Text Size

Apr 22

## Report from London: My prediction of a second high frequency Hawking radiation signal

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Unruh effect, Hawking radiation, de Sitter horizon, Dark Energy, Black Hole

Jack Sarfatti proper acceleration in a static coordinate metric

ds^2 = gttdt^2 - grrdr^2 - r^2(spherical coordinate metric)

is

g(r) ~ gtt^-1/2d(g00/dr)

the two metrics of interest are

gtt = 1 - A^1/2/r black hole of area entropy A

we at r ---> infinity outside black hole

gtt = 1 - r'^2/A de Sitter horizon

we at r' = 0

inside cosmological horizon

use

1 + z = femit/fobserve f = frequency

1 + z = [gtt(observe)gtt(emit)]^1/2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Quantum gravity says horizons gtt = 0 are really Lp thick.

so for both metrics above using

r = A^1/2 + Lp for black hole

&

r' = A^1/2 - Lp

get same factors (Lp/A^1/2)^1/2 redshift of radiation emitted from A

(A^1/2/Lp)^1/2 blue shift of radiation falling into A.

Now the Hawking black hole radiation temperature at A is

T ~ h(A^1/2/Lp)c^2/cA^1/2kB ~ hc/kB(LpA^1/2)^1/2

and this redshifts down to hc/A^1/2kB ~ Newtonian horizon surface gravity just as Hawking says.

In contrast, for the new quantum gravity radial oscillations of the thickness of the horizon

T' ~ hc/LpkB

which redshifts down to us to T' ~ hc/kB(LpA^1/2)^1/2

by Stephan Boltzman T^4 law

this gives hc/Lp^2A

both for anomalous w = +1/3 radiation from black holes whose horizon is not observer dependent

& also dark energy density from future horizon which looks like w = -1 virtual photon vacuum energy peaked at c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 frequency whose horizon is observer dependent.

We need to use John Cramer's TI here.

en.wikipedia.orgIn physics (especially astrophysics), redshift happens when light seen coming from an object that is moving away is proportionally increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. More generally, when an observer detects electromagnetic radiation outside the visible spectrum, "red...

Apr 12

## Strange behavior of light on rotating horizons of black holes

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: rotating black holes

On Apr 19, 2013, at 4:39 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

Special relativity is 10-parameter Poincare group P10 covariance of local field equations (invariant action S) + Global  Inertial Frame (GIF) invariance of physical speed of light in vacuum.

P10 = T4 * SO1,3

* = semi-direct product

General relativity is 6- parameter Lorentz subgroup SO1,3 of Poincare group covariance of local field equations (invariant action S) + Local  Inertial Frame (LIF) invariance of physical speed of light in vacuum.

The latter is the Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP) in a formal form.

In addition, there is a new group of local general coordinate transformations that is the global translation group T4 locally gauged to T4(x) with the new gravity field as a local gauge field.

ds^2 is still locally invariant under both groups T4(x) & SO1,3

For the most general Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF)

ds^2 = g00c^2dt^2 + g0icdtdx^i + gijdx^idx^j

Now in the special case of light rays - classical null geodesics, no quantum theory yet

ds^2 = 0

Therefore,

0 = g00c^2dt^2 + g0icdtdx^i + gijdx^idx^j

0 = 1 +  g0icdtdx^i/ g00c^2dt^2 +  gijdx^idx^j/g00c^2dt^2
0 = 1 +  g0idx^i/ g00cdt+  gijdx^/dtidx^j/dt/g00c^2

define V^i = dx^i/dt = coordinate speed component of light ray in the LNIF

define Ray Chiao's gravi-magnetic 3-vector field

Bi = g0i

0 = 1 + B.V/cg00 + V^2/c^2g00

V = 3-vector coordinate velocity of light measured in the LNIF

The physical velocity 3-vector of light in the LNIF is

c' = V/g00^1/2

So when either B = 0 or B.V = 0, the physical speed of light in the LNIF is the same as in the coincident LIF (vacuum case only)

In general this simple quadratic equation has two roots c'+ & c'-, which in the special case of a rotating Sagnac interferometer gives the fringe shift
The Sagnac effect (also called Sagnac interference), named after French physicist Georges Sagnac, is a phenomenon encountered in interferometry that is elicited by rotation. The Sagnac effect manifests itself in a setup called a ring interferometer. A beam of light is split and the two beams are made to follow the same path but in opposite directions. To act as a ring the trajectory must enclose an area. On return to the point of entry the two light beams are allowed to exit the ring and undergo interference. The relative phases of the two exiting beams, and thus the position of the interference fringes, are shifted according to the angular velocity of the apparatus. This arrangement is also called a Sagnac interferometer  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

0 = 1 + B.c'/cg00^1/2 + c'^2/c^2

define x = |c'/c|

Therefore

x^2  + Bcos@x/g00^1/2 + 1 = 0

2x+,- = (-Bcos@x/2g00^1/2 +,- [B^2cos^2@/g00 - 4]^1/2)

Note, the very bizarre behavior at a horizon g00 --> 0, where the constant "4" term is ignorable

one root for the physical speed of light converges to zero, but the other diverges to infinity (classical limit) when cos@ =/= 0

On Apr 18, 2013, at 7:57 PM, Paul Zielinski <paulz@fuzzychip.com> wrote:

If the physical speed of light propagating through the vacuum depends on acceleration or rotation of the observer's reference  frame, then it follows that in the absence of a light medium, the relativity principle of 1905 SR doesn't generalize to accelerating  frames.

If the physical speed of light depends on physical acceleration or rotation of the source, then the light principle of 1905  SR doesn't generalize to non-inertial motion.

Either way, if you're right, the Sagnac experiment would appear to block generalization of Einstein's two principles as stated  in his 1905 relativity paper. Which means that the ability to generalize application of these two principles does not discriminate between the Einstein and Poincare versions of "special" relativity.

The difference between Poincaré and Einstein with regard to the ether was not a dispute about whether redundant elements  should be eliminated from physical theories; it was a dispute about whether a light medium was truly redundant. Poincaré, the conventionalist, stated quite clearly well before 1905 that once it was determined that the "hypothesis" of an ether was no longer  useful to physics, it should be abandoned. His position in 1905 however was that it was still theoretically useful, and not  "superfluous" as Einstein argued.

