Text Size


Reading P W Anderson's new More is Different book on Kindle. I may never read another book in paper again.
Like · · Share
  • Kathy Sadler Mead Isnt the kindle fabulous, the kindle fire is the way to go
  • Jack Sarfatti I heard Anderson give his famous 1967 talk at UCSD. He was there with Frohlich, Matthias, Suhl & Kohn. My own work uses "More is Different" emergence of new coherent orderings of matter via the generalized Higgs-Goldstone ODLRO spontaneous broken continuous symmetries of the action in the ground state of complex systems giving local order parameters that are over-complete distinguishably non-orthogonal Glauber states of boson quasiparticles both real and virtual in different problems.
  • Jack Sarfatti I mean the Kindle program I have on my 11" Mac Airbook, my Iphone 4s & IPad mini.
  • Jack Sarfatti This does not include the new 2D anyon braiding group nonlocal topological orderings e.g. Fractional Quantum Hall Effect, that operates on the gravity horizons. The horizon hologram physics is nonlocal topological, the interior bulk physics is local Higgs-Goldstone. The latter is the image of the former - a kind of duality.


Conference: TAM2013 - Venice

Submitted by: SARFATTI, Jack

Submitted on: 12 December 2012 00:32

Title: Dark Energy as Redshifted Advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking-
  Unruh Thermal Radiation

Abstract content
The observed anti-gravity repulsive dark energy density hc/Lp^2A where A is the area of our observer detector dependent de Sitter future event horizon at its intersection with the detector's future light cone is proved to be the cosmological redshift of the quantum field theoretic energy density hc/Lp^4 on that horizon. The effective redshifted Hawking-Unruh temperature at our detectors is hc/kBLp^1/2A^1/4. The real thermal advanced photons from our future horizon are maximally redshifted down to virtual photons of energy hc/Lp^1/2A^1/4. The calculation may be extended to include ordinary retarded photon signals in our detector's past light cone from Type 1a supernovae because the area A of the future horizon has an asymptote. Larger redshifts should show the cosmic time dependence of A as a test of this model. I suggest that gravity attractive dark matter is a vacuum polarization effect. Therefore, real on-shell exotic dark matter particles do not exist as a matter of principle.

The observed dark energy density hc/Lp^2A where A is the area of our observer detector dependent de Sitter future event horizon at its intersection with the detector's future light cone is computed from elementary battle-tested physics. In addition, it is predicted that real dark matter particles do not exist as a matter of fundamental principle. Dark matter is a vacuum polarization effect.

Primary Authors:
Dr. SARFATTI, Jack (Internet Science Education Project) <adastra1@icloud.com>

The Universe is not a Computer
Ken Wharton
Department of Physics and Astronomy, San Jos´e State University, San Jos´e, CA 95192-0106

When we want to predict the future, we compute it from what we know about the present.
Specifically, we take a mathematical representation of observed reality, plug it into some dynamical
equations, and then map the time-evolved result back to real-world predictions. But while this
computational process can tell us what we want to know, we have taken this procedure too literally,
implicitly assuming that the universe must compute itself in the same manner. Physical theories
that do not follow this computational framework are deemed illogical, right from the start. But this
anthropocentric assumption has steered our physical models into an impossible corner, primarily
because of quantum phenomena. Meanwhile, we have not been exploring other models in which the
universe is not so limited. In fact, some of these alternate models already have a well-established
importance, but are thought to be mathematical tricks without physical significance. This essay
argues that only by dropping our assumption that the universe is a computer can we fully develop
such models, explain quantum phenomena, and understand the workings of our universe.

Compare to:

Incommensurability, Orthodoxy
and the Physics of High Strangeness:
A 6-layer Model for Anomalous Phenomena
Jacques F. Vallee and Eric W. Davis (*)
The main argument presented in this paper is that the continuing study of unidentified
aerial phenomena (“UAP”) may offer an existence theorem for new models of physical
reality. The current SETI paradigm and its “assumption of mediocrity” place restrictions
on forms of non-human intelligence that may be researched. A similar bias exists in the
ufologists’ often-stated hypothesis that UAP, if real, must represent space visitors.
Observing that both models are biased by anthropomorphism, the authors attempt to
clarify the issues surrounding “high strangeness” observations by distinguishing six layers
of information that can be derived from UAP events, namely (1) physical manifestations,
(2) anti-physical effects, (3) psychological factors, (4) physiological factors, (5) psychic
effects and (6) cultural effects. In a further step they propose a framework for scientific
analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena that takes into account the incommensurability

Jacques Vallée has a Ph.D. in computer science; Eric Davis holds a Ph.D. in physics. Both are
consulting members of the National Institute for Discovery Science, Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Challenge of High Strangeness
The rational study of reported cases of Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena (UAP) is currently at
an impasse. This situation has as much to do with the incomplete state of our models of physical
reality as it does with the complexity of the data. A primary objection to the reality of UAP
events among scientists is that witnesses consistently report objects whose seemingly absurd
behavior “cannot possibly” be related to actual phenomena, even under extreme conditions.
Skeptics insist that intelligent extraterrestrial (ETI) visitors simply would not perpetrate such
antics as are reported in the literature. This argument can be criticized as an anthropocentric,
self-selected observation resulting from our own limited viewpoint as 21st century Homo
Sapiens trying to draw conclusions about the nature of the universe. Nonetheless, the high
strangeness of many reports must be acknowledged. ...

