Text Size

Stardrive

May 11

Question for Nick Herbert

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Why doesn't W. Zurek's quantum Darwinism violate the no-cloning a quantum theorem?

"The basis of almost any theoretical quantum-to-classical transition lies in the concept of decoherence. In the quantum world, many possible quantum states “collapse” into a single state due to interactions with the environment. To quantum Darwinists, decoherence is a selection process, and the final, stable state is called a “pointer state.” Although pointer states are quantum states, they are “fit enough” to be transmitted through the environment without collapsing and can then make copies of themselves that can be observed on the macroscopic scale. Although everything in our world is quantum at its core, our classical view of the universe is ultimately determined by these pointer states." Physics Org

New evidence for quantum Darwinism found in quantum dots

Is this the answer? i.e. "pointer states" must be pairwise orthogonal for a "good measurement".


Non-clonability can be seen as a property of arbitrary sets of quantum states. If we know that a system's state is one of the states in some set S, but we do not know which one, can we prepare another system in the same state? If the elements of S are pairwise orthogonalthe answer is always yes: for any such set there exists a measurement which will ascertain the exact state of the system without disturbing it, and once we know the state we can prepare another system in the same state. If S contains two elements that are not pairwise orthogonal (in particular, the set of all quantum states includes such pairs) then an argument like that given above shows that the answer is no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

It may be that the gravity Weyl vacuum energy is local in Penrose Twistor Space. Twistors are spinor qubits of the conformal light cone group. Curvature & torsion as relative relations between neighboring light cones. Light cones are entangled pair qubit states. Spacetime local events are collisions of twistor lines (so to speak).

May 07

David McMahon is a physicist at Los Alamos interested in exotic propulsion who has written a very useful series of self-study advanced physics books. The one I use here is his "Relativity, DeMystified".  His solution 9.3 for gravity-free Minkowski space-time using spherical-polar coordinates shows that for that particular choice, the Penrose-Rindler null tetrads are

l = (cdt +dr)/2^1/2 

for the retro-causal "destiny" advanced light ray propagating positive energy backwards in time along the past light cone.

n = (cdt - dr)/2^1/2 

for the usual causal "history" retarded light ray propagating positive energy forward in time along the future light cone.

The remaining two complex null tetrads are

m = (rd(theta) + irsin(theta)d(phi)/2^1/2

and its complex conjugate m*

This can be generalized for the static LNIFs of the Schwarzschild black hole outside the event horizon

l' = [(1-rs/r)^1/2cdt + dr/(1 - rs/r)^1/2]/2^1/2  etc

g00 = -1/grr = 1 - rs/r

as well as the dark energy observer-dependent de Sitter accelerating universe solution with us at r = 0.

l" = [(1 - Lambda r^2)^1/2cdt + dr/(1 - Lambda r^2)^1/2]/2^1/2

goo = - 1/grr = 1 - Lambda r^2

Lambda = Einstein's cosmological constant = 1/Area of retro-causal future event horizon

~ dark energy density

It From Qubit: Wheeler-Feynman Null Tetrad Gravity

 

Jack Sarfatti

 

Local observers are defined by orthonormal “non-holonomic” (aka “non-coordinate”) tetrad gravity fields (Cartan’s “moving frames”). The tetrads are spin 1 vector fields under the 6-parameter homogeneous Lorentz group SO1,3 of Einstein’s 1905 special relativity. You can think of the tetrad gravity fields as the square roots of Einstein’s 1916 spin 2 metric tensor gravity fields. We will see that we must also allow for spin 0 and spin 1 gravity because the spin 1 tetrads, in turn, are Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen entangled quantum states of pairs of 2-component Penrose-Rindler qubits in the quantum pre-geometry.