The existence of a light medium in the context of the wave theory of light not only ensures automatic satisfaction of the relativity  principle, but also *explains* why the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. For Einstein this was simply a  postulate, assumed as a premise with no physical justification. This alone suggests that Poincaré was right not to regard the idea of a light medium as "superfluous".

Also, the Poincaré-Lorentz ether was not a material ether. The only essential properties attributed to it were (1) it serves as a  physical medium for light propagation; and (2) it defines a preferred inertial frame wrt which inertial clock retardation is an objective physical phenomenon, as opposed to being an observer-dependent kinematical artifact according to Einstein 1905.

Point (1) alone shows that notwithstanding Einstein's clever "Machian" 1905 argument for the relativity of simultaneity, Poincaré's ether was not at all "superfluous" once the comparative explanatory powers of the theories are taken into account.

Thus it is no mystery as to why Einstein later changed his position on the ether to the point where it became almost indistinguishablefrom Poincaré's, once he had discarded his Machian blinders.

I think it's interesting that Smolin, who wrote a book titled "The Trouble With Physics", is to all appearances unaware of this reality.

On 4/18/2013 5:39 AM, Jackpacbell wrote:
The physical speed of light depends on g0idx^i/cg00dt There are two roots for c solving a quadratic equation for ds^2 = 0

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 18, 2013, at 7:11 AM, Paul Zelinsky f <paulz@fuzzychip.com> wrote:

In any case, doesn't the Sagnac effect invalidate the light principle, which says that the speed of light is independent of the state of motion of the emitter?

On 4/17/2013 11:07 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Do you distinguish between geometric g_0i =/= 0 and coordinate g_0i =/= 0?

On 4/17/2013 10:35 PM, Jackpacbell wrote:
Speed of light depends on g0i
In Sagnac effect

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 18, 2013, at 4:19 AM, Paul Zielinski <paulz@fuzzychip.com> wrote:

Jack, if the theory is generally covariant then the physics can't depend on rotation of the reference frame. The Sagnac  effect can only be due to *physical* rotation of the sources wrt the vacuum, caused by geometric g_0i =/= 0. So this  doesn't have any impact on my argument below.

On 4/17/2013 5:01 PM, Jackpacbell wrote:
What Z says is wrong because of the Sagnac effect

Speed of light can depend on the acceleration of the frame from g0i terms

In GR the *coordinate* speed of light is not necessarily the same as the actual physical speed of light. Only the coordinate  speed depends on frame acceleration.

For example, the Rindler horizon is a coordinate singularity, not a geometric inflection boundary. It is a coordinate artifact in globally flat Minkowski spacetime.

Wrong - the Rindler horizon is physical for the LNIF Rindler observer, who sees Hawking black body radiation from it. Of course it's not there for the coincident LIF geodesic observer. Basically this is group theory The field equations must be covariant under different groups & for SO1,3 c is invariant in vacuum

The GR field equations and the spacetime metric are generally covariant. Which means the objective physics does not depend  on the choice of coordinates. Neither does it depend on the choice of Galilean vs. Lorentzian coordinate frame transformations.

In GR the objective physics is determined entirely by the locally Lorentzian property of the metric.

Isn't that obvious?

It's more complicated for propagation of light in media c/n
Of course interacting fields matter + light is Lorentz covariant but not if you integrate out matter This breaks Lorentz symmetry in the partial description of light alone

You are not making the necessary distinctions between geometric Lorentz symmetry and Lorentzian coordinate invariance.

The physics is determined by the Lorentzian property of the metric, not by coordinate invariance. This should be obvious given the general covariance of the theory.

See landau & lifshitz electrodynamics of continuous media.

e.g., in a Bose Einstein condensate u can make c/n -> 0

But this is all premised on Einstein kinematics. I'm talking about a very different model with Galilean kinematics, and objective clock retardation accounted for by the locally Lorentzian character of the metric. That this works is guaranteed by the general
covariance of the theory and the tensor character of the Riemann metric.

That won't work.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 18, 2013, at 12:37 AM, Tam Hunt <tam@communityrenewables.biz> wrote:

Paul, that's my feeling too, as should be clear from my interview questions and my articles that I link to in the interview.
That said, I think Smolin is being smart in how he approaches this needed paradigm shift - pushing a bit but not too hard to alienate people. Time will tell if his approach is right.
I'm curious, Paul, if you have a list of attempts to generalize Lorentzian or Poincarean relativity? I know only of Reg Cahill's process physics as a generalization of Lorentzian relativity (neo-Lorentzian), but I'm sure there are others.
Tam Hunt, J.D.
Community Renewable Solutions, LLC
(805) 214-6150
Fax: (805) 456-7760
Check out our new "Solar Broker" service

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Paul Zelinsky <paulz@fuzzychip.com> wrote:
In case there is any doubt that this myth is still alive an well, here's Smolin:

"The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from  the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well."

Smolin clearly states that the the Lorentz coordinate frame transformations and thus the relativity of simultaneity of 1905 Einstein SR are a logical consequence of Einstein's two postulates, the light principle and the inertial relativity principle.  He also indicates that the relativity of simultaneity is somehow confirmed by empirical observations.

These are both red herrings.

The light principle is a natural feature of any wave theory of light propagating in a physical medium. It is Einstein who had to pull the light principle out of thin air as a postulate, not the ether theorists. In contrast, the light principle has no natural explanation in Einstein's 1905 version of "special" relativity.

The relativity principle is automatically satisfied by any wave theory of light propagating through a medium, since the speed of propagation relative to the medium is automatically invariant under changes in any observer's frame of reference, whether inertial or non-inertial. And even if the state of inertial motion of the medium itself changes, this will not affect the  speed of propagation of light with respect to the medium.

Finally, a theory of relativity such as Poincare's, which assumes a preferred inertial frame and absolute kinematical simultaneity, can also be formulated in a Minkowski spacetime with Lorentzian metric using Galilean coordinate frames, and yields exactly the same empirical predictions as Einstein's 1905 theory.

So from my POV Smolin, while he is quite critical of the current state of theoretical physics, doesn't go nearly far enough.

On 4/17/2013 11:46 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
I found Smolin's responses on SR and the invariance of the speed of light to be somewhat disappointing. I think
they understate the case.