In the view of the authors, current hypotheses are not strange enough to explain the facts of the
phenomenon, and the debate suffers from a lack of scientific information. Indeed, from the
viewpoint of modern physics, our Cosmic Neighborhood could encompass other (parallel)
universes, extra spatial dimensions and other time-like dimensions beyond the common 4-
dimensional spacetime we recognize, and such aspects could lead to rational explanations for
apparently “incomprehensible” behaviors on the part of visitors to our perceived continuum. As
it attempts to reconcile theory with observed properties of elementary particles and with
discoveries at the frontiers of cosmology, modern physics suggests that mankind has not yet
discovered all of the universe’s facets, and we must propose new theories and experiments in
order to explore these undiscovered facets. This is why continuing study of reported UAP
events is important: It may provide us with an existence theorem for new models of physical

Much of the recent progress in cosmological concepts is directly applicable to the UAP
problem: Traversable wormholes (3-dimensional hypersurface tunnels) have now been derived
from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (Morris and Thorne, 1988; Visser, 1995). In
particular, it has been shown that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity does not in any way
constrain spacetime topology, which allows for wormholes to provide traversable connections
between regions within two separate universes or between remote regions and/or times within
the same universe. Mathematically it can also be shown that higher-dimensional wormholes can
provide hypersurface connections between multidimensional spaces (Rucker, 1984; Kaku, 1995).
Recent quantum gravity programs have explored this property in superstring theory, along with
proposals to theoretically and experimentally examine macroscopic-scale extra-dimensional
spaces (Schwarzschild, 2000). Thus it is now widely acknowledged that the nature of our
universe is far more complex than observations based on anthropocentric self-selection portend.
In this respect, ufologists and SETI researchers appear to be fighting a rear-guard battle. Both
suffer from identical limitations in the worldview they bring to their own domains, and to their
antagonism. ...

No experiment can distinguish between phenomena manifested
by visiting interstellar (arbitrarily advanced) ETI and intelligent entities that may exist near
Earth within a parallel universe or in different dimensions, or who are (terrestrial) time
Each of these interesting possibilities can be manifested via the application of the physical
principle of traversable wormholes since they theoretically connect between two different
universes, two remote space locations, different times and dimensions (Davis, 2001).
Traversable wormholes are but one example of new physical tools that are available or on the
horizon for consideration of interuniversal, interstellar, interdimensional or chronological travel. ...

The framework we present here is based on such an apparent contradiction, because we will
argue that UAP can be thought of both as physical and as “psychic”. We hope that it will prove
stimulating as a unified approach to a puzzling phenomenon that presents both undeniable
physical effects suggesting a technological device or craft and psychic effects reminiscent of the
literature on poltergeists and psychokinetic phenomena. ...

Layer II

Ø sinking into the ground
Ø shrinking in size, growing larger, or changing shape on the spot
Ø becoming fuzzy and transparent on the spot
Ø dividing into two or more craft, several of them merging into one object at slow speed
Ø disappearing at one point and appearing elsewhere instantaneously
Ø remaining observable visually while not detected by radar
Ø producing missing time or time dilatation
Ø producing topological inversion or space dilatation (object was estimated to be of small
exterior size/volume, but witness(s) saw a huge interior many times the exterior size)
Ø appearing as balls of colored, intensely bright light under intelligent control  ...

Layer V
Ø impressions of communication without a direct sensory channel
Ø poltergeist phenomena: motions and sounds without a specific cause, outside the
observed presence of a UAP
Ø levitation of the witness or of objects and animals in the vicinity
Ø maneuvers of a UAP appearing to anticipate the witness’ thoughts
Ø premonitory dreams or visions
Ø personality changes promoting unusual abilities in the witness
Ø healing ...

The view that ETs and humans may have such divergent ways of conceptualizing the world
that there can be no mutual understanding is referred to as the “Incommensurability Problem” in
the SETI literature ...

At the core of the Incommensurability Problem is the view that no intelligent species can
understand reality without making certain methodological choices, and that these choices may
vary from civilization to civilization ...

We can see and gain knowledge by sight, but ET/UAP signals
potentially bombarding the Earth could be misunderstood, unrecognized or undetected because
we are not employing paradigms involving our other modalities, such as psychic functioning.

[Comment I coined the term "electromagnetic chauvinism" in 1976 or so making this same point about SETI's limits. Robert Anton Wilson and I think Martin Gardner cited me on it as I recall.]

On Dec 7, 2012, at 9:03 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

On Dec 7, 2012, at 8:19 PM, Gary S Bekkum <garysbekkum@gmail.com> wrote:

So you are now entertaining the possibility this really happened and there is a cover-up?

Certainly. We cannot discount that as a possibility of fairly high probability (50-50) given Bigelow's statement to the New York Times.

What did you learn from Ron? Or Kit?

Nothing. Kit denied that it happened. Ron simply said he would deal with it.

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:43 AM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
re: <Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 12.27.55 AM.png><Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 12.38.04 AM.png>