 

to be continued (work in progress)

May 07

UFO Report near Vandenberg AFB, California

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

COPY OF DETAILS/ REPORT FILED NUFORC
Thank You For Filling Out This Form: 
Below is what you submitted to ufocntr@nwlink.com,cstepien@experlogix.com on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 17:16:39
Date: 05/04/2010  Time: 21:20    Duration: 12 minutes   Sighting City: Santa Clarita  Sighting State: ca  Sighting Zip: 91354  Sighting County: Los Angeles   Witnesses: 2   Shape:Formation  Number of Craft: 2?
Description: It was around 9:20pm last night (May 4, 2010) and it was pitch black; the sky was clear and we could see the stars, and there was some wind, it was warm. My husband and I were walking our 2 dogs, and we were passing through the parking lot at Bridgeport Shopping Center, which is at the NE corner of the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and McBean Parkway, in Valencia, California. Valencia is part of the incorporated town of Santa Clarita, if you're searching for it on a map. Bridgeport Shopping Center has pedestrian walkways and lower buildings - it's new, and is mostly empty in the evenings, we guess there were about 10 other people around the shopping center at that moment but no one was near us. We were at the far East side of the parking lot where there are few street lights. We were walking East toward Grandview Drive when my husband noticed a long line of red lights in the sky that appeared above the treeline, not too high up, and were acting in a very bizarre fashion. If the lights were on some kind of craft/s then it was completely silent. There were about 12 lights - all RED, no white, and they were in a line, as if connected to a leading edge.
At first it was just hovering - for maybe one minute, and then started to slowly float Southeast. The string of lights never descended. We didn't see a solid shape behind the lights, it was too dark, we could only see the lights themselves. They all seemed to be about the same size. The size of the lights themselves -- relative to a star in the night sky -- they were the same size as the brightest star in the sky. All together, the span of the lights in a line reached almost completely across our entire field of view. They were above the horizon, well above the treeline, and above the rooftops of everything around. It was very hard to gauge where exactly the thing was, we guestimated it was over Eastern Santa Clarita, East of the 5 Freeway, but West of the 14, North of Lyons Avenue and potentially South of Newhall Ranch Road, where we were standing – although it appeared directly over us. It was a straight line of lights at a 45 degree angle. Like a stick, turned up on an angle. This was the shape "/", with the tallest part rising on its right side, with the whole thing heading slowly South by Southeast. It (the string of lights) never broke formation. It slowly floated South-South East until it became so dim we could no longer see it, without ever changing the distances between the lights themselves. They were not evenly spaced. The whole line silently hovered and then slowly floated off, with entire sections blinking on and off randomly. It was very long/wide! As a gauge, if I hold my thumb out away from me (about 2.5 feet) and my thumb represents one of the lights that we saw - then the whole line of lights took up my entire field of view. (It took about 5 minutes for it to disappear from view.)
Just when we thought the whole line was lit up, another light would blink on, to the far left or far right - making the total string even wider/longer. The lights did not look like flares to me. I have seen flares and these lights were constantly blinking on and off, wildly -- quickly pulsating. There was never a time when all the lights were on uniformly at the same time, they were always shimmering. Sometimes whole sections would just go out and come back on again 10 seconds later, in random order. The lights, always red, were all blinking/shimmering fast, but not uniformly, and not strobing in any regular pattern and with no regular timing, not the way aircraft safety lights would. Any one light also had an irregular pattern. We thought -- could it be a squadron of helicopters? But the lights didn't behave in a predictable way. These red lights would go on and off in random order and with random timing by first becoming dim, then bright, then dim, then off, and then bright again -- as if they were shimmering. My husband commented that it looked like the special effects on TV when a craft goes into "cloaking" mode, or the way lights look reflected in water. He is a skeptic and he was dumbfounded as to what we were seeing. Position relative to each other: the lights kept their exact distance from one another the whole time, even as the line of lights drifted South. The size of the individual lights was like looking at red car brake lights from 2 miles away. That's the only way I can describe it - against the night sky they were as bright and big as the biggest/brightest star in the sky. We can't tell how high the string of lights was, but we couldn't see any other stars through them.
We could not see if it was one solid craft, or many lights. They did remain in a stable position relative to one another - at least giving the illusion that they were along the edge of one craft. I've seen sheriff's dept. helicopters fly nightly over town and I would say these lights appeared to be floating around the same height. They were not too distant, definitely over town, not over the mountains. It took several minutes for them to go a few miles. We ran East along the sidewalk to keep a view of it, and eventually the line disappeared as it floated out of view, and became dimmer, eventually disappearing completely from our line of sight. We stared for 5 more minutes and then started to walk home, heading East toward the edge of the parking lot. Then we saw another set of lights, doing exactly the same thing, just over the treeline to the East of Grandview Road. The line had the same weird pattern of red lights shimmering off and on and lasted for 2-3 minutes but was not quite as wide and was oriented horizontally. It didn't drift or descend, it just got more and more dim and finally was down to 2 lights, and then disappeared. We stared a little longer, and then walked home. I immediately called the Sheriff station for Santa Clarita. I reported what we saw and the police officer said they had over 100 calls reporting UFOs already that night. He could not say if people reported the same thing we saw. The sky was filled with other aircraft that night, heading into Burbank airport or LAX. They all looked normal compared to this. Our backgrounds: My husband is in IT and I am a technology and science editor for a national publication. We've never seen anything out of the ordinary before and have lived here 3 years, so we also know what's common in the sky here. My husband is a firm skeptic, and I'm uncertain. I'm aware of military testing at VAFB and I have seen missile tests at a distance from the 101, and this didn't look like that. I've also seen small meteors and meteor showers and they don't hover and glide.
 