According to Einstein's 1905 relativity paper the basis for the invariance of the speed of light was supposed to be

(1) The independence of the speed of light from the speed of the emitter;

(2) The relativity principle, which as stated by Einstein requires that the laws of electrodynamics be invariant under
changes in the observer's inertial frame of reference.

Few realize that both conditions (1) and (2) are automatically satisfied in a wave theory of light propagating through a medium (since the pertinent laws are formulated with reference to the speed of propagation wrt the medium). Not only that, but the light principle (1) is a natural feature of that model, whereas in Einstein's theory it comes out of nowhere and is simply presented as a postulate.
In other words, one has to *assume* that there is no light medium in order for (1) and (2) to present a problem to begin with. Einstein tacitly assumes that there is no light medium, resolves the resulting apparent inconsistency of (1) and (2) by abandoning objective kinematical simultaneity in favor of Lorentzian kinematical transformations, and then declares that there is thus *no need* for any reference to a light medium in his theory (which is correct).

Of course an unreconstructed Machian would immediately conclude based on this "redundancy" that the hypothesis of a light medium is *ips

Apr 12

## Report from London April 12, 2013 on the second Hawking signal from black holes

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Stephen Hawking, black holes

On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:22 AM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

I agree that 'no mysticism' need be involved in explaining results of measurements, and that (to put it charitably)  Wheeler's contributions to physics were far greater than his contributions to philosophy of physics.

I address these foundational matters in my new book on PTI. Bohm's theory may seem to provide a handy way to solve the measurement problem, however it encounters some serious challenges at the relativistic level.  It has also been argued by Harvey Brown and David Wallace (2005) that even at the nonrelativistic level there are problems with the idea that a Bohmian corpuscle can give you a measurement result (ref. on request).

On the other hand  TI (extended in terms of PTI) finds its strongest expression at the relativistic level, in that one has to take absorption into account in the relativistic domain in any case, and absorption is the key overlooked aspect according to TI. In fact I argue that the measurement problem remains unsolved in the competing 'mainstream' nonrelativistic interpretations because they neglect the creation and annihilation of quanta. Emission is action by creation operators, and absorption is action by annihilation operators. You can get a definitive end to the measurement process by taking absorption (aka annihilation) into account. This happens way before the macroscopic level (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5227, section 5) so that you don't get the usual infinite regress of entanglement of macroscopic objects which is the measurement problem.

RK

I agree about the importance of including both creation and destruction in a time loop, but I don't see off-hand that is a problem for Bohm's theory.

Indeed, in my debate with Jim Woodward on dark energy density hc/Lp^2A as redshifted advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking radiation from our detector dependent future de Sitter horizon where the Hawking radiation density is hc/Lp^4 - the TI loop in time means that we must use the static LNIF representation of the metric for the virtual electron-positron pairs stuck at r = A^1/2 - Lp relative to the detector at r = 0 where

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

giving 1 + zstaticLNIF ~ (A^1/2/Lp)^1/2 = femit/fdetect

not the usual FRW metric where gtt = 1 and there is no horizon - that works for co-moving absorbers that will see the effect of expanding space for retarded radiation from us &  1 + zcomovingLIF = anow/athen

The static LNIF redshift factor for advanced radiation source frequency c/Lp from the future horizon back to our past detector is ~ (Lp/A^1/2)^1/2.

Even for retarded black body radiation reaching us from a past black hole horizon with Hawking's original redshifted peak frequency c/A^1/2, there should be a second peak signal at c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 from radial oscillations of the horizon. Hawking's signal is from surface mode vibrations of the horizon.

Apr 11

## Report from London 9:00AM April 11, 2013 Hawking radiation & Higgs Mechanism Analogy

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Higgs field, Hawking radiation, black holes
##### Jack Sarfatti
New idea hit me last night 3AM London time on jet lag.
• Jack Sarfatti Hawking's low freq radiation are analogous to Goldstone modes, my new high freq horizon signal is like a Higgs signal.
• Jack Sarfatti On jet-lag in London from SFO

Hawking radiation peak frequency is c/A^1/2

A = area entropy of 2D horizon gtt = 0.

Think of horizon as spherical membrane of thickness Lp.

So c/A^1/2 are the theta, phi phase waves in an effective order parameter potential V(r, theta, phi).

As A ---> infinity the frequency ---> 0 - massless Goldstone mode.

However, the Higgs mode I predict is in the radial vibrations peak frequency c/Lp gets red shifted by (Lp/A^1/2)^1/2 < 1 at the detector to peak frequency

c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 > c/A^1/2

In limit A ---> infinity both modes are gapless, but as soon as A is finite the Higgsian type mode splits off a higher frequency branch.

Not sure how far this analogy goes, but I want to record it just in case.
Apr 01

## I predict a second high energy Hawking signal from black holes

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Stephen Hawking, Dark Energy, black holes
1. Jack recommends The Internet is a surveil... on CNN.
2. ##### Jack Sarfatti
I predict a new high energy signal from the event horizons of black holes in addition to the low energy signal predicted by Stephen Hawking.
• Jack Sarfatti Thorizon ~ hc/rskB

R. Buosso Adventures in de Sitter Space

The proper acceleration of virtual particles stuck in the horizon of Planck length thickness Lp and area-entropy A is

g ~ gtt^-1/2dgtt/dr

However, the retarded radiation gravity redshift factor from a past black hole is calculated from

Gravitational redshift any stationary spacetime (e.g. the Schwarzschild geometry)
(for the Schwarzschild geometry,

The receiver is always at r ---> infinity, therefore, gtt(receiver) = 1

Hence,

fobsv/femit = (1 + z)^-1 ---> gtt(source)^1/2 = (1 - 2GM/c^2rsource)^1/2

Therefore, the gtt^1/2 factors cancel in numerator and denominator and the resulting Hawking-Unruh-Bekenstein (HRB) temperature (peak frequency) of the blackbody signal is simply proportional to the Newtonian event horizon surface gravity acceleration c^2/rs (the IR

rs ~ GM/c^2

Computing this in more detail, we must use for the virtual particle radiators stuck to the gtt = 0 horizon source

rsource ~ rs + Lp

Lp/rs << 1

gtt^1/2 ~ [1 -rs/(rs + Lp)]^1/2 ~ [1 - 1/(1 + Lp/rs)]^1/2

~ (Lp/rs)^1/2 << 1 = gravity red shift factor

Now, what Hawking et-al predict are the LOW ENERGY IR surface eigen-modes from ripples in the event horizon area.

