Text Size

Stardrive

Like · · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti I state my bias, and I hope I will prove wrong, but I think large scale variations in inertia is not a viable idea.
    Even if it could be done, I think it would be suicidal destroying the Star Ship. I am also skeptical of the
    1/G effect, but again that's because the DARPA-NASA paper I gave in Orlando on Oct 1, 2011 on "low power warp drive" is a G effect, more specifically, (index of refraction)^4G/c^4 amplifying the coupling of the applied stress-energy current density tensor Tuv to the WARP FIELD Guv in Einstein's 1916 classical field theory of the geometrodynamical field. With Bose-Einstein Condensates (BEC) we can get (index of refraction) ~ 10^10 giving an effective amplification of the G-coupling of 10^40. Furthermore, with a high Tc BEC that is also a meta-material with negative electric permittivity and negative magnetic permeability. Therefore, an applied EM field energy density ~ E.D + B.H < 0 we have "exotic matter" giving a repulsive anti-gravity effect.

    Jim Woodward has made spurious objections to my scheme in his book. I will briefly address them in this introductory commentary.

    Current experiments using laser light passing though atomic BEC's will not show the effect in any obvious dramatic way because the measurement is very short lived and it is at high frequency using real photons f = kc in Glauber coherent states. Furthermore the atomic BECs are not metamaterials so certainly no anti-gravity would be expected. More importantly, I am talking about non-radiative near EM field sources in Tuv where f =/= kc. These near field sources induce near Warp Fields. We are not interested at all in GRAVITY WAVES! They are leaks in the WARP FIELD DYNAMO to be avoided.

    For the moment using weak fields in first order perturbation theory against a non-dynamical globally flat Minkowski background,

    guv = (Special Relativity Metric)uv + huv

    guv(k,f) = huv(k,f)

    Einstein's NEAR FIELD equations are approximately (we really need convolution integrals - so this is very rough).

    Guv(k,f) + (index of refraction k,w)^4GTuv(k,f)/c^4 = 0

    T00(k,f) ~ E(k,f).D(k,f) + B(k,f).H(k,f) < 0 etc.

    Note, for example, the metric NEAR field of the Earth of mass M for static detectors at fixed r is

    g00 = 1 - 2GM/c^2r = - 1/grr etc.

    This is a Glauber coherent state of NON_RADIATIVE VIRTUAL LONGITUDINAL POLARIZED GRAVITONS f = 0, all k analogous to the Coulomb field of a charge in its rest frame that is a coherent Glauber state of f = 0 all k virtual longitudinal polarized photons.

    The rest massless SPIN 1 photon has one longitudinal polarization in the near field with two transverse polarizations in far radiation field.

    The rest massless SPIN 2 graviton has THREE NEAR FIELD VIRTUAL POLARIZATIONS that do not appear as FAR FIELD GRAVITY WAVES with only two transverse polarizations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GravitationalWave_PlusPolarization.gif

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GravitationalWave_CrossPolarization.gif

    AGAIN WE ARE NOT AT ALL INTERESTED IN THESE GRAVITY WAVES FOR CONSTRUCTING STAR GATE TIME MACHINES AND WARP DRIVE DYNAMOS. We are only interested in what electrical engineers call induction fields both EM and GRAVITY.

    In terms of quantum field theory, we are not interested in the poles of the Feynman propagators/S-Matrix in the complex energy plane. We are only interested in the stuff away from the poles of the S-Matrix.

    RADIATION FIELDS
    electriciantraining.tpub.com/14182/css/14182_64.htm
    This radiation field is responsible for electromagnetic radiation from the antenna. ... 2-4 All the energy supplied to the induction field is returned to the antenna by ...
    Near and far field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
    Absorption of radiation from the reactive part of the near-field, however, does affect the load on the transmitter. Magnetic induction (for example, in a transformer) ...
    You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 12/24/11
    Electromagnetic radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
    Jump to Near and far fields: Electromagnetic radiation thus includes the far field part of the ... as the magnetic induction inside an electrical transformer, ...
    Antenna And Wave Propagation - Page 1-24 - Google Books Result
    books.google.com/books?isbn=8184317220
    U.A.Bakshi, A.V.Bakshi - 2009
    This term is called radiation or distant field. 2. The second term varies inversely with the square of distance r. This term is called induction field. When distance r ...

    To be continued
    commons.wikimedia.org
    In case this is not legally possible:MOBle grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
  1.  
    · Comment
  2. Friends
    See All
    • Jonathan Vos Post
    • Andreas Albrecht
    • Dan Smith
    • Tove K. Danovich
    • Maxine Pearson
    • Bonnie Tarwater
    • Stewart Swerdlow
    • Joseph Nechvatal
    •  
       
      Explaining the Paranormal with Physics - Debate with Garrett Moddel
      stardrive.org
      Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
  3. Photos
    See All
    Most of the FUN people on Christmas Eve!
    Hi Jack and Joe!
    Why Study Entanglement ?  Live version of presentation
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/Flash/4e43d53a-9611-4e3d-a012-89b94af61d89/viewer.html


(Flash Presentation, MP3, Windows Presentation,Windows Video File,PDF) -
  4. Explaining the Paranormal with Physics
    • Jack Sarfatti Garret Moddel
      Professor, Electrical, Computer & Energy Engineering
      University of Colorado
      Quantum Engineering Lab: http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/index.html
      PsiPhen Lab: http://psiphen.colorado.edu On Jan 17, 2013, at 6:17 PM, Garret Moddel wrote:

      Thank you for the respect!

      The answer is clearly not (1), but that does not mean it is (2). It could be none of the above.

      Jack: Again I strongly disagree. You are opting for no-explanation or perhaps a non-scientific supernatural explanation. It's obvious to my mind, and I think to many others that quantum entanglement when supplemented with signal nonlocality beyond orthodox quantum theory has all the properties in a natural way that the evidence demands. Now, ultimately to paraphrase Einstein - the correspondence of theory with experiment depends upon the "free invention of the human imagination" into making a coherent narrative. Either you grok it or you don't. Ultimately it comes down to intuitive judgement I suppose. That one can sense events which have not happened before they happen, but which will happen in a Novikov loop in time makes perfect sense in the coherent narrative (paradigm) of entanglement + signal nonlocality. This idea is Popper falsifiable. Without signal nonlocality the kind of evidence you say you believe could not possibly occur.