May 07

The tetrads are spin 1 fields in flat spacetime and they are square roots of the Einstein spin 2 tensor field. 

The qubit Penrose spinors are the square roots of the tetrads - intuitively speaking, hence 4th roots of the Einstein metric field.

A non-zero energy momentum tensor using the tetrads & spin connections as the basic gravity fields rather than the Levi-Civita connection may be possible. The two formulations would be compatible.
Note, that in the analogy with Yang-Mills fields
connection = gauge potential
curvature = field
From this POV, the gravity field energy tensor should be made from the 4th rank curvature tensor Ruvwl analog to Yang-Mills Fuv^a
But that is not obviously compatible with Einstein's field equation
Guv + kTuv = 0
where
Tuv^;v = 0
; relative to Levi-Civita connection
Waldyr et-al use new connections willy nilly - the theory is defined in terms of the connection e.g. Ashtekar - so Waldyr has an alternative gravity theory that needs an operational measurement theory or it is only a formal game without physics. Einstein's GR has a very clear successful measurement theory.

On May 6, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.4472v4.pdf

Note that Waldyr has Poltorak's non-metricity model toward the end of the paper, but no mention of Poltorak in the text, and no citation in the bibliography.

I think the relationship between Waldyr's and Kleinert's models for gravity would be an interesting topic for discussion, especially if you could get Kleinert and Rodrigues directly involved.


May 06

Lubos Motl vs Sean Carroll - my commentaries

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Commentary 1
re: The Reference Frame: The analogy between the Universe and a black hole Lubos Motl
"A black hole is defined as a region whose interior is separated by the event horizon from the exterior (because of the curvature caused by a sufficient mass, according to the rules of general relativity): a black hole is an object from which it's causally impossible to ever return to the exterior world which is why not even light is allowed to ever escape from the black hole again."
We are outside the event horizon of a black hole, but we are inside both our past particle horizon and our future event horizon. Both of these observer dependent horizons are spherical 2D surfaces (Planck length thick) and we are always at the exact center. The distance to our future spherical shell horizon is decreasing though we never reach it in finite proper time. The distance to our past horizon is increasing. Details are in Tamara Davis's 2004 PhD online.
Apr 25

Tegmark's Many World's Survey

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

My answers

 The controversy shows no sign of abating, as evidenced by the results of the following highly unscientific poll carried out by the author at the Perimeter Institute “Everett@50” Conference 9/22-07:

1. Do you believe that new physics violating the Schr ?odinger equation will make large quantum computers impossible? (4 Yes/ 29 No/11 Undecided)

Undecided - says Jack

2. Do you believe that all isolated systems obey the Schr ?odinger equation (evolve unitarily)? (17 Yes/10 No/20 Undecided)

Undecided - says Jack
3. Which interpretation of quantum mechanics is closest to your own?