Indeed Eric Davis wrote: "Much of the recent progress in cosmological concepts is directly applicable to the UAP
problem: Traversable wormholes (3-dimensional hypersurface tunnels) have now been derived
from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (Morris and Thorne, 1988; Visser, 1995). In
particular, it has been shown that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity does not in any way
constrain spacetime topology, which allows for wormholes to provide traversable connections
between regions within two separate universes or between remote regions and/or times within
the same universe. Mathematically it can also be shown that higher-dimensional wormholes can
provide hypersurface connections between multidimensional spaces (Rucker, 1984; Kaku, 1995).
Recent quantum gravity programs have explored this property in superstring theory, along with
proposals to theoretically and experimentally examine macroscopic-scale extra-dimensional
spaces (Schwarzschild, 2000). Thus it is now widely acknowledged that the nature of our
universe is far more complex than observations based on anthropocentric self-selection portend.
In this respect, ufologists and SETI researchers appear to be fighting a rear-guard battle. Both
suffer from identical limitations in the worldview they bring to their own domains, and to their
antagonism. ...
The rational study of reported cases of Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena (UAP) is currently at
an impasse. This situation has as much to do with the incomplete state of our models of physical
reality as it does with the complexity of the data. A primary objection to the reality of UAP
events among scientists is that witnesses consistently report objects whose seemingly absurd
behavior “cannot possibly” be related to actual phenomena, even under extreme conditions.
Skeptics insist that intelligent extraterrestrial (ETI) visitors simply would not perpetrate such
antics as are reported in the literature. This argument can be criticized as an anthropocentric,
self-selected observation resulting from our own limited viewpoint as 21st century Homo
Sapiens trying to draw conclusions about the nature of the universe. Nonetheless, the high
strangeness of many reports must be acknowledged."


Now this was precisely the points I tried to raise at the DARPA-NASA meeting with Eric Davis on the platform and he did not support his own previous writings.
BTW Davis was working for Bob Bigelow when he wrote the above words with Jacques Vallee.

On Dec 6, 2012, at 6:43 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

I remember now I told the Jesse Ventura people that there was no point me being in the show because what I heard in 2004 was only hearsay. I did speak briefly about it to Jacques Vallee http://www.jacquesvallee.net/bookdocs/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf as I recall at the first DARPA-NASA Starship Meeting in Sausalito Jan 2011 and he denied the French woman's version of what allegedly happened at Bigelow's Utah Ranch - a battle with hostile aliens popping out of a floating star gate with at least two of Bigelow's private army being killed. Eric Davis http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf was one of Bigelow's employees at the time and he also leaked the story. This would explain why Eric got so uptight at the Oct 1, 2011 DARPA-NASA meeting in Orlando when I broached the UFO subject followed by Doug Trumbull http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Trumbull who backed me up the next day.

-- Gary S. Bekkum
STARstream Research
P.O. Box 1144

re: Yakir Aharonov's http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future#.UMJp8aWe1ho

On Dec 7, 2012, at 2:55 AM, Paul Werbos <paul.werbos@verizon.net> wrote:

I personally have no basis for objecting to what Ruth says about that specific example
by Aharonov of evidence for retrocausality. I haven't felt any need to look at his specific examples,
because of much stronger and pervasive evidence which I see elsewhere:

Jack is right that I do not see evidence IN PHYSICS for action at distance.

JS: Let's be clear. If by action at a distance you mean direct Einstein's "spooky telepathic" spacelike influence as opposed to Cramer's used of Costa de Beauregard's "Feynman zig zag"


I see no way to tell the difference. They seem to be equivalent. That is, the entanglement effect is completely independent of the space-time interval between strong Von-Neumann measurements on the complex entangled system, spacelike, timelike, light like doesn't matter. The effect is BEYOND SPACE-TIME. It's pre-metrical, topological.

The issue is whether we can control the effect, decrypt it before it is sent, but only if it will be sent in a Novikov consistent Feynman history loop in time.
Brain presponse and remote viewing are evidence of that.
in the sense of http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049

PW: Indeed, the ability to revive the use of local realistic models in physics, just like things Einstein would have liked,
is one of the benefits of facing up to retrocausality.

JS: We have a difference here. When Einstein meant local realism he did not include retrocausality only the usual retarded past to present to future causality.

Einstein local realism + Aharonov's back-from-the-future retro-causal Destiny quantum vector = usual notion of spacelike nonlocality as seen in violation of Bell's locality inequality.

PW: People have advised me to wait a few months before
saying too much about recent progress on those lines, reminding me of how my big mouth
got me into a mess when I developed backpropagation

JS: Do you have retro-causation in your idea of backpropagation?

PW-- but I have posted a few things in obscure places like vixra and a journal
in Russia, which foreshadow some important developments. It is relatively easy to talk about
the possibility of going back to local realism in abstract or hypothetical terms; it is far more difficult to find Lagrangians which actually work,
in coping with the huge and tangled mass of distilled empirical evidence and adressing phenomena not yet addressed by today's standard model.

JS: You may be interested in this paper suggesting a non-retarded non-algorithmic Lagrangian approach.

PW: Jack also cites work by Bierman, Libet and others as a kind of evidence for action at a distance.

JS: Only in the general pre-metrical BEYOND SPACE-TIME sense above. In the presponse case the effect is retro-causal along the timelike world line connecting future stimulus to past presponse neural event in the history of the subject.

PW: In that realm of parapsychology
or psychic powers, I personally also see a mixed bag -- some things which I view as extremely
persuasive to me, others less so. But at the end of the day, if SOME of the evidence for parapsychology or psychic powers is strongly persuasive to some of us (like me and Jack), AND IF that evidence does seem to require something like action at a distance
well beyond what retrocausality alone can explain, what can we do? How can we reconcile the physics
and the psychology?

JS: This is a RED HERRING a FALSE DICHOTOMY as I explained above. To repeat, the general idea is that the enchanted web of actual strong Von Neumann projection irreversible measurements on different parts of an extended entangled system are nodes in a graph. The spacetime intervals between the nodes is irrelevant. Think Erlanger program. Quantum geometry is pre-metrical entirely. The real issue is signal nonlocality violating the narrow limit of orthodox quantum theory.