      The basic no-signal arguments of orthodox quantum theory assert that looking locally at one part B of an entangled system will only show perfectly random noise independent of how one changes the parameter settings (e.g. orientation of a Stern-Gerlach magnet) of a detector of a distantly entangled part A. With signal nonlocality that is no longer the case and a non-random signal can be detected at B's detector depending on the local time sequence of parameter settings for A's detector - without the need for a classical signal key to decrypt the entangled message as in orthodox quantum theory. Moreover, the spatio-temporal separation between the paired detections of A & B do not matter at all. Entanglement is independent of the space-time separation between the irreversible detections of A & B even if A the active sender is in the timelike future of B the passive receiver.

      Bottom line, you are happy not to have any explanation rooted in known physical theory. I am not happy with that, given that there is a natural explanation available that only requires a minimal extension of quantum physics analogous to extending special relativity to general relativity, or extending classical mechanics to orthodox quantum mechanics, or re-interpreting classical thermodynamics in terms of kinetic theory of gases and then beyond to classical statistical mechanics.

      Garrett: If we had been discussing solutions to the ultraviolet catastrophe in the late 19th century and you offered me (1) classical thermodynamics, or (2) natural radical conservative extensions of orthodox Maxwell equations, that would be too limited a choice. None-of-the-above would have included the Planck distribution and quantum mechanics. We may well be in a similar situation here.

      Jack: I think you are making a simple problem more complex. To my mind at least entanglement with signal nonlocality is a perfectly obvious natural explanation and why you cannot see that surprises me.

      Garrett: The only way I know of to distinguish whether natural radical conservative extensions of orthodox quantum theory do resolve the issue would be if they provided testable, and falsifiable, predictions that are then tested.

      Jack: You have put the cart before the horse. The kinds of evidence you say you believe is precisely what to expect from entanglement + signal nonlocality! Indeed, the ABSENCE of the kind of evidence you say you believe would have been the POPPER FALSIFICATION of the entanglement + signal nonlocality explanation!

      Now, in dealing with human subjects of enormous complexity with many variables we cannot control, you can't expect the kind of quantitative comparison of numerical data with equations that we get in Newtonian celestial mechanics or in the radiative corrections to quantum electrodynamics etc. If you are looking for that, you won't get it. However, given the idea that entanglement + signal nonlocality is the mechanism of consciousness itself, one may hope to mimic it in the laboratory with nano-engineering naturally conscious solid-state android brains for example - conscious computers. Such things become thinkable scientifically.
    • Jack Sarfatti BTW in case you are not aware of this:
      Subquantum Information and Computation
      Antony Valentini
      (Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
      It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
      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
      Report number: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
      Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
      (or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)
      Submission history
      Excerpts from
    • Jack Sarfatti Theoretical model of a purported empirical violation of the predictions of quantum theory

      Henry P. Stapp

      (Originally published in Physical Review A, Vol.50, No.1, July 1994)

      ABSTRACT: A generalization of Weinberg's nonlinear quantum theory is used to model a reported violation of the predictions of orthodox quantum theory.
      I. INTRODUCTION

      This work concerns the possibility of causal anomalies. By a causal anomaly I mean a theoretical or empirical situation in which the occurrence or nonoccurrence of an observable event at one time must apparently depend upon a subsequently generated (pseudo) random number, or willful human act.

      Considerations of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen [1] and Bell's-Theorem [2] type entail [3] -- if many-world's interpretations are excluded -- the occurrence of causal anomalies on the theoretical level, provided certain predictions of quantum theory are at least approximately valid. However, those anomalies cannot manifest on the empirical level if the quantum predictions hold exactly [4]. On the other hand, slight departures from the exact validity of the quantum predictions [5] could lead to small but observable causal anomalies [6].

      Empirical causal anomalies have been reported in the past in experiments that appear, at least superficially, to have been conducted in accordance with scientific procedures [7], and the protocols are becoming ever more stringent [8]. I do not enter into the difficult question of assessing the reliability of these reports. The scientific community generally looks upon them with skepticism. But at least part of this skepticism originates not from specific challenges to the protocols and procedures of the works of, for example, Jahn, Dobyns and Dunne [7], but from the belief that such results are not compatible with well-established principles of physics, and hence to be excluded on theoretical grounds. However, it turns out that small modifications of the standard quantum principles would allow some of the most impossible sounding of the reported phenomena to be accommodated. According to the report in Ref. [8], it would appear that in certain experimental situations willfull human acts, selected by pseudorandom numbers generated at one time, can shift, relative to the randomness predicted by normal quantum theory, the timings of radioactive decays that were detected and recorded months earlier on floppy discs, but that were not observed at that time by any human observer. Such an influence of an observer backward in time on atomic events seems completely at odds with physical theory. However, a slight modification of normal quantum theory can accommodate the reported data. In the scientific study of any reported phenomena it is hard to make progress without a theoretical description that ties them in a coherent way into the rest physics.

      The purpose of the present work is to construct, on the basis of an extension of Weinberg's nonlinear generalization of quantum theory [5], a theoretical model that would accommodate causal anomalies of the kind described above. Specifically, the present work shows that the reported phenomena, although incompatible with the main currents of contemporary scientific thought, can be theoretically modeled in a coherent and relatively simple way by combining certain ideas of von Neumann and Pauli abut the interpretation of quantum theory with Weinberg's nonlinear generalization of the quantum formalism.

      II. THE THEORETICAL MODEL

      To retain the mathematical structure of quantum theory almost intact, I shall exploit the ideas of von Neumann [9] and Pauli [10], according to which the von Neumann process number 1 (reduction of the wave packet) is physically associated with the mental process of the observer. It is interesting that two of our most rigorous-minded mathematical physicists should both be inclined to favor an idea that is so contrary to our normal idea of the nature of the physical world. most physicists have, I think, preferred to accept the common-sense idea that the world of macroscopic material properties is factual: e.g., that the Geiger counter either fires or does not fire, independently of whether any observer has witnessed it; and that the mark on the photographic plate is either there or not there, whether anyone observes it or not. Yet it is difficult to reconcile this common-sense intuition with the mathematical formalism of quantum theory. For there is in that structure no natural breakpoint in the chain of events that leads from an atomic event that initiates the chain to the brain event associated with the resulting observational experience. From the perspective of the mathematical physicist the imposition of a breakpoint at any purely physical level is arbitrary and awkward: it would break the close connection between mathematics and the physical world in a way that is mathematically unnatural, and moreover lacks any empirical or scientific justification. From a purely logical perspective it seems preferable to accept the uniformity of nature's link between the mathematical and physical worlds, rather than to inject, without any logical or empirical reason, our notoriously fallible intuitions about the nature of physical reality.
    • Jack Sarfatti Following, then, the mathematics, instead of intuition, I shall adopt the assumption that the Schrodinger equation holds uniformly in the physical world. That is, I shall adopt the view that the physical universe, represented by the quantum state of the universe, consists merely of a set of tendencies that entail statistical links between mental events.