• 2 Copenhagen or consistent histories (including postulate of explicit collapse)
• 5 Modified dynamics (Schrdinger equation modified to give explicit collapse)
• 19 Many worlds/consistent histories (no collapse) • 2 Bohm • 1.5 Modal • 22.5 None of the above/undecided

Bohm - says Jack

4. Do you feel comfortable saying that Everettian parallel universes are as real as our universe? (14 Yes/26 No/8 Undecided)

No -for Level III, yes for Levels I & II

to be continued - under construction

 

Apr 24

Tetrads, Spinor QUBITs Emergent Gravity

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Subject: Re: it's physically obvious why our future dark energy horizon is the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber.
Tamara Davis PhD Fig 1.1

"the gravitational field. We compute the particle production in a time-dependent gravitational field induced by an expanding mass shell"
I have made two intuitive leaps that I have not yet been able to prove rigorously, but I bet will prove correct.
1) The observer-dependent dark energy future event horizon is the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber. This needs the hologram Ansatz that the interior 3D + 1 bulk is a retrocausal hologram image of the 2D + 1 surrounding event horizon surface where our future light cone intersects it.
2) Roger Penrose's "spin frame" has two QUBIT spinors, which in the case of the null light cone tetrads of Einstein's gravity field, l, n, m & m* are advanced and retarded spinors with support on the past and future local light cones respectively. Note that the usual tetrads where the time component is along the world line of the observer-detector and a spacelike triad, consist in form of the Bell pair states of spinor QUBITs used all the time in quantum information/computer theory. This is why I use Wheeler's "IT FROM (Q) BIT."

Similarly, time reverse particle absorption.
~ = photon
X = gravity field fluctuation
the classical stretching of the photon wavelength in accelerating expanding space can be pictured at the quantum level as a sequence of photon absorptions and re-emissions by the gravity field whose statistical mean value obeys the Einstein GR prediction.
i.e. "Feynman diagram"
~X~X~X~ .....
A note on tetrads & Penrose's spinor QUBITs
In an LIF we have e^I for an "observer" and e^U in a locally coincident accelerating LNIF.
e^I = e^IUe^U
Note that these are Cartan 1-forms not 4-vector components - that's why I use CAPS, small letters i, u etc. are for the usual tensor indices.
Since Newton's gravity field ~ guv,w is eliminated at the origin of the LIF, the e^I are the same as what they are for inertial frames in special relativity (EEP). However,
e^U(LNIF) = e^U(LIF) + B^U(LNIF)
B^U(LNIF) is Paul Hill's "acceleration field" analogous to the electromagnetic vector potential A for the U1 group. However, B^U(LNIF) is the local gauge compensating potential for the T4 translation group.
A = Audx^u   Cartan 1-form
B^U(LNIF) = B^Uudx^u    Cartan 1-form
i.e. a set of four 1-forms like a Yang-Mills field with an internal charge.
The EEP says that the universal minimal coupling of the EM field to the gravity field for the accelerating LNIF observer is simply to replace all LIF electromagnetic potential Cartan 1-forms A(LIF) by
A(LNIF) = A(LIF) + B^U(LNIF)PUA(LIF)   Cartan 1-forms
P^U are the 4-momentum generators of the T4 group.
before constructing the dynamical action S for the Feynman amplitudes e^iS.
So it's obvious it looks like a direct coupling of spin 1 (Lorentz group) GMD with EM fields.
Rovelli in Ch II of his Quantum Gravity gives details for spinor & Yang-Mills matter fields.
Next IT FROM QUBIT - in the special case of the NULL LIGHT CONE tetrads, for the GMD field
B^Uu = (Newman-Penrose coefficients)^Uu^j^k(Advanced QUBIT spinor)j(Retarded QUBIT)k
(using quasi Penrose abstract index notation)
This is an entangled quantum pair state on RHS of QUBITs.

 


This is why I like the tetrad formalism because then the electro-gravitic coupling is simply that between two spin 1 vector gauge fields one for internal U1 the other for space-time de Sitter group with Einstein's cosmological constant positive not equal to zero. The coupling is simply given by the Einstein equivalence principle. Very neat and pretty.