There, should also be HIGH ENERGY UV radial eigen-modes of fundamental frequency c/Lp from the horizon.

These also get redshifted down to our detectors to peak signal frequency c/(Lprs)^1/2

i.e. wavelength = geometric mean of Planck scale with horizon scale.

When we apply this to back from the future advanced radiation from our future de Sitter horizon, we get exactly the observed dark energy density hc/Lp^2A

However, let's look at retarded radiation from black holes in our past light cone.

a solar mass black hole is ~ 3km ~ 10^5 cm

Lprs ~ 10^-33x10^5 ~ 10^-28 cm^2

The geometric mean wavelength is ~ 10^-14 cm

i.e. signal frequency ~ 10^24 Hz

What about a super-massive black hole?
for 10^10 solar masses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole

10^-33 x 10^15 ~ 10^-18 cm^2

i.e. wavelength ~ 10^-9 cm

signal frequency ~ 10^19 Hz GAMMA RAY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray

However, this radiation should not be usually in burst form, but should be a steady signal.

For the universe as a whole, i.e. our future cosmic event horizon in the causal diamond

Lprs ~ 10^-33 x 10^29 ~ 10^-4 cm^2

i.e. advanced Wheeler-Feynman dark energy peak signal frequency ~ 10^14 Hz.

visible light is 10^15 Hz
en.wikipedia.org
The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object is compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object smalle...
Apr 01

## Ray Chiao's gravity wave laser and JASON (DOD) HFGW General Atomic's Meeting 6/08

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Ray Chiao, JASON Dept of Defense, Gravity Waves

It looks like the stodgy JASONS were wrong in their conclusion. They never even considered Ray Chiao's work. Lack of due diligence. When I mentioned Ray Chiao's papers at that meeting I was greeted with blank stares. Similarly, when I mentioned UFOs at the DARPA-NASA Starship meeting in Orlando Oct 1 - 2 ,2011.

[PDF] High Frequency Gravitational Waves - Federation of American ...
www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/gravwaves.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
both the underlying science and technology of HFGW, and their implications for national security. JASON hosted briefings during June 17-18, 2008 from ...
Our Final Hour Martin Rees - tampering with the Higgs field.
stardrive.org/.../3597-Our-Final-Hour-Martin-Rees---...

by Jack Sarfatti - in 30 Google+ circles - More by Jack Sarfatti
Mar 13, 2011 – PS, I got the idea to use meta-materials from the Project JASON meeting on HFGW I attended at General Atomics in La Jolla June 2008 I think it ...
Jack Sarfatti
www.stardrive.org/stardrive/index.../March-2012/?...
Mar 14, 2011 – PS, I got the idea to use meta-materials from the Project JASON meeting on HFGW I attended at General Atomics in La Jolla June 2008 I think it ...
High Frequency Gravitational Waves
www.scribd.com › Research › Science
High Frequency Gravitational Waves - download or read online. ... L. brieﬁng to JASON on June 17. 2008.V. [15] G.[12] Robert M. [13] Dietrich ... S. DC 20505- 0001JASON Library [5] The MITRE Corporation 3550 General Atomics Court ...
Fwd: JASON, Ray Chiao, Metamaterials & Metric Engineering - Yahoo!
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SarfattiScienceSeminars/.../150...
Jan 21, 2010 – Fwd: JASON, Ray Chiao, Metamaterials & Metric Engineering, < Prev Next > ... the science of HFGW are fundamentally wrong; that there can be no security threat ... I attended the above session at General Atomics June 2008.
Re: JASON, Ray Chiao, Metamaterials & Metric Engineering - Yahoo!
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SarfattiScienceSeminars/.../150...
Jan 21, 2010 – Re: JASON, Ray Chiao, Metamaterials & Metric Engineering, < Prev Next > ... and national security significance of high frequency gravitational waves(HFGW). ... I attended the above session at General Atomics June 2008.
4 The gravitational dynamical Casimir effect, and the generation

In this final section, we speculate that the above ideas can be extended to include the case of gravitational
radiation. The physical concept that ties all these ideas together is the crucial use of the DeWitt minimal
coupling rule in all of them.

In particular, we briefly comment on the possibility of extending the “separated parametric oscillator”
idea for generating EM microwaves by means of the vibrating SC membrane placed inside the extremely
high Q “triple” SC cavity, as depicted in Figure 4, to the much more speculative idea of generating GR
microwaves using the same vibrating SC membrane inside the same “triple” SC cavity. This extension
is based on the fact that the interaction Hamiltonian Hhh in (39) is mathematically identical to that
of the interaction Hamiltonian HAA in (38). Furthermore, we are assuming that it is permissible for
gravitational radiation fields to be second quantized (see (42)).

However, for this extension of the parametric oscillator idea to work, it is crucial that the walls
SC cavity, including the surfaces of the moving SC membrane, reflect GR microwaves with as high a
reflectivity as in the case of EM microwaves. In the paper “Do mirrors for gravitational waves exist?”
[33], it was predicted that even thin SC films are highly reflective mirrors for GR plane waves. This
surprising prediction was based on the DeWitt minimal coupling rule (20) applied to the Ginzburg-
Landau theory of superconductivity. The “off-diagonal long-range order” (ODLRO) [34] nature of the
Cooper pairs causes these pairs to behave differently from the ions in the ionic lattice, for which ODLRO
does not exist. As a result, inside the SC thin film, the Cooper pairs, which exhibit constructive AB
interference, do not undergo geodesic motion, in contrast to the ions, which do undergo geodesic motion,
in response to incident GR radiation. This difference in the internal motions of the Cooper pairs and of
the ions inside the SC in the presence of GR radiation, leads to a charge separation effect induced by an
incoming GR plane wave, such that a huge back-action of the SC film on the GR wave that causes its
reflection, results.

If such SC mirrors for GR waves were indeed to exist in Nature, then moving SC mirrors would not
only be able to do work like a piston on these waves, but would also simultaneously lead to a Doppler
effect that leads to the exponential amplification of these waves above the threshold for parametric oscillation,
as explained above. Thus, a laser-like generation of coherent GR waves starting from vacuum
fluctuations should become possible. If so, a Hertz-like experiment for GR radiation at microwave frequencies
[15] would become feasible to perform.