PW: One approach is to try to look for action at a distance in physics. But I haven't seen the evidence there. Maybe we will someday, maybe not.
I do have some half-formed ideas about how certain new chips MIGHT be used to do new experiments,
but first we would need the chips themselves -- or, if they already exist, to get them hooked up to the
right nanosecond-accuracy testing needed as a prelude to building more interesting systems.
Sometimes getting people to talk to each other seems harder than figuring out the physics.

Personally, I would explain the APPEARANCE of action at a distance as an emergent phenomenon rather than part of the
laws of physics. We all know that simple-looking nonlinear dynamical systems can give rise to extremely complex emergent
phenomena, such as life itself. Thus I tend to view psychic powers as more of a biological or even neural network kind of phenomenon
than as a physics phenomenon. The physics enables the evolution of the biology, on the larger stage of the universe or cosmos, but retrocausality
is the only physics based phenomenon we (or rather, some of us) see clearly and directly in the parapsychology evidence.
Thus I tend to believe that the neural network approach allows one to make much richer contact with the empirical data from
psychology than any direct reductionist approach. ON those lines, I hope you all will forgive me if I mention a brief
pointer to to how I would put this together, on the human psychology side:


Best of luck,


OK this seems to be the whole show. Bekkum says my name is mentioned in first part.
Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura - Skinwalker
While it appears truTV is attempting to bury this show I figured I'd put this up. Apparently they haven't even paid Jesse for season three yet either. I was ...
  • Jack Sarfatti Yes, my Facebook profile photo and my name are there 10 minutes into the beginning (10:10 to 10:30 to be exact). have no objection. What they summarized is completely true. I mean the story told to me March 18, 2004 in London that Bigelow confirmed in essence in 2010. I was told by a CIA officer in 2004 to lie low on the story, which I did. So there is something real about it after all. Exactly what remains to be investigated. I was given a lot of details by the French woman from Paris, but I don't know how accurate they are. Nick Cook was in the room with me as well as Grant Stapleton.
  • Jack Sarfatti BTW Oliver Stone's son and Jesse Ventura's son are the two young investigators in the video.

It will take me time to carefully read & ponder all this. Meantime I hope others do as well. Of course, signal nonlocality in Valentini's sense settles the issue of whether retrocausation is not only real, but is controllable of practical use as suggested also in the presponse brain-mind experiments and the CIA SRI RV experiments. That goes beyond the domain of validity that even Yakir has considered. I agree with Yakir's logic below that I personally find impeccable. The new physics of course is in the Popper falsification of his last sentence: Causal loops are avoided by this anticipation remaining encrypted until the final outcomes enable to decipher it.
Now this is the point that many still don't get. With Tony Valentini's "signal nonlocality" there are Novikov causal loops in which Bob's future strong measurement final outcome is decrypted by Alice BEFORE Bob even knows what choice he will make.

This is proved by CIA/DIA experiments (assuming of course they are correct)

Harold E. Puthoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harold E. Puthoff (born June 20, 1936) is an American physicist who, earlier in his ... H. E. Puthoff, CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute, ...
Background - Ventures in Austin - Scientology - EarthTech
Remote viewing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1972, Puthoff tested remote viewer Ingo Swann at SRI, and the experiment led to a visit from two employees of the CIA's Directorate of Science and ...
History - Scientific studies and claims - Recent research
You've visited this page 3 times. Last visit: 12/4/12
CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute
CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute. by H. E. Puthoff, Ph. D. Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin 4030 Braker Lane W., #300. Austin ...
You've visited this page 3 times. Last visit: 12/5/12
On Dec 5, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

This recent preprint from Aharonov et al claim that the "only reasonable" way to understand these is by invoking retrocausality and make the unsupported claim that the weak outcomes 'anticipate the experimenter's future choice'. This is the paper I analyze in the previous drafts I attached:

"Can a Future Choice Affect a Past Measurement's Outcome?
Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Doron Grossman, Avshalom C. Elitzur
(Submitted on 27 Jun 2012 (v1), last revised 18 Sep 2012 (this version, v5))

An EPR experiment is studied where each particle undergoes a few weak measurements of different spin-orientations, whose outcomes are individually recorded. Then the particle undergoes a strong measurement along a spin orientation freely chosen at the last moment. Bell-inequality violation is expected between the two strong measurements. At the same time, agreement is expected between all same-spin measurements, whether weak or strong. A contradiction thereby ensues: i) A weak measurement cannot determine the outcome of a successive strong one; ii) Bell's theorem forbids spin values to exist prior to the final choice of the spin-orientation to be measured; and iii) Indeed no disentanglement is inflicted by the weak measurements; yet iv) The weak measurements' outcome agrees with those of the strong ones. The only reasonable resolution seems to be that of the Two-State-Vector Formalism, namely that the weak measurement's outcomes anticipate the experimenter's future choice, even before the experimenter themselves knows what their choice is going to be. Causal loops are avoided by this anticipation remaining encrypted until the final outcomes enable to decipher it. "  > end quote from Aharonov etal

From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:28 PM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Paul Werbos on back from the future physics (Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar-Aharonov-Cramer …)

Yakir does say that his results can be understood in the orthodox way. However, different ways of looking at the problem are asymmetric in terms of extending the orthodox theory to a larger domain of validity as special relativity was extended to general relativity where special relativity is only true locally but not globally in the presence of real (tensor curvature) gravity fields.

Similarly, Yakir's "Wheeler-Feynman" approach, Cramer's approach, Bohm's approach all lend themselves naturally to entanglement signal nonlocality violating orthodox quantum theory extensions of the the latter in natural ways.

This is in contrast to, for example, Asher Peres's interpretation in which such an extension is not even thinkable.