 

Then from Penrose each tetrad is an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen quantum entangled state of pairs of spinor QUBITS! There are two kinds of QUBITS the advanced destiny QUBITs with support on the past light cone, and the retarded history QUBITS with support on the future light cone all set up for the Wheeler-Feynman POV with the future boundary dark energy event horizon in effect the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber only when / > 0. Since we are retrocausal hologram images from our future boundary - the 2D Quantum Field Theory on our event horizon is the Omega Source of the quantum gravity fluctuations making inelastic collisions with real photons - the mean values (Ehrenfest's theorem) giving the classical cosmological stretch of the photon wavelength with the FRW scale factor a(t).
I meant dark energy density / accelerating space is the absorber! If the cosmological constant / is zero my picture might not work.

The acceleration c^2/^1/2 compared to / = 0 case (first order perturbation theory) means accelerating space's geometrodynamic field is like a black body cosmological fluid (Unruh effect).

On Apr 23, 2010, at 1:24 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Think of Ehrenfest's theorem. The photon is represented by a probability wave. What we have is a coupling between the EM and time-changing gravity cosmological field. In the usual collapse picture (for now) a random collapse happens where the photon is absorbed by a quantum fluctuation in the dynamic gravity field and then re-emitted at a lower frequency - in such a way that the statistical mean obeys the classical redshift picture. After a finite distance at the de Sitter horizon there is no photon left at all (infinite stretch of wavelength in finite distance) - so in each individual photon case Cramer's return waves happen randomly in each inelastic collision with the time-varying gravity field. Time-varying gravity fields can emit and absorb particles. I think my intuitive picture can be made to work even in the absence of electrons and ions - expanding space itself is an absorber.


On Apr 23, 2010, at 12:12 AM, james f woodward wrote:

"Well, you know that I think the WFHNC action at a distance picture is the correct one.  And that accelerating expansion solves the cut off problem. So, I must admit that I am sympathetic to your proposal.  But you must admit that it's a stretch to call stringing out photons absorption that triggers an advanced response.  :-)"

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:33:10 -0700 JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
writes:
When a real photon is absorbed it disappears  - in effect  w = k = 0 after absorption. OK we shine a light into the sky - that light will shift down to w = k = 0 in a finite distance from us because space has stretched in an  accelerating way. The gravity field itself adiabatically absorbs the  photon energy! We don't need no damn atoms any more than we need badges! ;-)
Hence it will trigger a return Cramer wave back to us in time with compensating blue shift. This is completely obvious to me at least.

 

"Post-Quantum" Cryptography

In quantum key distribution schemes, Alice and Bob exchange quantum and classical information in order to generate a shared secret key. There are several well-known schemes, which are provably secure against eavesdropping, so long as quantum theory is correct. But what if quantum theory isn't correct? This might seem a rather academic question, since quantum theory has been confirmed in an impressive range of experiments since 1926. But cryptologists are supposed to examine their assumptions carefullyPhysical theories have been superseded in the past, and there's no strong reason to think it won't happen again. (And in fact, although it's a minority view, there is a very respectable case for believing that the lingering conceptual problems in interpreting quantum theory point to some subtle defect in the theory itself.) You can't prove anything secure without making some assumptions, and in particular you can't prove any physics-based cryptography scheme secure without making some assumptions about physics. But Jonathan Barrett, Lucien Hardy and I were recently able to show that a quantum key distribution scheme can be proved secure even if quantum theory is incorrect, so long as we assume that (as special relativity suggests) it is impossible to send signals faster than light. The scheme is, admittedly, very inefficient, but it's at least a proof of principle that security guarantees can be based on either of two independent theories (quantum mechanics and special relativity), rather than on one alone. It would be very interesting to know if significantly more efficient schemes exist, or indeed if the security of standard quantum key distribution schemes can also be based on relativity. There's a popular account of this work in Physical Review Focus, linked here.  ... Bit commitment is one of the main primitives of mistrustful cryptography, the branch of cryptography dealing with parties who need to exchange or process information but cannot rely on each other's honesty. ...  It turns out, though, that secure (and practically feasible) bit commitment protocols can be implemented if Alice and Bob use separated sites and take account of the impossibility of signalling faster than light. "


Of course Adrian Kent's's result above is kind of obvious, but it's always good to prove things rigorously when you can. The fact of the matter, however, in my opinion, is that all living matter is able to in effect send signals faster than light because the very essence of life is sub-quantal non-equilibrium of the Bohm hidden variable matter degrees of freedom.