On Apr 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Thanks
I am always interested in what Ray Chiao is doing.

On Apr 1, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Gary S Bekkum <garysbekkum@gmail.com> wrote:

A thought experiment is proposed to demonstrate the existence of a gravitational, vector Aharonov-Bohm effect. A connection is made between the gravitational, vector Aharonov-Bohm effect and the principle of local gauge invariance for nonrelativistic quantum matter interacting with weak gravitational fields. The compensating vector fields that are necessitated by this local gauge principle are shown to be incorporated by the DeWitt minimal coupling rule. The nonrelativistic Hamiltonian for weak, time-independent fields interacting with quantum matter is then extended to time-dependent fields, and applied to problem of the interaction of radiation with macroscopically coherent quantum systems, including the problem of gravitational radiation interacting with superconductors. But first we examine the interaction of EM radiation with superconductors in a parametric oscillator consisting of a superconducting wire placed at the center of a high Q superconducting cavity driven by pump microwaves. We find that the threshold for parametric oscillation for EM microwave generation is much lower for the separated configuration than the unseparated one, which then leads to an observable dynamical Casimir effect. We speculate that a separated parametric oscillator for generating coherent GR microwaves could also be built.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.4270v3

-- Gary S. Bekkum
STARstream Research
STARpod.org
STARpod.us
P.O. Box 385207
Bloomington, MN 55438
Mobile VM (763) 439-0719

garybekkum@yahoo.com
garysbekkum@gmail.com

Mar 29

## Back From The Future Dark Energy?, Red Shift? Blue Shift? Updated 30 March, 2013 V4

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Dark Energy
• Jack Sarfatti Addressing some of Jim Woodward's key objections. (some key equation jpgs from original missing here - too lazy now to put them in)

Let's work some elementary toy models.

the proper acceleration is

g ~ gtt^-1/2dgtt/dr

1) gtt = 1 - rs/r

rs/r < 1

Let the source be at r ---> infinity, therefore gtt(source) ~ 1

1 + z = (1 - rs/r)^1/2 < 1 BLUE SHIFT

Both retarded and advanced radiation will seem to work in exactly the same way because the static metric is time symmetric.

Homework problem 1
Reverse roles of source and detector to get a red shift.

2) simple de Sitter space. Note our future universe approaches this metric, our past universe is not at all de Sitter. You cannot model our past particle horizon with a de Sitter metric in our early universe.

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

this is observer-dependent.

The detector INSIDE the horizon is at r = 0 where gtt = 1

Let, the emitter be near the horizon a distance Lp from it as in Lenny Susskind's stretched membrane model

First of all now we see we have a red shift because for all r

1 + z = (1 - r^2/A)^-1/2 > 1

In particular, for the stretched membrane

r ~ A^1/2 - Lp

1 + z = (1 - (A - 2A^1/2Lp + Lp^2)/A)^-1/2

where Lp^2/A << 1

1 + z ~ + (Lp/A^1/2)^-1/2 = (A^1/2/Lp)^1/2 = femit/fobsv >> 1

Suppose further that

femit = c/Lp

Therefore,

fobsv = femit(Lp/A^1/2)^1/2 = (c/Lp)(Lp/A^1/2)^1/2 = c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2

i.e. c/(Geometric mean of shortest and longest length scales)

This red shift is for retarded radiation from a past de Sitter horizon and/or

However, we do not have a past de Sitter horizon.

The Unruh temperature for c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 via Stefan-Boltzmann law gives precisely the observed dark energy density hc/Lp^2A.

However, to get w = -1 ZPF at r = 0 and to fit the facts, this must be advanced red shifted Wheeler-Feynman Hawking-Unruh radiation of energy density hc/Lp^4 on our future horizon.

Jim Woodward's blue shift is a different concurrent effect from

This will be a relatively small co-moving cosmological blue shift subtraction from the dominant acceleration = gravity (EEP) red shift.

Note that as is intuitively obvious from Tamara Davis's horizon diagram below

(A^1/2/Lp)^1/2 ~ (10^29/10^-33)^1/2 ~ 10^31 >> anow/athen

That is, there is no way a cosmological blue shift of the advanced radiation can over power this huge gravity red shift on the stretched horizon.

There are several causes of frequency shift, cosmological, peculiar velocity, gravity-acceleration.

In the case of retarded radiation from us in the accelerating actual universe, the cosmological redshift would be super-imposed on the acceleration blue shift for the static LNIF. The latter will dominate because of gtt^-1/2 --> infinity classically at our future horizon's intersection with the emitter's future light cone that happens at a finite-comoving distance.

Also if you look at Hawking's paper and compare it with Tamara Davis's diagram, it's obvious that no retarded radiation can ever reach us from our future dark energy horizon. Yet, Hawking says we can see horizon radiation. Therefore, it would follow that the horizon radiation we see is net advanced Wheeler-Feynman radiation.
1. Friends
See All
• Burton Lee
• Richard Lubbock
• Tenzin Gyeltsen
• Philip Noicon Move
• Joseph Nechvatal
• Stewart Swerdlow
• Jonathan Vos Post
• Usman Zaheer

##### Jack Sarfatti
Red Shift? Blue Shift? Both?
Jack Sarfatti Not sure of this yet

Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

Subject: the redshift or blueshift depends on the total experimental arrangement.
Date: March 28, 2013 5:19:43 PM PDT
To: "PhysicsFellows-request@mail.softcafe.net" <PhysicsFellows-request@mail.softcafe.net>
Bcc: james Woodward <jfwoodward@juno.com>

Jim

Bottom line, is that it looks like there are two competing effects for the advanced waves.

I. Your dynamic co-moving LIF back-from-the-future blue shift

II. My static LNIF advanced red shift.

with II >> I

For the co-moving metric detectors
1 + z = femit/fobs definition.

1 + z = anow/athen derivation from the co-moving metric for null geodesics

k = 0

1) retarded spherical waves of positive frequency in an expanding universe

Therefore, then = emit be in our past.

now = obsv

1 + zret = anow/athen

1 + zret = > 1 retarded co-moving LIF red shift

2) advanced spherical waves of positive frequency in an expanding universe coming back from the future to now from a co-moving emitter to a co-moving receiver

1 + zadv = femit/fobs = anow/athen < 1 advanced co-moving LIF blue shift

Which was what you said.

