hopes to see if he can get a different output from combining two CUP photons from combining two PUP photons. A simple calculation (as explained to me by Lev Vaidman) shows that both pairs of photons yield the same result. No FTL signaling is possible using the ETCALLHOME scheme.

=============

With this preface behind me, I would like to consider your PSBA scheme.

Like ETCALL HOME, PSBA uses timing information (or photon storage) to combine two consecutive photons. Only in your case both Alice and Bob use the timing info, potentially leading to greater possibility of consummating a robust FTL connection.

=============

I am only beginning to understand your PSBA scheme. So please correct me if I am wrong.

In your scheme Alice switches from two kinds of measurement on her photon 2-ples. Either she chooses to make a Bell-state measurement (BSM), which ENTANGLES distant Bob's 2-ple. Or she merely detects the two photons (SSM = separable-state measurement) which leaves Bob's 2-ple unentangled.

Using your scheme Alice sends PAIRS OF PHOTONS (2-ples) to Bob that are either mutually ENTANGLED (logical ONE) or mutually UNCORRELATED (logical ZERO). If Bob can discern this difference, either in a single measurement or in a series of measurements on identically prepared pairs, then Bob can decode Alice's FTL signals with the usual apocalyptic consequences -- time machines, causality-violation, grandfather paradoxes, stock-market windfalls and much much more.

Have I got your scheme right? Bob's task is to look at a sequence of PHOTON PAIRS and decide whether they are POLARIZATION-ENTANGLED or POLARIZATION UNCORRELATED.

==============

If I have you scheme right?

(Already you can begin to see the outline of a refutation: there are 4 ways that a pair of photons can be entangled (the four Bell states). A random sequence of these Four Degrees of Entanglement might well be experimentally indistinguishable from a random sequence of uncorrelated pairs.)

==============

Enough for now.

Thanks for your imaginative FTL scheme.

Nick Herbert

On Jul 3, 2014, at 2:47 AM, Hauke Traulsen wrote:

Hi Nick,

thanks for your reply. Actually there has been no response regarding my publication so far. ;).

Regarding your second email:  If you want to test correlation for every single photon pair you need classical communication, that's obviously right.
My hope is that analyzing a sequence of entangled photons pairs (without additional classical information) one could determine a statical distribution of detected Bell-States,  which is different from 25%-25%-25%-25% for polarization-entangled photons.

For example: What about the HOM effect at a symmetrical 50:50 beam splitter?

# Hong–Ou–Mandel effect

The Hong–Ou–Mandel effect is a two-photon interference effect in quantum optics which was demonstrated by three physicists, C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou and Leonard Mandel in 1987 from the University of Rochester.[1] The effect occurs when two identical single-photon waves enter a 50:50 beam splitter, one in each input port. When both photons are identical they will extinguish each other. If there are changes in phase, the probability of detection will increase. In this way the interferometer can measure accurately bandwidth, path lengths and timing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong–Ou–Mandel_effect
1. I expected that for a sequence of entangled photon pairs only pairs in the HV-VH state (antisymmetrical) have the strength to leave the BS though different exits (even under perfect HOM-dip-conditions), which lets one observe and distinguish this state in 25% of all pairs at the BS (by detecting parallel two photons on different outputs of the 50:50 BS).

1. For a sequence of unentangled photon pairs i expect that the photons of each pair leave the 50:50 BS through the same exit (under perfect HOM-Dip-Conditions 100%) with 50%-50% propability for exit #1 and exit #2.

And for distinguishing 1. and 2. no futher classical communication would be necessary.

What do you think? Is my assumption regarding the HOM Dip and the HV-VH generally wrong, and if so, why?

Thanks for any hint, best regards,
Hauke

Am 01.07.2014 21:57, schrieb nick herbert:
Hauke Traulsen--

i am reading with much interest your new FTL signaling scheme, I have somewhat of a history with such schemes
even publishing a book on the subject "Faster Than Light -- Superluminal Loopholes in Physics" New American Library 1988.
Recently I collaborated in refuting a clever FTL scheme devised by Demetrios Kalamidas. For more information on
"The Kalamidas Effect" see these two entries on my Quantum Tantra blog.