On Dec 5, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastnerwrote:

Attached is my quantitative analysis of allegedly wondrous experiments allegedly requiring retrocausation and/or claiming to show loophole in Bell's thm.  My analysis (attached) shows that no retrocausation is necessary and there is no such loophole in Bell's thm. The experiments have no new physics and are all straightforwardly accounted for by standard QM.

From: JACK SARFATTI [adastra1@me.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:37 PM
To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics

Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Paul Werbos on back from the future physics (Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar-Aharonov-Cramer …)

good question Z

I think Ruth is wrong, but it will take me time to properly refute her argument

On Dec 5, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Then what do they show?

On 12/5/2012 12:27 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

They show nothing of the sort. This is all hype.

From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net<mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net>]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:25 PM
To: Exotic Physics
Subject: Paul Werbos on back from the future physics (Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar-Aharonov-Cramer …)

*   Home<http://discovermagazine.com/><http://discovermagazine.com/>
*   »
*   April<http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr><http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr>
*   »
*   Back From the Future

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

On Dec 5, 2012, at 5:17 AM, Paul Werbos <paul.werbos@verizon.net<mailto:paul.werbos@verizon.net><mailto:paul.werbos@verizon.net><mailto:paul.werbos@verizon.net>> wrote:

The idea that causality might go backwards in time is certainly older than any of us.

Agreed. But that should not be confounded with the much stronger condition spelled out in Antony Valentini's paper here, which is what I am talking about.
Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini<http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Valentini_A/0/1/0/all/0/1><http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Valentini_A/0/1/0/all/0/1>
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049v1><http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049v1>), 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).
Comments:       10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
Subjects:       Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference:      Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
DOI:    10.1007/s12043-002-0117-1<http://arxiv.org/ct?url=http://dx.doi.org/10%2E1007/s12043-002-0117-1&v=35ec265c><http://arxiv.org/ct?url=http://dx.doi.org/10%2E1007/s12043-002-0117-1&v=35ec265c>
Report number:  Imperial/TP/1-02/15
Cite as:        arXiv:quant-ph/0203049<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049><http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049>

PW: Certainly we all know about HG Wells time machine, and about the concept of prophecy
of the future.

JS Agreed.

PW: And certainly Einstein himself was quite blunt about the claim that time is just
another dimension, and should not be treated otherwise. There is a sense in which
one might call special relativity itself a species of backwards-time physics (BTP).
Indeed, by playing with the definition of BTP (as many played with the definition of
BP and even tried to play with BTT), one could justify all kinds of statements about the history.


PW: For the backwards time interpretation of quantum mechanics, I had a special advantage.
I went to graduate school with one of the authors of the CHSH theorem and one
of the first two CHSH experiment, which is popularly called "Bell's Theorem."
(Though JS Bell himself uses the proper term CHSH.) It would be hard for anyone to
publish a paper explaining the paradoxical nature of quantum mechanics, and the CHSH
experiment, before the experiment came out and the theorem was widely disseminated.
Still, Von Neumann did look into these issues, and he did conclude that our conventional assumptions about "causality"
seem to be the basic problem in carrying through Einstein's program. (I cite the source in the IJTP paper.)

But that is just a starting point. If people get too deep into personality issues, the logical starting point will be lost,
and likewise all that it could lead to.


PW: The IJTP paper tries to get us back to empirical reality in this kind of issue. For example, the discussion
of Bell's Theorem experiments with imperfect polarizers could itself get somebody a Nobel Prize, if properly followed up on
by someone motivated to aim for a Nobel Prize. (I have too many other goals on my plate to
give that one any serious attention.) Most people try to forget the inconvenient fact that the first Bell's Theorem
experiment contradicted BOTH "local causal hidden variable theory" AND quantum mechanics in its present form.
The simple algebra in the IJTP paper basically offers a way to explain that, and nail it down.

JS: I need to study your argument as well as Ruth Kastner's rejection of Yakir Aharonov's back from the future History-Destiny double state vector interpretation.

PW: As for Aharonov... well, I do hope he can help with the cultural revolution we need to make.
Help and allies are badly needed, to get this beyond what I put into my own notebooks, and to get the experiments we need
as well. I think he has grown a lot in recent years, and he has done a great thing to try to move the mai nstream
out of its lethargy by epsilon... but...

.. In 2000, when I visited Brian Josephson in Cambridge, I found a very recent book from Cambridge University Press edited by Savitt,
with the current establishment work on "the arrow of time." Of the papers there, only the one by Huw Price really fit
the modern vision of BTP as **I** define it. Aharonov's paper had WORDS in the spirit of BTP, but the
mathematical formalism he presented simply is not consistent with BTP. More recently, he has sometimes sounded closer to
what I previously wrote, in his discussion of "preselection" -- but even so he often insists that it is just a matter of interpretation, that it's still the same theory of physics. How can we get different predictions and different technology if it's just a matter of interpretation and not a different theory?