The situation is different for static LNIF detectors in which the far future metric in de Sitter space for our accelerating dark energy universe is

ds^2 ~ -c^2(1 - r^2/A)dt^2 + (1 - r^2/A)^-1dr^2 + ...

we are at r = 0 and the proper acceleration of the detector at fixed r is

g(r) ~ g00^-1/2dg00/dr

g00 ~ 1 - r^2/A

g(future horizon) -> infinity classically

in fact it's large and finite c^2/Lp ~ 10^54 cm/sec^2 from the Planck cut off

Now in fact the virtual electron positron pairs are stuck on this horizon relative to us at r = 0. They have plenty of energy from their local thermal bath of Unruh photons to become real pairs relative to us.

They will Hawking radiate advanced waves to us from r = A^-1/2 to us at r = 0 at their local temperature of

T = hg/ckB = hc/LpkB

Now use the time symmetric static LNIF redshift formula starting from r = A^1/2 - Lp emission to r = 0 US reception.

The redshifted result is

T' = hc/(LpA^1/2)^1/2

Using the Stefan Boltzmann law this is an energy density ~ T'^4, i.e. hc/Lp^2A exactly as observed for the dark energy density.

Since we at r = 0 have zero proper acceleration, we see this energy as w = -1 virtual photons of mean frequency c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 rather than the w = + 1/3 real photons.

So we have TWO effects simultaneously.

Yes, there will I think be a small LIF blue shift correction to the much larger static LNIF advanced redshift.

1 + zadv = femit/fobsv = anow/athen < 1 advanced co-moving LIF blue shift
However, anow/athen is of order unity, i.e. 46/55. You can see we are at about 46 billion light years from Alpha creation in Penrose conformal time. Our future light cone intersects our future event horizon at roughly 55 billion light years. We have to look at the de Sitter metric in conformal time and then do a calculation of the usual anow/athen. I need to check this more carefully of course. Right now I assumed that a(t) is linear in Penrose conformal time, but this may be mistaken.
Mar 27

## Fifth FQXi Essay Contest: It From Bit, or Bit From It? updated V2

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Templeton, Quantum Information Theory, John Archibald Wheeler, Horizon, FQXi
•
1. ##### Jack Sarfatti
• Fifth FQXi Essay Contest: It From Bit, or Bit From It?
lnkd.in
The Fifth essay contest from the Foundational Questions Institute is now underway. The topic is about whether information is more fundamental than material objects. The subject is similar to the co...
• Jack Sarfatti IT FROM BIT + BIT FROM IT = Conscious Universe as a John Archibald Wheeler Self-Excited Self-Organizing Circuit.
• Jack Sarfatti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
en.wikipedia.org
John Archibald Wheeler (July 9, 1911 – April 13, 2008) was an Americantheoretica...See More
• Jack Sarfatti Michael Towler wrote about my theory: "Living matter and back-action
In certain dark corners of the internet, can find speculation of the following nature:
• Propose the wave function/pilot wave is intrinsically ‘mental’ and capable of qualia.
• Equate
the pilot wave with the mental aspect of the universe, generally: the
particles are ‘matter’, and ‘mind’ the pilot wave.
OK, who cares, except..
• ‘Mental’ aspect of universe upgradeable to life/consciousness by self-organization.
Happens when a physical system uses its own nonlocality in its organization.
• In this case a feedback loop is created, as follows: system configures itself so as to
set up its own pilot wave, which in turn directly affects its physical configuration,
which then affects its non-local pilot wave, which affects the configuration etc..
• Normally in QM this ‘back-action’ is not taken into account. The wave guides
the particles but back-action of particle onto wave not systematically calculated.
Of course, the back-action is physically real since particle movement determines
initial conditions for next round of calculation. But there is no systematic way to
characterize such feedback. One reason this works in practice is that for systems
that are not self-organizing the back-action may not exert any systematic effect.
Well, it’s not obviously wrong..!
[see p.346, Bohm and Hiley’s Undivided Universe).]
• Jack Sarfatti Towler continued: "Two-way traffic
Important to note that pilot-wave theory does not take into account any effect of
individual particle on its own quantum field (though Bohm and Hiley briefly sketch
some ideas about how this might happen, see e.g. Und
ivided Universe pp. 345-346).
• Idea that particles collectively affect quantum field of a single particle is contained in the standard
notion that shape of quantum field of a particle is determined by shape of environment (which
consists of many particles, and is part of the boundary conditions put into the Schr¨odinger equation
before solving it, even in conventional QM).
• Celebrity nutjob Jack Sarfatti (see e.g., er.. www.stardrive.org) in particular has emphasized
the need for an explanation of how the individual particle influences its own field and has proposed
mechanisms for such ‘back-action’, also emphasizing its importance in understanding the mindmatter
relationship and how consciousness arises (see earlier slide).
• Assuming that notion of such an influence of the particle on its field can be coherently developed,
we can then have two-way traffic between the mental and the physical levels without reducing one
to the other. Role of Bohm’s model of the quantum system then would be that it provides a kind of
prototype that defines a more general class of systems in which a field of information is connected
with a material body by a two-way relationship.
• Quantum theory is currently our most fundamental theory of matter and Bohm suggests that, when
ontologically interpreted, it reveals a proto-mental aspect of matter. This is the quantum field,
described mathematically by the wave function, which is governed by the Schr¨odinger equation.
Bohm’s suggestion is known as panprotopsychism.. so at least you learned a new word today..!"
stardrive.org
Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project

Jack Sarfatti You are 100% correct on this Chris.
However, I think the FX version will allow comments on their website. If that is really so, then you and others should post your comments on the submissions as well submit an essay. I will try to work on one myself -
though I will be in London, Paris, South of France etc. during April & May.

On Mar 27, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Chris Langan <cml325@gmail.com> wrote:

Of course, everyone is aware that SciAm and Templeton are markedly slanted in their approaches.
Speaking just for myself, past experience suggests that if one deviates in any way from their preferred viewpoints - respectively, atheistic physicalism and "humility theology", which essentially holds that theological truth is inaccessible and should be abandoned in favor of religious syncretism and mere "reconciliation" between science and religion - then one has approximately a snowball's chance in hell of winning the competition. (If your name has ever been mentioned by anyone at all in the same breath as, say, Intelligent Design, then your chances are somewhat worse.)
On the other hand, if one's ideas already fall within those guidelines, then one may do just fine.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
I think its same one as fx?