I am sure that by now you have received many attempts to refute your scheme. But have you yet received one that really does the job?
I would appreciate hearing from you if your scheme has already been refuted.

in the meantime i am subjecting your paper to careful scrutiny (and am admiring your cleverness) and have forwarded this paper to all members
of the team that helped to refute the Kalamidas Scheme.

warm regards
Nick Herbert

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsere aktuellen L.I.N.K.-News finden Sie unter: www.iis.fraunhofer.de/link-newsletter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hauke Traulsen

Gruppe Technologien
Zentrum für Intelligente Objekte ZIO

Fraunhofer-Arbeitsgruppe für Supply Chain Services SCS
Nordostpark 93  |  90411 Nürnberg, Germany

Telefon +49 911 58061-9548  |  Fax +49 911 58061 9598
hauke.traulsen@iis.fraunhofer.de
www.scs.fraunhofer.de  |  www.zio.fraunhofer.de

<0908.2655v4discontinous Deutsch CTCs.pdf>

Jul 01

## Creative tension between gravity and electrodynamics 1

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Unruh effect, unitary S-Matrix false?, Stephen Hawking, Richard P. Feynman, Leonard Susskind, G.'t Hooft, black hole firewall
On Jun 30, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:

"In any case, the SEP is really just a conjecture. Also there is something fundamentally wrong with a theory in which the existence of radiation is frame dependent. Surely it should at least be possible to settle this question empirically?"

No, look at the Unruh effect.
Virtual photons in inertial frames are real photons in coincident non-inertial frames. This is the origin of the firewall debate on black holes.There is a creative tension between equivalence principle and charges emitting photons
If a charge sits at surface of Earth it has a constant proper acceleration in a static LNIF. Feynman would say no problem - constant acceleration does not cause real photon emission - to who? others ask.

If you accumulate a lot of unbalanced electric charge and just let it sit on a lab table do you expect it to radiate real photons? Where is the energy coming from?

In Wheeler-Feynman-Cramer - the emission of real photons is a transaction between emitter and absorber with advanced confirmation. So now there are four cases emitter rest frame in LIF or LNIF, absorber rest frame in LIF' or LNIF'

We do not expect any real photon emission in the geodesic LIF <—> geodesic LIF' case. What about the other three?

On 6/29/2014 9:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Still up in the air

On Jun 29, 2014, at 7:00 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:

Here is a more in depth discussion of the problem by R. Scalise, which raises doubts about
Feynman's answer based on more recent work:

http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/P7312fa12/ChoiceCutsCh52.pdf

On 6/29/2014 6:47 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Informative discussion on this topic by Kevin Brown available here:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath528/kmath528.htm

On 6/29/2014 6:37 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
1) an electric charge on a time like geodesic should not radiate transverse photons.

2) Feynman showed that a charge in uniform acceleration does not radiate.

This is obvious since radiation reaction depends on the jerk covariant derivative of

D^2V^u/ds^2

Note that this is complicated in LNIFs.

Einstein was writing all this before modern quantum theory. Today we know that the Aether is the quantum vacuum filled with virtual particles that are off mass-shell i.e. E^2 =/= (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 Also contact forces are caused by off-mass shell virtual photons in the non-radiative near field including longitudinal polarizations absent in real photons on the mass shell (light cone). Action at a distance is in the Wheeler-Feynman classical sense confined to the photon mass shell (aka light cone) but including advanced back from the future destiny waves generalized to "confirmation" quantum de Broglie waves by John Cramer in his TI. This is in addition to the more familiar retarded history waves. de Broglie waves are faster than light in phase quantum information when m =/= 0 though slower than light in energy transport. nonlocal EPR correlations are explained by retrocausal advanced confirmation destiny waves in the Feynman zig zag (term coined by O Costa de Beauregard). On Jun 22, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote: And he said almost the same things in 1924: http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/aether.htm On 6/22/2014 7:46 PM, art wagner wrote: The Einstein Ether (1920): http://www.bonus.manualsforall.com/Educational/Albert-Einstein/Albert Einstein - Ether And The Theory Of Relativity.PDF

Jun 04

## Proof of retrocausality in Aharonov's sense in orthodox quantum theory

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Yakir Aharonov, retrocausality, Kip Thorne, Ken Peacock, Jack Sarfatti, Igor Novikov, entanglement signals, David Deutsch, Bell's theorem, Anthony Valentin

"Let us illustrate the problem of signalling with the assistance of the ubiquitous experimenters Alice and Bob. We will place Alice and Bob at some distance apart, and between them there will be a source emitting pairs of entangled particles. To avoid relativistic complications we will assume that Alice, Bob, their detectors, and the particle source are all mutually at rest in an inertial frame (the ‘lab’ frame). Pair after pair of particles are emitted by the source and detected by Alice and Bob's apparatuses, who record their results. Alice and Bob are free to alter the angle of their detectors with each run of the apparatus.