JS: That's what Valentini's papers deal with and extension of quantum theory to include signal nonlocality "passion at a distance" violating orthodox quantum theory that is simply a limiting case of the more general "post-quantum theory". Weinberg and Stapp already published such models. Weinberg's is incomplete neglecting spontaneous symmetry breakdown in ground states of complex systems. Also my idea

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html - two slides in Lecture 8 on my back-action theory that implies Valentini's signal nonlocality


And Brian Josephsons (& Pallikari) "Biological Utilization of Nonlocality"


PW: I had a good personal relation for years with Karl Pribram, until other people in our lives and the general pressure of time pulled us in different directions. I still remember one time when he looked very perplexed and said: "<http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/================PW:IhadagoodpersonalrelationforyearswithKarlPribram,untilotherpeopleinourlivesandthegeneralpressureoftimepulledusindifferentdirections.Istillrememberonetimewhenhelookedveryperplexedandsaid:>Paul, I have already been marginalized to a huge extent
by being too far out in left field for most of the establishment to accept. But you are way the hell to the left of ME... and also way to
the right at the same time. Neither group, the left nor the right, will be able to accept that." So... with technology and the mind,
I see real-world possibilities rather beyond what those other folks you cite do. But with what we know in physics today..
I see more promise for now in trying to simplify and unify what physics knows
than in exercising creative imagination in a way which is not so grounded in experience and experiment (as the superstring people do,
making the medieval epicycle guys look mild by comparison, mor elike angels on the head of a pin).

Concretely, what I see right now is the possibility that Einstein's original goals are still doable. In the IJTP paper, I spoke
of a many world BTP AND an Einsteinian BTP. By now, I see more concretely how to fulfill that theoretical goal,
with a few specific Lagrangians for a classical PDE, which generates quantum stuff as an emergent statistical outcome,
so long as one does the statistics correctly WITHOUT imposing the exogenous assumption of classical time-forward statistics.
Yea even a neoclassical version of the standard model of physics, without a need for renormalization...

But it's a long story, and today I must move on to read 180 new proposals to NSF...
That time of year...

Best of luck,



<Weak measurement correlations with strong measurements.docx><specific calculation in reply to EC and AE.docx>

ExoticPhysics mailing list

The lesson of the thirty six never-used RAF Spitfires allegedly buried in their packing crates in Burma since WW2.
Like · · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti Thirty six never used RAF Spitfires still in their packing crates may have been found buried in Burma.

    At some point we must be ready for an EMP attack. Old weapons like these Spitfires, the old battleships, cruisers, destroyers, their ammunitions, using mostly mechanical hydraulic systems etc. of the mothball fleet, radios using old vacuum tubes, old telephones, even morse code telegraphs etc. would probably work after such an attack especially if they were not switched on during the attack.

    A special branch of the US & Allied military should preserve these old weapons in pristine working order with enough personnel who know how to use them in the eventuality that our modern weapons are fried in a large scale EMP (high nuclear blast) attack. Also gas stations, oil refineries etc should have non electrical backup pumps and major water, electrical grids must be EMP hardened.
  • Jack Sarfatti Electromagnetic pulse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    5 Non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse; 6 Post–Cold War nuclear EMP attack scenarios; 7 Clarification of common misconceptions; 8 See also; 9 References ...
    History - Characteristics of nuclear EMP - Practical considerations for ...
    You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 8/8/12
    EMP attack: '90% of Americans would be dead'
    EMP attack: '90% of Americans would be dead'. Seminar to reveal dangers, threats from radicals armed with nukes. Published: 08/02/2012 at 8:29 PM. Tweet ...
    Is Israel planning EMP attack on Iran?
    Aug 20, 2012 – Sources say that an Israeli EMP attack also would effectively halt Iran's ability to launch its forces to block the Strait of Hormuz, which the Islamic ...
    Life After An EMP Attack: No Power, No Food, No Transportation, No ...
    Sep 19, 2011 – Most Americans do not know this, but a single EMP attack could potentially wipe out most of the electronics in the United States and instantly ...
    EMP Commission
    ... Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack ...The EMP Commission was established pursuant to title XIV of the Floyd D.
    Videos for emp attack - Report videos

    ► 3:39► 3:39
    Projection of IranianEMP Attack on ...
    Apr 28, 2012

    ► 37:08► 37:08
    Israel's Possible EMP Attack on Iran ...
    Oct 8, 2012

    ► 32:12► 32:12
    EMP Attack : What Happen's if ...
    Oct 10, 2012
    Images for emp attack - Report images

    WW3 EMP Attack Imminent: US/NATO/SYRIA/IRAN/ISRAEL To Get It ...
    Oct 18, 2012 – WW3 EMP Attack Imminent: US/NATO/SYRIA/IRAN/ISRAEL To Get It On! ... An attack on the US with an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) weapon.
    U.S. sees signs Israel could use nuclear EMP attack against Iran ...
    Aug 29, 2012 – U.S. intelligence agencies recently reported growing concerns that Israel will conduct a strike on Iran using a high-altitude nuclear burst aimed ...
    Gingrich's Electromagnetic Pulse Warning Has Skeptics - NYTimes ...
    Dec 11, 2011 – But it is to the risk of an EMP attack that Mr. Gingrich has repeatedly returned. And while the message may play well to hawkish audiences, who ...
    One Second After an EMP Attack? I think you mean Nuclear Attack ...
    Jul 14, 2012 – Worse, a belief in the likelihood of an EMP attack (the big one) often leads them to discount and discard paths to resilience they should...
    Searches related to emp attack
    emp attack probability
    emp attack survival
    emp protection
    possibility of emp attack
    emp attack on america
    prepare emp attack
    emp attack study
    chinese emp attack
    A Free Press For A Free People Since 1997


Begin forwarded message:

From: Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu>
Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Basil Hiley's update on current state of work in Bohm's ontological picture of quantum theory
Date: November 25, 2012 12:36:53 PM PST
To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>, Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
Reply-To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>

In this approach I still don't see a clear answer to the question 'what is a particle,' unless it is that particles are projection operators.
In PTI a 'particle' is just a completed (actualized) transaction. PTI deals with both the non-rel and relativistic realms with the same basic model, which testifies to the power of that model. It is straightforwardly realist: quantum states describe subtle (non-classical) physical entities.
It seems to me that approaches dealing with conceptual problems in terms of abstract algebras are intrinsically non-realist or even anti-realist. Physics is the study of physical reality. Algebra is purely formal. Unless one wants to say that reality is purely formal,i.e. has no genuine physical content, I don't see how appealing to an abstract algebra as the fundamental content of quantum theory can provide interpretive insight into reality.
Put more simply, a physical theory may certainly contain formal elements, but those elements need to be understood as *referring to something in the real world* in order for us
to understand what the theory is describing or saying about the physical world. That is, it is the physical world that dictates what the theory's mathematical content and
structure should be, because of the contingent features of the physical world. Saying that a theory has a certain mathematical structure or certain formal components does not specify what the theory is saying about reality. I think an interpretation of a theory should be able to provide specific physical insight into what a theory is telling us about the domain it mathematically describes.


Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@PacBell.net>
Subject: [Starfleet Command] Basil Hiley's update on current state of work in Bohm's ontological picture of quantum theory
Date: November 25, 2012 11:58:26 AM PST
To: Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
Reply-To: SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com

On Nov 25, 2012, at 2:55 AM, Basil Hiley <b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk> wrote:


As I dig deeper into the mathematical structure that contains the mathematical features that the Bohm uses, Bohm energy, Bohm momentum, quantum potential etc. are essential features, as you imply, of a non-commutative phase space; strictly a symplectic structure with a non-commutative multiplication (the Moyal-star product).  This product combines into two brackets, the Moyal bracket, (a*b-b*a)/hbar and the Baker bracket (a*b+b*a)/2.  The beauty of these brackets is to order hbar, Moyal becomes the Poisson and Baker becomes the ordinary product ab.

Time evolution requires two equations, simply because you have to distinguish between 'left' and 'right' translations.  These two equations are in fact the two Bohm equations produced from the Schrödinger equation under polar decomposition in disguised form.  There is no need to appeal to classical physics at any stage. Nevertheless these two equations reduce in the limit order hbar to the classical Liouville equation and the classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation respectively. This then shows that the quantum potential becomes negligible in the classical limit as we have maintained all along.  There are not two worlds, quantum and classical, there is just one world.  It was by using this algebraic structure that I was able to show that the Bohm model can be extended to the Pauli and Dirac particles, each with their own quantum potential.  However here not only do we have a non-commutative symplectic symmetry, but also a non-commutative orthogonal symmetry, hence my interests in symplectic and orthogonal Clifford algebras.

In this algebraic approach the wave function is not taken to be something fundamental, indeed there is no need to introduce the wave function at all!.  What is fundamental are the elements of the algebra, call it what you will, the Moyal algebra or the von Neumann algebra, they are exactly the same thing.  This is algebraic quantum mechanics that Haag discusses in his book "Local Quantum Physics, fields, particles and algebra".  Physicists used to call it matrix mechanics, but then it was unclear how it all hung together.  In the algebraic approach there is no collapse of the wave function, because you don't need the wave function.  All the information contained in the wave function is encoded in the algebra itself, in its left and right ideals which are intrinsic to the algebra itself.  Where are the particles in this approach?  For that we need Eddington's "The Philosophy of Science", a brilliant but neglected work.  Like a point in geometry, what is a particle?  Is it a hazy general brick-like entity out of which the world is constructed, or is it a quasi-local, semi-autonomous feature within the total structure-process?  Notice the change, not things-in-interaction, but structure-process in which any invariant feature takes its form and properties from the structure-process that gives it subsistence. If an algebra is used to describe this structure-process, then what is the element that subsists?  What is the element of existence?  The idempotent E^2=E has eigenvalues 0 or 1: it exists or it doesn't exist.  An entity exists in a structure-process if it continuously turns itself into itself.  The Boolean logic of the classical world turns existence into a permanent order: quantum logic turns existence into a partial order of non-commutative E_i!  Particles can be 'created' or 'annihilated' depending on the total overall process. Here there is an energy threshold, keep the energy low and it is the properties of the entity that are revealed through non-commutativity, these properties becoming commutativity to order hbar.  The Bohm model can be used to complement the standard approach below the creation/annihilation threshold.  Raise this threshold and then the field theoretic properties of the underlying algebras become apparent.

All this needs a different debate from the usual one that seems to go round and round in circles, seemingly resolving very little. Basil.

On 24 Nov 2012, at 19:10, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

What is the ontology of "possibility"? In Bohm's picture it is a physical field whose domain is phase space (Wigner density) and whose range is Hilbert space. They are physically real, but not classical material.

The basic problem is how can a non-physical something interact with a physical something? This is a contradiction in the informal language. Only like things interact with unlike things. Otherwise, it's "then a miracle happens" and we are back to magick's "collapse". We simply replace one mystery by another in that case.

On Nov 24, 2012, at 5:59 AM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

Yes. It serves as a probability distribution because it is an ontological descriptor of possibilities.

From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 1:56 AM
To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics

Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Asher Peres's Bohrian epistemological view of quantum theory opposes Einstein-Bohm's ontological view. Commentary #2

On Nov 23, 2012, at 9:24 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com<mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com>> wrote:

Did it ever occur to anyone in this field that the quantum wave amplitude plays a dual role, first as an ontological descriptor,
and second as probability distribution?

This I think is consistent with Bohm's ideas. When there is sub-quantal thermal equilibrium (A. Valentini) the Born probability rule works, but not otherwise.

It seems reasonable to suppose that the wave interference phenomena of quantum physics reflect an underlying objective
ontology, while the probability distributions derived from such physical wave amplitudes reflect both that and also our state
of knowledge of a system.