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 27, 2013, at 10:04 AM, David Mathes <davidmathes8@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jack

John Templeton Foundation sponsors an interesting essay contest that just opened up...closes in

http://fqxi.org/community/essay

Topical: The theme for this Essay Contest is: "It from Bit or Bit from It?"
The past century in fundamental physics has shown a steady progression away from thinking about physics, at its deepest level, as a description of material objects and their interactions, and towards physics as a description of the evolution of information about and in the physical world. Moreover, recent years have shown an explosion of interest at the nexus of physics and information, driven by the "information age" in which we live, and more importantly by developments in quantum information theory and computer science.

We must ask the question, though, is information truly fundamental or not?
Yes.
Can we realize John Wheeler’s dream,

Yes.
or is it unattainable?

No.
We ask: ”It From Bit or Bit From It?”

False dichotomy. It's both forming a creative self-organizing "self-excited circuit" of conscious intent.

Michael Towler brilliantly describes my proposal on this in his Lecture 8 http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

Possible topics or sub-questions include, but are not limited to:
What IS information?
That's an easy one: the Bohm quantum potential Q in particle mechanics and its generalization to field theory.

John Leslie reviews 'The Undivided Universe' by David Bohm ...
www.lrb.co.uk/v16/n09/john-leslie/the-absolute-now
The Absolute Now. John Leslie. The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory by David Bohm, translated by Basil Hiley Routledge ...
The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation ... - Amazon.ca
www.amazon.ca › ... › New & Used Textbooks › Humanities › Philosophy
In the The Undivided Universe, David Bohn and Basil Hiley present a ... Review. ' This is a brilliant book, of great depth and originality. Every physicist and ...
One must also look at the pixelated cosmological horizons both past and future in which their area-entropies A may be the projective hologram screens where

N = A/Lp^2 = A^3/2/L^3 ~ 10^123 asymptotically into the far future

L = 3D voxel scale (quantum of volume of the hologram image)

We are inside these past and future cosmological 2D anyonic topological computing horizons at the exact center always at each point along our world line.

Tamara Davis, Ph.D. Fig 1.1c http://dark.nbi.ku.dk/people/tamara/
What is its relation to “Reality”?

Depends what you mean by the word. If one means the totality of possible measurement patterns, then if one believes that the world is a quantum bit hologram image simulation, then matter is the hologram image projected both ways in time from our observer-dependent past particle and future de Sitter dark energy cosmological horizons inside the light speed limited "causal diamond" of our subjective observable universe.

The hardware hologram screens are the horizons where g00 = 0 in the static LNIF representation of the cosmological metric.

For example, for static LNIF observers with proper accelerations

g(r) ~ c^2g00^-1/2dg00/dr

g00 ~ 1 - r^2/A

where WE are always at r = 0

How does nature (the universe and the things therein) “store” and “process” information?
How does understanding information help us understand physics, and vice-versa?
(Note: While this topic is broad, successful essays will not use this breadth as an excuse to shoehorn in the author's pet topic, but will rather keep as their central focus the theme of whether information or “material” objects are more fundamental.)

Additionally, to be consonant with FQXi's scope and goals, essays should be primarily concerned with physics (mainly quantum physics, high energy 'fundamental' physics, and gravity), cosmology (mainly of the early universe), or closely related fields (such as astrophysics, astrobiology, biophysics, mathematics, complexity and emergence, and philosophy of physics), insofar as they bear directly on questions in physics or cosmology.
Foundational: This Contest is limited to works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.

Submission: Essays and accompanying material must be submitted online using the webform between the dates of March 25, 2013, and June 28, 2013 (until 11:59PM Eastern Time). Applicants must provide accurate contact information, an abstract of their essay, a brief biographical statement, and their essay.

D
Mar 27

## Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged
##### Jack Sarfatti
• Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong? Announcing the 4th Foundational Question...
lnkd.in
There's something unnerving about unifying physics. The two theories that need to be unified, quantum field theory and Einstein's general theory of relativity, are both highly successful. ...
• Jack Sarfatti One assumption that is wrong is the no-signaling arguments in quantum theory. They are of course correct for orthodox quantum theory of dead simple matter like we see in scattering experiments. This follows from the linearity of the Hermitian operators and the unitarity of the time evolution of the wave function. However, these assumptions are violated in complex open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium with spontaneous broken symmetries in the ground state that has an emergent order parameter. This order parameter is a giant quantum wave in ordinary space with an enormous number of integer spin "bosons" in the same single-particle micro-quantum state. This giant quantum wave is also a Glauber coherent state that corresponds to a non-Hermitian boson destruction operator. It's time evolution is not unitary and the dynamics is highly nonlinear. These macro-quantum coherent states can be entangled with each other and signal nonlocality without the need of a classical decryption key seems possible. Living matter is such a system. Experiments by Ben Libet, Dean Radin, Dick Bierman and Daryl Bem show a back-from-the-future presponse that can be explained as future to past entanglement signal nonlocality of distinguishable non-orthogonal Glauber coherent states. Memory can also be explained this way as past to future signal nonlocality.
Mar 09

## Causal Discovery Algorithms

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged

Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@PacBell.net>
Subject: [Starfleet Command] Re: Causal Discovery Algorithms - where to draw the line in the sand on the domain of validity of orthodox quantum no entanglement signaling
Date: March 9, 2013 12:47:28 PM PST
To: Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>

Right on the money
where to draw the line in the sand on the domain of validity of orthodox quantum no entanglement signaling postulate

"The deBroglie-Bohm interpretation is a prominent example
of a model that seeks to provide a causal explanation
of Bell correlations using superluminal causal influences.