What each experimenter will record is an apparently random sequence of ups and downs, like the results of an honest coin repeatedly tossed; and yet, when they compare results afterward, they will note that certain correlations, generally sinusoidal in form, stand between their results. For example, if the particles are spin-1/2 fermions, and if Alice and Bob are measuring spin in a particular direction, then the correlation between their results will be -cos@ where @ is the angle between Alice and Bob's detectors. Sinusoidal correlations like these readily violate mathematical inequalities such as those defined by Bell (1964).  Itamar Pitowsky (1994) showed that the Bell Inequalities are examples of “conditions of possible experience” first written down by George Boole; these are consistency conditions between measurement results on the assumption that the results of one measurement and the way it is carried out does not influence the measurement of the other particle at the time of measurement. This means that the particular sequence of results that Alice and Bob get at their respective detectors could not have been encoded in the particles at the source; for some relative angles their results are too well correlated or anti-correlated for them to be due to local causes built into both particles when they were emitted” Kent Peacock "The No-Signalling Theorems: A Nitpicking Distinction”

Here is the setup

Bob is closer to the pair source S than Alice.

B — S—————A

Bob does not change his settings.

Alice at the last moment changes her settings in delayed choice fashion AFTER Bob’s particles in the entangled pairs has already been detected.

This is done in pulse fashion so that there is a good statistical sample of particles in each pulse.

Each setting (ai,b) b-fixed has random outputs 1,0 for each individual detection.

Using the statistical rules of orthodox quantum theory Alice and Bob compare their raw data after the experiment is over and from the fraction of coincidences in each pulse, Bob can infer the sequence of settings a1, a2, …. aN for N pulses, which is the encoded message.

It is obvious, since Bob did nothing at all,  that Alice’s free will choices of settings a1, a2, …. aN for N pulses  (which is the message) is the active future cause of the back-from-the-future coincidences, unless you want a paranoid conspiracy theory.

Now of course this is not Valentini’s “signal nonlocality” that is a larger theory violating orthodox quantum theory the way general relativity violates special relativity globally though not locally. With Valentini’s PQM extension of QM Bob can know in advance what Alice will choose even before she chooses it without doing the hindsight correlation analysis. However, any attempt by Bob to cause a paradox will fail either for reasons given by Thorne and Novikov or by David Deutsch.
May 03

## Report from London May 3, 2014 High Energy Black Hole Hawking Radiation

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Hawking radiation, Dark Energy, Black Hole

On May 3, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Paul Zelinsky <yksnilez@gmail.com> wrote:

Z: "What observational confirmations are available for plain vanilla Hawking radiation, as predicted by Hawking? Or is that too only a "matter of principle" at this stage?"

JS: None in practise for direct detection on Earth, but it's Popper falsifiable in principle.

f = c/A^1/2

Flux = hc^2/A^2

In contrast we predict a second signal

f' = c/(A^1/2L)^1/2

Flux' = hc^2/L^2A

A = area of horizon where

g00 = 0 in static LNIF exterior coordinates for Schwarzschild black hole

Z "According to my information there is as yet no generally accepted empirical confirmation of the existence of any form of BH radiation, let alone data that would allow us to discriminate between Hawking's predictions and yours."

JS: Our prediction is much higher frequency and flux.

Z: "The theoretical framework for the prediction of Hawking-type radiation is only semi-classical (QFT in curved spacetime). How much confidence should we invest in such predictions?"

JS: The whole point is that our model may be falsifiable practically speaking with current technology Indeed it provides a model for dark energy if one throws off the heavy yoke of t Hooft's S Matrix unitarity that Seth Lloyd et al jump through hoops to preserve in a zero sum game in Matt Visser's "boring universe" grim scenario of magic without magick. The miracle of unitarity requires unnatural fine tuning in Seth Lloyd's recent attempt to eliminate firewalled horizons.

Z: "And how do we measure BH lifetimes? I can see that accelerated BH evaporation would be much more significant for small BHs, but the
existence of small black holes in nature is little more than speculation at this point. Maybe the next generation of particle colliders will enable their production in the lab? Even so, I think the suggestion that your additional "A coefficient" contribution to such radiation for a cosmological horizon tracks the currently postulated dark energy contribution to / is interesting."

On 5/3/2014 2:05 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
only a matter of technology

e.g. detection of low flux of 10^21 Hz GRAVITONS from black hole at center of our galaxy for example.

So far Kip Thorne et-al have not succeeded in low freq range.

obviously what we predict is Popper falsifiable IN PRINCIPLE - we predict frequencies and fluxes and type of quanta, gravitons, photons - Sinziana is making detailed tables. If you want to do something useful play with graphic plots of our new prediction for black hole evaporation lifetimes for actual numerical values of the parameters a, b, M, L below where

L = 10^-33 cm gravitons from virtual Planck mass blackhole “quantum foam", 10 ^- 11 cm photons from virtual electron-positron pairs, perhaps 10^-16 cm etc.

On May 2, 2014, at 11:34 PM, Paul Zelinsky <yksnilez@gmail.com> wrote:

Why wouldn't it be detectable? Is this a falsifiable prediction, or not?

On 5/2/2014 1:39 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
obviously if black holes evaporate much faster than everyone thinks and emit high energy quanta in doing so, it’s obviously important and may be directly detectable