That a classical probability distribution suddenly "collapses" when the information available to us changes is no mystery.

The appearance of collapse is explained clearly in Bohm & Hiley's Undivided Universe. See also Mike Towler's Cambridge Lectures. I will provide details later.

So the trick here I think is to disentangle the objective ontic components from the subjective state-of-knowledge-of-the-observer
components of the wave function and its associated probability density -- to "diagonalize" the conceptual matrix, so to speak.

However, other than Bohm it looks like no one in foundations of quantum physics has yet figured out a way to do that.


My favorite example is an apple orchard at harvest, the trees having fruit with stems of randomly varying strength. Let's suppose
there is an earthquake and a seismic wave propagates along the ground. The amount of shaking of the trees at any given time
and place will be proportional to the intensity of the seismic wave, given by the square of the wave amplitude, and therefore the
smoothed density of fallen apples left on the ground after the earthquake will naturally be derivable from the square seismic wave
amplitude (since that determines the energy available for shaking the trees). However, when we see that a particular apple has fallen,
the derived probability density (initially describing *both* the intensity of the seismic wave *and* our state of knowledge about the
likelihood of any particular apple falling to the ground) suddenly "collapses", but in this example such "collapse" is purely a function
of our state of knowledge about a particular apple, and does not have any bearing on the wave amplitude from which it was
initially derived. In this example, it is quite clear that the probability distribution applying to any particular apple can "collapse" due
to an observation being made of any particular apple, even while the wave amplitude from which it was initially derived is entirely
unaffected by the observation of the state of any particular apple.

My question is, why is wave mechanics any different? Isn't this also a "Born interpretation" of the seismic wave?

On Nov 23, 2012, at 10:25 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu<mailto:kafatos@chapman.edu>> wrote:

I disagree, if one insists on just one view (realism) being the only possibility. We have to ask what do we mean by "real"? What kind of "space" does that wave function reside in? What are its units if not in Hilbert space referring to the Born interpretation?

There are numerous attempts to ontologize the wave function (see Kafatos and Nadeau, "The Conscious Universe", Springer 2000). The hidden metaphysics is to assume axiomatically that an external reality exists independent of conscious observers. This ultimately leads to an increased number of theoretical constructs without closure of anything (e.g. the multiverse).

Moreover, in the matrix mechanics the wave function is not needed. If psi were real, shouldn't it have been discovered long ago? Unless one argues that the theory of QM didn't exist until the 20th century so we couldn't have "discovered" it which case it gets us back to a description of nature dependent on observers!

It is OK to ontologize anything but in that case, please follow the hidden metaphysics that is implied. And state this metaphysics.

In a practical way to conduct science, we should remember how specific scientific constructs were developed. It didn't happen that somehow scientists like Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Born, etc. stumbled on a physical quantity called the wave function psi. It was developed as part of wave mechanics which was complementary to Heisenberg's matrix mechanics.

The other ontology is that consciousness is real. This one naturally follows from orthodox quantum theory and leads to a pragmatic view of the cosmos. Two ontologies, take your pick for specific science to do. One leads to many worlds interpretation and ultimately to, perhaps, an infinity of universes, one of a few (or only one?) that happens to be "right" one (including having something called the wave function) to have conscious observers; the other leads to one universe that is self-driven by itself.

Can the two views/ontologies be reconciled? Yes, in a generalized complementarity framework, although one would negate the other in specific applications. What is "real" in this view is generalized principles applying at all levels and whatever science one works with. One deals with an objective view of the universe. The other with a subjective view of the universe (which relies on qualia).

I won't go any further. See also a series of articles by Chopra, Tanzi and myself in the last several months in Huffington Post and San Francisco Chronicle.

Menas Kafatos

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 24, 2012, at 1:53 PM, "JACK SARFATTI" <sarfatti@pacbell.net<mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net><mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net>> wrote:

Yes, I agree with Ruth. I think Peres is fundamentally mistaken. However, there are some important insights in his papers nevertheless.

On Nov 23, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu<mailto:rkastner@umd.edu><mailto:rkastner@umd.edu>> wrote:

Concerning this statement by Peres and Fuchs in what is quoted below:

"Here, we must be careful: a quantum jump (also called collapse) is something that happens in our description of the system, not to the system itself. "

How do they know that? That is just an anti-realist assumption; that is, it presupposes that quantum states and processes do not refer to entities in the world but only to our knowledge (i.e. that quantum states are epistemic). This view has come under increasing criticism (e.g. via the PBR theorem which disproves some types of 'epistemic' interpretations). I present a contrary, realist view in my new book on TI, in which measurements are clearly accounted for in physical terms and quantum states do refer to entities, not just our knowledge. Quantum 'jumps' can certainly be considered real and can be  understood as a kind of spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Details on that?

In my view, quantum theory is not just about knowledge or epistemic probability; it is about the real world. There is no need to give up realism re quantum theory. Prior realist interpretations simply have not been able to solve the measurement problem adequately, because they neglect the relativistic level in which absorption and emission are acknowledged as equally important physical processes.


ExoticPhysics mailing list

Reply via web post                            Reply to sender                             Reply to group                            Start a New Topic               Messages in this topic (1)                       RECENT ACTIVITY:
Visit Your Group
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?)

** Patronize any Yahoo! Group Sponsor at your own risk.

- - - - - - Message From Starfleet  - - - (Read below) - - - - - - - - - - -
To change any characteristic of your online membership access, visit via web:

Join in our ongoing discussions and theoretical science writings:

Dr. Sarfatti may be reached at his e-mail or using Internet site:

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

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback .