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.
om 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...
In physics (especially astrophysics), redshift happens when light seen coming frOn Apr 19, 2013, at 4:39 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
My reply to Z's comments below.
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
<3ca857f705daba6b9e6e6d3ccad7990f.png>
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
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).
please send reference
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)
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
of coherent gravitational radiation
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
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>
Reply-To: SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com
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 Durr, 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:
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:
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
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
.
__,_._,___