Consider the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation of a
relativistic theory such as the model of QED provided by
Struyve and Westman [18], or else of a nonrelativistic theory
wherein the interaction Hamiltonians are such that
there is a maximum speed at which signals can propagate.
In both cases, it is presumed that there is a preferred rest
frame that is hidden at the operational level. In a Bell
experiment, if the measurement on the left wing occurs
prior to the measurement on the right wing relative to the
preferred rest frame, then there is a superluminal causal
influence from the setting on the left wing to the outcome
on the right wing, mediated by the quantum state,
which is considered to be a part of the ontology of the
theory [19]. (Note that no causal influence from the outcome
of the first experiment to the outcome of the second
is required because the outcomes are deterministic functions
of the Bohmian conguration and the wavefunction.)
It follows from our analysis that the parameters in
the causal model posited by the deBroglie-Bohm inter
pretation must be ne-tuned in order to explain the lack
of superluminal signalling.

Valentini's version of the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation
makes this fact particularly clear. In Refs. [20, 21]
he has noted that the wavefunction plays a dual role in
the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation. On the one hand,
it is part of the ontology, a pilot wave that dictates the
dynamics of the system's conguration (the positions of
the particles in the nonrelativistic theory). On the other
hand, the wavefunction has a statistical character, specifying
the distribution over the system's congurations.
In order to eliminate this dual role, Valentini suggests
that the wavefunction is only a pilot wave and that any
distribution over the configurations should be allowed as
the initial condition. It is argued that one can still recover
the standard distribution of congurations on a coarsegrained
scale as a result of dynamical evolution [22].

Within this approach, the no-signalling constraint is a
feature of a special equilibrium distribution. The tension
between Bell inequality violations and no-signalling
is resolved by abandoning the latter as a fundamental
feature of the world and asserting that it only holds as
a contingent feature. The fine-tuning is explained as the
consequence of equilibration. (It has also been noted in
the causal model literature that equilibration phenomena
might account for fine-tuning of causal parameters [23].)
Conversely, the version of the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation
espoused by Durr, Goldstein and Zhangi [24] {
which takes no-signalling to be a non-contingent feature
of the theory { does not seek to provide a dynamical explanation
of the fine-tuning. Consequently, it seems fair
to say that the fine-tuning required by the deBroglie-
Bohm interpretation is less objectionable in Valentini's
version of the theory."

On Mar 8, 2013, at 11:53 AM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 8, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

Jack, interpretations are generally not Popper falsifiable since they are empirically equivalent with the theory they're interpreting.

In the case of quantum theory, the main different interpretations

1) Copenhagen - epistemic

Asher Peres's as a sub-category?

2) Bohm ontologic

3) Aharonov history-destiny

4) Cramer transactions

5) Hartle consistent histories

6) variations on many-worlds (Tegmark's Level 3)

are degenerate as you say.

However, Antony Valentini has shown how Bohm's theory in particular breaks the above impasse since it gives entanglement signal nonlocality violating no-cloning & no-signaling constraints for sub-quantum non-equlibrium violation of the Born probability rule. This is not even thinkable in some of the above interpretations.

Bohm's theory is a different theory from standard QM to the extent that it has possible empirical non-equivalence (for particle distributions deviating from Psi^2).

right

However there is a possible empirical prediction at the relativistic level for PTI in which there could be deviations from standard QED (which possibly have already been observed). I'm working on that now.
good

RK
________________________________________
From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:06 PM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Re: Causal Discovery Algorithms -  Stapp, Kastner, Cramer, Aharonov

The issue is what is the precise operational meaning of your particular distinction between "possibilities" and "actualized transactions"? How can we Popper falsify such a verbal distinction in the "informal language" (Bohm). In contrast, in Bohm's interpretation there is a clear distinction in the formalism between the "thoughtlike" (Stapp) quantum BIT potential Q and the "rocklike" (Stapp) hidden variable classical lepton-quark et-al world lines and electromagnetic-weak-strong classical field configurations.

On Mar 8, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

Thanks Jack,

My ontology takes spacetime relations as supervenient on causal relations., where the latter are relations among possibilities, and those are time-symmetrically related. The spacetime relations (i.e sets of events resulting from actualized transactions) are only indeterministically related to the time-symmetric causal relations characterizing the underlying possibilities. So I don't see anything here that refutes anything I'm doing. Of course I welcome anyone's pointing out what I  may be overlooking.

Best
Ruth

Now Available: The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Ruth E. Kastner
http://www.cambridge.org/us/knowledge/discountpromotion/?site_locale=en_US&code=L2TIQM
________________________________________
From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:28 PM
To: art wagner

Subject: Causal Discovery Algorithms -  Stapp, Kastner, Cramer, Aharonov

This very important paper will have profound impact on Henry Stapp's and Ruth E. Kastner's models - also Cramer's & Aharonov's. I am curious about their future responses to it.

On Mar 7, 2013, at 11:41 AM, art wagner <wagnerart@hotmail.com<mailto:wagnerart@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Causal Discovery Algorithms -  http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1208.4119.pdfbasi

________________________________
Subject: Re: Chinese Physicists Measure Speed of "Spooky Action At a Distance" | MIT Technology Review
From: sarfatti@pacbell.net<mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:36:59 -0800
To: PhysicsFellows@mail.softcafe.net<mailto:PhysicsFellows@mail.softcafe.net>

" because the “spooky action” cannot be used to send information faster than the speed of light."

Don't be so sure. The Fat Lady has not yet sung on that one. ;-)

The question is whether orthodox quantum theory is complete, or is it a limiting case of a more general theory with pre-sponse entanglement signal nonlocality for living matter?

__._,_.___
Reply via web post                            Reply to sender                             Reply to group                            Start a New Topic               Messages in this topic (1)                       RECENT ACTIVITY:
These are the logs of the starship NCC-1701-280Z.  Its five-year mission to seek out new minds, new quantum realms.  To boldly explore physics where no physicist  has gone before (in physical, virtual, or quantum worlds)!

Starmind(tm) -- Your daily journal to the industry's brightest stars.  You get infinite knowledge only with Starmind:

All hits.  All Physics. All the time.  And now in parallel and diverging universes.  (Thus proving they don't exist as separate entities --But have we gotten to them yet or not?)

- - - - - - Message From Starfleet  - - - (Read below) - - - - - - - - - - -
To change any characteristic of your online membership access, visit via web:
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/SarfattiScienceSeminars

Join in our ongoing discussions and theoretical science writings:
http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/SarfattiScienceSeminars

Dr. Sarfatti may be reached at his e-mail or using Internet site:
http://stardrive.org
http://www.1st-books.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To respond or comment directly to the group's archive, reply via e-mail:

SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups.com