      In fact, this point of view is not incompatible with the Copenhagen interpretation, which, although epistemological rather than ontological in character [11], rests on the central fact that in science we deal, perforce, with connections between human observations: the rest of science is a theoretical imagery whose connection to reality must remain forever uncertain.

      According to this point of view, expressed however in ontological terms, the various possibilities in regard to the detection of a radioactive decay remain in a state of "possibility" or "potentiality," even after the results are recorded on magnetic tape: no reduction of the wave packet occurs until some pertinent mental event occurs.

      By adopting this non-common-sense point of view, we shift the problem raised by the reported results from that of accounting for an influence of willful thoughts occurring at one time upon radioactive decays occurring months earlier to the simpler problem of accounting for the biasing of the probabilities for the occurrence of the thoughts themselves, i.e., a biasing relative to the probabilities predicted by orthodox quantum theory. This latter problem is manageable: Weinberg [5] has devised a nonlinear quantum mechanics that is very similar to quantum theory, but that can produce probabilities that are biased, relative to the probabilities predicted by linear quantum mechanics. Gisin [6] has already pointed out that Weinberg's theory can lead to causal anomalies.

      According to the interpretation of quantum theory adopted here, the mechanical recording of the detection of the products of a radioactive decay generates a separation of the physical world into a collection of superposed "channels" or "branches": the physical world, as represented by the wave function of the universe, divides into a superposition of channels, one for each of the different possible recorded (but unobserved) results. Contrary to common sense the recorded but unobserved numbers remain in a state of superposed "potentia," to use the word of Heisenberg. Later, when the human observer looks at the device, the state of his brain will separate into a superposition of channels corresponding to the various alternative macroscopic possibilities, in the way described by von Neumann [9]. FInally, when thepsychological event of observation occurs, the state of the universe will be reduced by a projection onto those brain states that are singled out by the conscious experience of the observer [12].

      If the probabilities associated with the various alternative possibilities for the brain state are those given by orthodox quantum theory, then there can be no systematic positive bias of the kind reported: the probabilities associated with the alternative possible brain events will necessarily, according to the orthodox theory, as explained by von Neumann, agree with those that were determined earlier from the probabilities of the alternative possible detections of radioactive decays: there could be no biasing of those probabilities due to a subsequent willful intent of an observer. However, a generalization of Weinberg's nonlinear quantum mechanics allows the probabilities for the possible reductions of the state of the brain of the observer to be biased, relative to those predicted by orthodox quantum theory, by features of the state of the brain of the conscious observer. If such a feature were the activity of the brain that is associated with "intent," then the effect of the anomalous term in the Hamiltonian would be to shift the quantum probabilities corresponding to the various alternative possible conscious events toward the possibilities linked to his positive intent.

      We turn, therefore, to a description of Weinberg's theory, in the context of the problem of the shifting of the probabilities away from those predicted by orthodox quantum theory, and toward those defined by an "intent" represented by particular features of the state of the brain of the observer.

      Weinberg's nonlinear quantum theory is rooted in the fact that the quantum-mchanical equations of motion for a general quantum system are just the classical equations of motion for a very simple kind of classical system, namely a collection of classical simple harmonic oscillators. Thus a natural way to generalize quantum theory is to generalize this simple classical system.
      [ technicalities deleted... ]

      This example shows that the reported phenomena, although contrary to orthodox ideas about causality, can be model within a Weinberg-type of nonlinear quantum theory if the Hamiltonian functionh(psi,psi*) is allowed to be nonreal.

      If there are in nature nonlinear contributions of the kind indicated...then it seems likely that biological systems would develop in such a way as to exploit the biasing action. The biasing states, illustrated in the model by the state |chi>, could become tied, in the course of biological evolution, to biological desiderata, so that the statistical tendencies specified by the basic dynamics would be shifted in a way that would enhance the survival of the organism.

      The Weinberg nonlinearities were intially introduced in the present context because of Gisin's result, which showed that these nonlinearities could lead to causal anomalies of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) kind. However, the considerations given above indicate that those nonlinearities alone cannot produce anomalies of the kind reported in Ref. [8]: a nonreal h is apparently needed to obtain an effect of that kind.

      Because the nonlinear aspect is not obviously needed, one could try to revert to a linear theory. Yet it is important to recognize that in the modeling of acausal effects one has available the more general nonlinear framework.

      If the purported acausal phenomena is a real physical eitect and is explainable in terms of a nonreal h that arises solely in conjunction with nonlinear terms, as in the model given above, then orthodox quantum theory could become simply the linear approximation to a more adequate nonlinear theory.

      [1] A. Einstein, B. Podoisky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
      [2] J.S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964).
      [3] H.P. Stapp, Phys. Rev. A 47, 847 (1993); 46, 6860 (1992); H.P. Stapp and D. Bedford, Synthese (to be published).
      [4] P. Eberhard, Nuovo Ciniento 46B, 392 (1978).
      [5] S. Weinberg, Ann. Phys.(N.Y.)194,336 (1989).
      [6] N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A 143, 1 (1990).
      [7] R. Jahn, Y. Dobyns, and B. Dunne, J. Sci. Expl. 5, 205 (1991); B.J. Dunne and R.G. Jahn, ibid. 6, 311 (1992).
      [8] H. Schmidt, J. Parapsychol. 57, 351 (1993).
      [9] J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955), Chap. VI.
      [10] W. Pauli, quoted in Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993), Chap. 7.
      [11] H.P. Stapp, Am. J. Phys. 40, 1098 (1972).
      [12] H.P. Stapp, Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics (Ref. [10]).

      http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/stapp.html
    • Jack Sarfatti Garrett: I don't know of any such predictions and tests for psi phenomena. We've entered the realm of philosophy and may not be able to resolve this for now.

      Jack: Start here:

      Research papers of interest:
      ...See More
      www.fourmilab.ch
      RPKP wishes to thankHelmut Schmidtfor his continuing advice and encouragement, as well as the loan of anoise-based true random generator. Thanks also toRoger Nelsonat thePrinceton Engineering Anomalies Research lab,Peter Moorein Theology and Religious Studies (UKC), Sir Robert Bunkum for guidance, s...
    • Jack Sarfatti On Jan 17, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

      I respectfully disagree completely with you. A post-quantum theory for this exists. There are several alternative independently derived natural radical conservative extensions of orthodox quantum theory e.g. Stapp, Valentini, Cramer, myself, et-al that have entanglement signaling. There are only two possible interpretations of the evidence
      1) classical electromagnetic OR 2) quantum entanglement supplemented by non-unitary signal nonlocality. If 1) is false, then 2) is true. There is no other alternative if we accept the data as true. If u have a third rational physical alternative, what is it?

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Jan 17, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Garret Moddel wrote:

      Those examples are evidence for psi, which I have no argument with. In a number of studies my lab has also found robust evidence for psi and retrocausal effects.

      However, to conclude that these are due to quantum entanglement is speculative, and so far unsupported by the evidence. Psi shares characteristics with quantum phenomena and psi does influence quantum states (along with any other statistically fluctuating states). But no quantum theory of psi that I am aware of provides accurate predictions. Until there is a falsifiable (in the Popper sense) theory for psi that incorporates quantum entanglement I will remain skeptical of the connection between the two.

      That is the reason that I stated there is a similarity but no direct connection between psi and quantum entanglement.

      -Garret

      On Jan 14, 2013, at 1:27 PM, jack <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

      Sent from my iPad

      On Jan 14, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Garret Moddel <Moddel@Colorado.EDU> wrote:

      Chris & Jack-

      Garrett: My statement was based on the standard interpretation of quantum entanglement, in which correlation is maintained but there cannot be any information transferred between the distant particles.
      Jack: Right but the evidence clearly shows that no entanglement signal theorem is empirically wrong in my opinion. This is the debate.

      Garrett:I know there are alternative theories, but is there solid evidence of superluminal information transfer in QE? I haven't been following this discussions. It would be great to have evidence that my statement has been shown to be false, because that really would open a lot of doors.

      Jack: Theory along lines of Stapp, Weinberg, Josephson, myself, Cramer, Valentini, i.e. radical conservative extension of orthodox qm to include non-unitary nonlinear effects

      Evidence: presponse Libet, Radin, Bierman, Bem

      Puthoff & Targ SRI

      On Jan 12, 2013, at 7:53 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

      Thanks.

      On Jan 12, 2013, at 6:35 PM, hris W wrote:

      Hey Dr. S,

      Here is a link to Garret Moddel's interview (I was incorrect about it being a talk). The transcript of the interview is on this page. If you search for ....

      Garrett: "There’s a similarity, but there’s no direct connection. For example, quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in which two particles at a distance are inter-related. So if you measure one particle, you affect the other particle, instantly, and as far away as you like."

      Jack: I think Moddel is mistaken. It's a direct connection in my opinion provided that electromagnetic communication (both near and far field) can be excluded. Entanglement with Valentini's signal nonlocality is the only remaining explanation assuming good data.

      Chris: You will find the context of the statement also at 4:11 in the mp3 recording. The statement is not directly related to Radin's research but to PSI. I'm assuming (I'm not an expert in these areas) that the underlying phenomenon is related. The following URL contains the podcast interview.

      http://www.skeptiko.com/garret-moddel-brings-psi-to-colorado/

      Additionally, in case you are interested, I have linked the papers that are related to the Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiment.

      Jack: Yes, Fred Alan Wolf & I I knew Jacobo Grinberg in Brazil in 1984. I think he was murdered in Mexico years ago.

      // 2005 Paper TL Richards et al...
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16398586

      // 2004 Paper Standish (TL Richards) et al...
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15165411

      // 2003 Paper by Jiri Wackerman (published in Neuroscience Letters)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12493602

      Thanks!!!
      chris
      www.skeptiko.com
      Professor at University of Colorado's Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering guides students through experiments demonstr


From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@PacBell.net>
Subject: [Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars] On the locality of classical physics, fictitious forces & the nonlocality of gravity energy as a Landauer thermodynamic computation
Date: December 30, 2012 4:00:57 AM PST


On Dec 30, 2012, at 12:41 AM, "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com> wrote:

Gentlefolk,

This conversation has evolved to much the same point as the conversation between Paul, Jack and me a year ago did, and not much has changed.  There's a reason for this.  People don't generally change their minds about things they believe, even in the face of evidence that they ought to.  In Jack's case, he is convinced that all physics is literally local, that distant things and events cannot play a role in how thing occur in our local here and now.

Jack: No Jim what you just said is NOT my belief. You have not understood my writing. I said the classical physics is mostly local, but quantum physics is not. I never said ALL physics is local. I quoted John Archibald Wheeler that "Physics is simple, when it's local." In classical gravity we do have a kind of nonlocality of the energy of the pure gravity field because of the equivalence principle so that is another kind of nonlocality apparently different from quantum nonlocality. In Bohm's ontological quantum interpretation, the quantum potential is both nonlocal and form/context dependent. The violation of Bell's locality inequality proves to my mind that quantum physics is nonlocal - the alternative interpretations are not viable in my opinion. I am also very aware of Wheeler-Feynman's classical electrodynamics, which though retro-causal, is still local in the sense that the back-from-the-future classical advanced EM waves are restricted to the classical light cone.

JW: This belief is widely shared in the physics community, and has been for many, many years.

JS: It's NOT my belief about ALL physics. Rovelli in his free online book Quantum Gravity explains in detail why in CLASSICAL GR we never need Mach's Principle in any real problem.

JW:  It was, for example, Faraday's motivation in creating the field concept.  And while fields, the gravitational field in particular, are thought to act over "astronomical" distances, until the advent of modern cosmology, those distances were not large enough to encompass enough "matter" to make any difference worth mentioning in local circumstances (other than explaining orbital motion up to the galactic level).  This has led Jack to believe that technically "fictitous" forces are literally fictitious. 
JS: The mathematics of elementary mechanics in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force#cite_note-Iro-6 shows that in the case of the observation of a geodesic test particle by a non-inertial observer, there are fictitious pseudo-forces that appear to act on the geodesic test particle that are not felt by the test particle. There are, however, real forces on the non-inertial observer. The test is what accelerometers show. The pointer on a properly working accelerometer is always at the zero. The pointer on the accelerometer clamped to the non-inertial observer is always off zero. Indeed, that is the essence of Einstein's Equivalence Principle - "Einstein's happiest thought".
The happiest thought of my life.
physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node85.html
The happiest thought of my life. In 1907, only two years after the publication of his Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein wrote a paper attempting to modify ...
general relativity - Einstein's "happiest thought" - Physics
physics.stackexchange.com/.../einsteins-happiest-thought
Aug 10, 2011 – Einstein described his discovery of the equivalence principle as the "happiest thought of my life". Why? What, in broad conceptual terms, is the ...
The Equivalence Principle | Suite101
suite101.com/article/the-equivalence-principle-a43525
Feb 3, 2008 – Einstein's “Happiest Thought”. The answer is that these two phenomenon – gravitational and inertial mass – are not just too different things ...
How Did Einstein Think?
www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Einstein_think/index.html
Nov 15, 2007 – Its first phase was devoted to systematic constructions that derived directly from Einstein's "happiest thought." In it, acceleration produced a ...
Einstein's Third Paradise, by Gerald Holton
www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm
It contains the passage in which Einstein revealed what in his words was "the happiest thought of my life" [der gluecklichste Gedanke meines Lebens] – a ...
[PPT] Einstein's Happiest Thought
www.phys.hawaii.edu/~solsen/pub/.../Micro_lect7.ppt
File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - Quick View
Einstein's Happiest Thought. Micro-world Macro-World Lecture 7. Equivalence between gravity & acceleration. a. Man in a closed box on Earth. Man in a closed ...

In contrast, in the totally different total experimental arrangement when the test particle is constrained by real electromagnetic-weak-gravity forces, then what is a fictitious centripetal force mw x (w x r), for example, in the geodesic test particle, shows up as the effect of a real local contact force pushing the test particle off geodesic. For example, in the cyclotron in an inertial frame

Newton's 2nd law F = ma in the inertial frame is

e v x B/c = mw x (w x r)

i.e. a radially inward centripetal effect of the real magnetic Lorentz force.

v = w x r

when B is uniform and constant over all parts of the test particle's off-geodesic worldline.

therefore, the cyclotron frequency is

w = eB/mc

the orbit radius r is computed from

r = veB/w^2mc = v(eB/mc)/(eB/mc)^2 = mvc/eB = v/w

i.e. the bigger the linear momentum of the test particle, the bigger the orbit, the bigger the magnetic field the smaller the orbit.

A force that is fictitious for a geodesic test particle can re-appear in the same form as the effect whose cause is a real local contact force pushing that same test particle off-geodesic.

Newton's third law is always obeyed locally by EM-weak-strong gauge forces. In the cyclotron case, for example, the test charge pushes back with an equal but opposite radially outward centrifugal - m w x (w x r) electrical contact back-reaction force on the magnetic flux field.
My other point is that the inertial = gravitational masses m (active and passive) are free parameters in classical Einstein GR and Mach's Principle can't compute them. If you deny that, then compute the electron mass for us using Mach's Principle. No, you need Quantum Chromodynamics to compute hadron masses from the rest masses of quarks. The rest masses of leptons and quarks from the Higgs vacuum field are still basically free parameters leading to the controversial multiverse cosmic landscape conjecture.

Amazon.com: The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion ...
www.amazon.com › ... › Physics › Mathematical Physics
Starred Review. As modern physics has developed a better understanding of how the universe operates at its most fundamental levels, one thing has become ...
The Cosmic Landscape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cosmic_Landscape
The Cosmic Landscape is a non-fiction popular science book on the Anthropic principle and String theory landscape. It is written by theoretical physicist Leonard ...
The Cosmic Landscape | Not Even Wrong
www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=307
Dec 7, 2005 – Susskind's new book, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design is now out. It's basically a lengthy version for ...
The Cosmic Landscape - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html
Jan 15, 2006 – A founder of string theory explains the idea that our universe is just one among many, and explores its implications.

JW: And what cannot be attributed to mainstream classical physics and run of the mill quantum theory gets laid off on the supposedly magical properties of the quantum vacuum -- this notwithstanding that the vacuum is measured to be empty.  A lot of people believe this too.  Perhap even you?

What century are you in Jim? The is the 21st Century and you seem to be stuck in the 19th.  There is lots of direct evidence for the reality of random incoherent virtual particles in the quantum vacuum as radiative corrections, e.g. Lamb shift. Also near fields are coherent Glauber states of virtual quanta beyond the one random zero point quantum per field oscillator of the Casimir force etc.


Search Results
[PDF] Radiative Corrections in Quantum Field Theory - Nikhef
www.nikhef.nl/~t45/Tini80Fest/Iliopoulos.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Radiative Corrections in Quantum Field Theory. Martinus Veltman 80th birthday. J. Iliopoulos. Amsterdam, June 24, 2011. – p. 1/47 ...
[PDF] Calculating Radiative Corrections - SUSY 10
susy10.uni-bonn.de/data/Signer-PreSusy.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Aug 21, 2010 – this is about calculating radiative corrections not looking at radiative corrections. • no plots (with one exception). • no motivational blah blah (if ...
Radiative Correction - Encyclopedia - The Free Dictionary
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Radiative+Correction
The change produced in the value of some physical quantity, such as the mass or charge of a particle, as the result of the particle's interactions with various ...
Oblique correction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_correction
In particle physics, an oblique correction refers to a particular type of radiative correction to the electroweak sector of the Standard Model. Oblique corrections ...
Radiative Corrections to Electron Scattering - APS Link Manager
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.97.1162
by RG Newton - 1955 - Cited by 9 - Related articles
mation of the one-photon radiative corrections to the scattering of electrons by nuclei. Nonrelativistic and high-energy approximations are calculated explicitly for ...
Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.7.1888
by S Coleman - 1973 - Cited by 3326 - Related articles
(Received 8 November 1972). We investigate the possibility that radiative correctionsmay produce spontaneous symmetry breakdown in theories for which the ...
Radiative Corrections to the Ground-State Energy of - APS Link ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.108.1256
by PK Kabir - 1957 - Cited by 183 - Related articles
to be —1.26&0.2 cm ', where the error includes an estimation of the Zn' terms which are not calculated. The corresponding radiative corrections are calculated, ...
Radiative corrections to the atomic photoeffect - APS Link Manager
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.15.1537
by J McEnnan - 1977 - Cited by 20 - Related articles
The radiative corrections to the photoeffect are evaluated for the K-shell of ...transfer), the radiative corrections tend to reduce the photoeffect differential cross ...
Radiative Corrections Helpdesk
www.jlab.org/RC/
May 12, 2004 – This page is designed to help JLab users deal with the issue ofradiative corrections in inclusive, semi-exclusive and exclusive electron ...
[PDF] Radiative Corrections to Compton Scattering
authors.library.caltech.edu/3611/1/BROpr52.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by LM Brown - 1952 - Cited by 251 - Related articles
the radiative corrections requires a knowledge of the double Compton cross section, we have computed this also, for the case that one of the emitted photons ...
Searches related to radiative corrections
radiative corrections higgs mass
radiative corrections wiki
1    2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next



JW: Paul, I suspect, shares much of Jack's core beliefs.  But he is also a follower of Hans Ohanian (and formerly, Husein Yilmaz).  Ohanian believes, if memory serves, that the Equivalence Principle is actually wrong

JS: Yes, that is what's wrong with all of Z's "original" work in the foundations of GR in my opinion. But I think Jim that's also true of your Sciama Machian theory.

JW: -- because tidal effects supposedly make it possible to discriminate gravity from accelerated reference frames.

JS: Of course that is hogwash based on a misunderstanding of Einstein's Equivalence Principle (EEP). All Einstein said was that special relativity works locally. Einstein never said that the curvature tensor must vanish locally. That is a RED HERRING. The actual equation is

Ruvwl(LNIF) = eu^Iev^Jew^Kel^LRIJKL(LIF) & its inverse

where the e's are the 16 tetrad components connecting COINCIDENT geodesic/non-rotating LIFS with off-geodesic and/or rotating LNIFs.

It's the Newtonian fictitious inertial pseudo-force represented by the torsion-free symmetric Levi-Civita connection {uvw}LNIF that is zero in the coincident LIF.

JW: This confers and "objective" status on the gravitational field that it does not have in standard general relativity.  The motives of those who hold this belief are complicated and not necessarily universally shared in this community.

JS: In my opinion it's crank pseudo-physics to hold that opinion based on a mis-understanding of Einstein's idea.

JW: I'm not sure why Paul in particular is motivated to believe in this "objectification" of gravity.  But whatever that motivation may be, it does lead him to the correct inference that gravitational and inertial forces are physically fundamentally different from truly fictitious forces -- Coriolis forces in particular.

JS: Your sentence here Jim is "not even wrong" in Wolfgang Pauli's sense in my opinion because, as I showed a jillion times now you simply muddle the geodesic test particle seen from an accelerating non-inertial frame with the off-geodesic test particle case seen from an inertial frame. Indeed, your view violates Einstein's Equivalence Principle as much as Z's does in the end.

JW: While Paul is willing to confer real physical status (that is, in his words, dynamical) on inertial forces, he is not willing it seems to entertain the possibility that inertial forces are really just gravitational forces produced by the chiefly most distant "matter" in the universe.

JS: There is no such thing as a real gravity force in Einstein's GR as there is in Newton's gravity theory. Therefore what you say here is nonsense from muddling the two different paradigms Einstein's and Newton's. What about gravity collapse you might say? Imagine a gas of particles all on geodesics falling into a proto-star. When these geodesic particles collide with each other the electromagnetic-weak-strong forces take over and the particles are mutually pushed off their initial geodesics.  The gas heats up from the EM-weak-strong interaction collisions and the nonlocal energy of the gravity field from the less random kinetic energy of the geodesic particles is converted to more random local heat increasing the thermodynamic entropy. Note that when you walk uphill the work done is actually from electrical contact forces. Your original world line is off-geodesic and remains so in the entire process. When you fall off the cliff you transit from an off-geodesic world line to an intermediate geodesic world line but end up an another off-geodesic, so again just like the formation of the proto-star to a hot star the nonlocal low entropy energy of the gravity field is transformed into higher entropy heat energy. If you are in a parachute, then you are no longer on a geodesic in the descent. Admittedly how this nonlocal energy of the gravity field is converted into local energy of the matter field is not intuitively obvious. In the case of an adiabatic process for a sequence of static LNIFs

g00  = 1 - 2GM/c^2r ---->  g'00 = 1 - 2GM/c^2r'
for example. In Newtonian terms, the difference in LOCAL gravity potential energy is

GM/r - GM/r' = (c^2/2)GM(1/r - 1/r') now this is supposed to be the the path independent line integral of F.dx where F is a real force, and so it is, but it's not the gravity force at all, its the electric force of constraint that adiabatically changes to maintain the sequence of static LNIFs. Next question is what happens when the process is not adiabatic. Looking at the test particle motion'

Dp^u/ds = F^u

p^u is the 4-momentum of the test particle

F^u is the EM-weak-strong real force on the test particle

D/ds is the covariant proper time derivative along the world line of the test particle which in off-geodesic parts of the worldline of the process has non-zero Levi-Civita connection.

Dp^u/ds = dp^u/ds + {^uvw}p^vp^w/m

Therefore,
THE LOCALIZED EXCHANGE OF NONLOCAL GRAVITY ENERGY WITH THE KINETIC ENERGY OF THE TEST PARTICLE ONLY HAPPENS ON THE OFF-GEODESIC PIECES OF THE TEST PARTICLE'S WORLD LINE WHERE THE LEVI-CIVITA CONNECTION IS NON-ZERO.

THIS IS DICTATED BY EINSTEIN'S EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE.

indeed there is an analogy here with computation, that the entropy only increases in the erasure of information
Landauer's Principle, first argued in 1961[1] by Rolf Landauer of IBM, is a physical principle pertaining to the lower theoretical limit of energy consumption of a computation. It holds that "any logically irreversible manipulation of information, such as the erasure of a bit or the merging of two computation paths, must be accompanied by a corresponding entropy increase in non-information bearing degrees of freedom of the information processing apparatus or its environment". (Bennett 2003)[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle


JW: It has been obvious, even from the time of Newton, that inertia is correlated to the distant stuff in the observable cosmos. 

JS: This is nonsense. It's not obvious. It's simply muddled sloppy thinking based on primitive magical astrology. Particles are the same every where. Not only that, but 96 % of the gravitating stuff of the universe is not in the form of real particles at all! Most of the stuff is virtual particles!

JW: Before the 1920s, that meant, in Mach's turn of phrase, "the fixed stars".  Inertial frames of reference do not rotate with respect to the "fixed stars".

JS: We now know that to be nonsense. Rovelli explains this quite well in detail. But basically, the local gravity near fields, and more specifically their patterns of geodesics,  are determined by matter Tuv sources inside their past light cones - and possibly future light cones from Wheeler-Feynman Hoyle-Narlikar effect as in Tamara Davis's modified conformal diagram



Since the universe is expanding and indeed now accelerating for past few billion years there is an obvious asymmetry between past and future influences in the here-now that Sciama's 1950's quaint model that Jim relies on did not even conceive of.

JW: The obvious inference is that the "fixed stars" somehow determine local inertial frames of reference. 
JS: This is numbo-jumbo mystification Jim. Basically there is, in the conventional view a retarded Green's function G(x,x') that takes the Tuv(x') source distribution in the past light cone of the field point here-now and ROUGHLY SPEAKING the integral of G(x,x)Tuv(x')d^4x' gives the guv(x) metric field locally. Rotation is defined relative to that local guv(x) metric field from the collective influence of all the stuff in its past light cone out to the past particle horizon. This is prior to Wheeler-Feynman modifications from our future de Sitter event horizon.

JW: I am not going to rehash the arguments over this -- Mach's principle as Einstein called it.  I will point out that exactly the opposite of what Jack claims has taken place in the last 15 or 20 years.  "Precision" cosmology has shown the universe to be spatially flat at cosmic scale, and that means that "critical" cosmic matter density is present, and that in turn means that gravitational actions do indeed account for inertial effects.

JS: This a complete RED HERRING. That the universe is spatially flat does not contradict anything I have said. Jim is making a purely polemical bogus hand-waving argument here. Indeed, I am just giving here the standard text book view that gives as one possible solution the spatially flat k = 0 FRW metric on a large scale that with the positive cosmological constant / gives the acceleration for the past few billion years.

JW: Likely, this would be universally acknowledged were it not for the fact that inertial reaction forces are instantaneous -- and the only way to account for this fact without violating the principle of relativity is with a Wheeler-Feynman "action-at-a-distance" formulation of gravitation.

JS: In EM the Wheeler-Feynman radiation reaction is proportional to D^3X^u/ds^2 for the test particle. Now Jim claims he gets the analogous radiation reaction term for gravity to be D^2X^u/ds^2. I have yet to see how this allegation works in detail.  Jim seems to claim that the ma term in Newton's second law of motion

F = ma for OFF-GEODESIC motion

where F is a non-gravity force, comes from the future light cone. Suppose it did somehow, that still does not determine what numbers to sick into m for the different elementary particles.

Furthermore, there are no gravity radiation waves of any significance - no one has detected them directly locally, and if and when they do they will be so weak that they cannot explain the NEAR GRAVITY field as in
g00 = 1 - 2GMEarth/c^2r

Indeed, there is no coherent narrative in what Jim is saying that I can see at this moment.


JW: This type of formulation, by the way, is well-known to apply to electrodynamics.  And John Cramer has shown that it can be used to "interpret" quantum mechanics which has seemingly instantaneous "entanglement" interactions.  So, we're not talking completely off the wall physics here.

JS: You have not connected John Cramer's mathematics with your mathematics - maybe you do in your book? Cramer is talking about quantum BIT PILOT waves which have very different properties than classical matter field waves. This distinction is clear in Bohm's formulation of the quantum potential Q. Entangled quantum waves have their domains in PHASE SPACE using the Wigner density and their range in Hilbert space - very different from local EM waves. Indeed, the superquantum potential of the classical electromagnetic and gravity fields are infinite dimensional in Hilbert space - one dimension for each point of the spacetime continuum. In fact for gravity we have to go into a higher level of numbering Wheeler's many-fingered super-space where each point is an entire spacelike 3-Geometry. So it's not at all clear if Cramer's picture based on primitive particle mechanics only can even deal with gravity. It's not clear it can deal with even the Dirac spinor fields. Wheeler and Feynman tried to get rid of the EM field using direct light cone limited particles only. They had to give up on that and modern quantum field theory gives independent existence to the spin 1 boson gauge fields. Indeed, supersymmetry and string theory demand it - though they are still not established empirically. That may change soon in the LHC.

JW: In the last analysis, notwithstanding that the roles of theory and experiment are no longer what they were even 100 years ago, experiment is the final arbiter of what's real and what isn't.  While looking for a way to get around spacetime quickly, I've blundered onto some effects that are predicted by Mach's principle -- effects that are otherwise not expected.  So, should those prove real, the Machian view should eventually prevail -- and maybe we'll be able to get around spacetime quickly.

JS: Your effects so far are marginal and probably systematic errors like the short-lived superluminal neutrino. JW: That brings me to the weekly update.  The lesson of the last year or two, and especially the last month or two, is that the behavior of the PZT stacks presently in use can be very irritatingly cranky.  The production of thrust effects depends on getting things to work correctly that, in an ideal world, would take care of themselves automatically.  You know about the marginal performance eeked out of the system of a few weeks ago.  After that, I took the device that had been run into the ground with a single frequency driving signal and tried running it with a dual frequency signal.  For mundane technical reasons, in this system that means a smaller effect, if any, from the earlier work.  Smaller signals of the sort expected were obtained.

The signals in the attached PPT file (which also has some pictures of lab upgrades), however, are with the single frequency signals and a different device of the same design that has not yet been run into the ground.  And most recently, the run into the ground device has been mounted with a new mount for testing of that arrangement.  I won't bore you with the technical details.  Suffice it to say that finding improved, more reliable materials has risen to the top of the priority list.  Discussions like that you've endured the past week or so may be diverting.  They won't get starships built.  Only real hardware that can be made to work reliably has any chance at all of getting that done.  So work in the lab goes on. . . .

May you all have a very enjoyable New Year's holiday,

Jim


The Problem of Modelling the Mathematical Mind - http://t.co/H6B32SHw http://t.co/cPKdouDR via @videolectures
videolectures.net - videolectures.net
videolectures.net
Humans are social animals; social demands, both cooperative and competitive, structure our development, our brain and our mind. This course ...
  • Jack Sarfatti Following Alan Turing’s ground-breaking 1937 paper, which introduced his notion of the Universal Turing machine, he suggested, in 1939, generalizations based on ordinal logic and oracle machines, these being apparently motivated by attempts to model the mathematical mind in a way that could evade the apparent limitations presented by Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. In this talk, I introduce the idea of a “cautious oracle” as a more human version of Turing’s oracles. Nevertheless, I show that even this fails to capture the essence of the full capabilities of our understanding.

    I raise the issue of possible physical processes that would appear to be needed in order to circumvent these Gödel-type restrictions. At the end of the talk, I report on some startling new experiments, which appear to point to new insights into the possible physical processes underlying conscious brain activity, and I speculate on how this might relate to the power of human understanding.


On Dec 29, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Paul Murad <ufoguypaul@yahoo.com> wrote:

 
This is a very pessimistic perspective.
 
Man by itself is incapable of developing morality and ethics except with God. You mention
death, well if there is a hell, the believe that they exist without god or absence that we can
assume means love for that matter may indeed make hell a very empty disparate place.
 
The crutch that exists may not be fully a religious point but rather a historical view that is part
of mankind's culture. These things happened, are real and they occurred. Regarding your view about
different religious causing problems, I would have to agree but I do not see any contradiction
in believing in God and the possibility of reincarnation...
 
To mention Jung-Pauli is child-play... Scientists are only rarely right and on metaphysical subjects,
we do not have the physical evidence to judge truth or falsehood with a clearly defined scientific
investigation.
 
Paul
Paul M,
1) Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic field data is direct evidence for the Jung-Pauli information field.

2) The Central Intelligence Agency Stanford Research Institute Remote Viewing data is evidence for the Jung-Pauli information field.

3) Reincarnation data is evidence for the Jung-Pauli information field.

on all of the above see in particular Russell Targ's several new books as well as Hal Puthoff's on-line report.

4) There is a solid theoretical physics basis for it

a) David Bohm's Implicate Order = world hologram screen software on both our past and future cosmic horizons - the Alpha Point past particle horizon and the Omega Point future event horizon shown in my modification of Tamara Davis's PhD fig 1.1c



For details see http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html (note also Lecture 8)

The work of MIT physicist Seth Lloyd shows that these two cosmological horizons are computers.

I think they are conscious computers i.e. Hawking's Mind of God - literally

See also the papers of Antony Valentini on signal nonlocality

e.g.
Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
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
Report number:    Imperial/TP/1-02/15
Cite as:    arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
     (or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)

Also see the 46 minute raw video of me and Dan Smith discussing this. I look like a frumpy shlepper in it, but the content is good.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=A56hT_51v7I 


OK now we are honing in on the fly in Jim's soup. Jim wrote:

"a fictitious force is one that produces the same acceleration irrespective of the mass of the object on which it acts.  It has nothing to do with whether the force is real or not." Footnote 5

Jim's first sentence is correct as far as it goes. It does not go far enough to explain the concept in its fullness. Jim's second sentence is misleading.

First: What is the proper definition of a "real force"?

A real force acting locally in a small region of spacetime is what an accelerometer placed in that region measures.

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

also see

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

Special Relativity SR works locally in GR (EEP).

Non-rotating accelerometers on timelike geodesics measure ZERO.

The pattern of timelike geodesics are the INERTIAL PROPERTIES of space. e.g. Lense-Thirring effect dragging of LIFs by rotating source masses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

Mach's Principle (MP) would conceivably apply to this pattern of timelike & null geodesic.

The timelike geodesics provide the local GEOMETRODYNAMIC reference field upon which "inertia" according to Newton's 2nd law is measured.

Inertia is the ratio of applied external electromagnetic-weak-strong force to what accelerometers measure.

Real test particles obey Einstein's mass shell constraint

E^2 = (mc^2) + (pc)^2

(poles of the Feynman propagator in the complex energy plane in quantum field theory)

Virtual particles violate the above constraint.

Both real and virtual particles directly bend space time in different ways i.e. both contribute to the Tuv source tensor in

Guv + (8piG/c^4)Tuv = 0

Mach's principle and Einstein's GR have nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of the rest masses m of the elementary particles.

The pattern of rest masses m come from quantum field theory (including Higgs) of the electromagnetic-weak-strong interactions.

The rest masses m are UNDETERMINED PARAMETERS as far as MP & GR are concerned.

m is also called inertial mass = gravity mass (part of the EP).

Therefore, anyone who claims that the actual values of m are determined by GR & MP is most definitely confused and wrong in my opinion.

They confuse the inertial properties of space-time given by GR with the inertia of elementary particles m.

On Dec 26, 2012, at 6:40 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

No point wasting more time on this quicksand rut.
I want to move on reading Jim's book.
I think I have made the point clearly with detailed math for two independent situations that I think u & Jim confound.
I argue with equations as much as possible and Z your verbal explanations generally make no sense to me.
What you still don't understand Z is that

Case 1: the observed test particle on geodesic when observed in a non-inertial frame will show apparent fictitious Coriolis, Euler, centrifugal forces and Newtonian gravity forces on that test particle whose accelerometer pointer stays at zero. In contrast the frame accelerometer pointer is off zero. Therefore, in that case, the apparent forces on the geodesic test particle are simply optical illusions.

Case 2: The observed test particle is now pushed off geodesic by a real constraint force. In that case the test particle will obey Newton's third law LOCALLY and will exert an equal and opposite CONTACT LOCAL INERTIAL REACTION FORCE on the ACCELERATING AGENT ( to use Jim's phrasing).


In some cases, e.g. the CYCLOTRON PROBLEM that electrical inertial reaction force will be outward centrifugal on the magnetic flux mr x w x w = (e/c)v x B where v = rw in the tangential direction of the circular orbit of period  1/w.

Now this term the real electrical local contact inertial reaction force mr x w x w in Case 2 MIMICs a term in the fictitious force Case 1 for the rotating non-inertial frame B (do not confuse with magnetic field pseudo-vector in BOLD FACE) where:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/1/5/515d0a6a1c2cca13eae083c7fad66a19.png

A is the inertial frame, and B is the rotating frame.

On Dec 26, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/26/2012 12:34 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote
I .Z I think you & Jim are seriously confused on the concept of inertial forces so much so that your views are not even wrong in Pauli's sense - indeed mystical in the worst sense of the word. If I am right, then Jim's entire scheme for Mach propulsion seems fatally flawed. I am withholding final judgement till I real more in his new Star Ship book.


the future" - Ben Affleck in "Paycheck"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPKqQR64u_Q

Jennings realizes he must have built this device using Dekker's knowledge, and on realizing the horrors that will come, prepared the envelope using the forecasts from the machine to allow his future self to return to Allcom and destroy the unit. Furthermore, as Rethrick shortly discovers, Jennings rigged the device to malfunction, preventing Rethrick from anticipating Jennings' actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_(film)

That's what retro-causal entanglement signal nonlocality permits.

That's what Russell Targ claims is operational already though not with good fidelity perhaps.

Amazon.co.uk: Russell Targ - Clairvoyance & Precognition ...
www.amazon.co.uk/...Precognition-Russell-Targ.../s?...
Online shopping for Clairvoyance & Precognition from a great selection of Books; Divination, New Age, Religion & Spirituality & more at everyday low prices.
CIA-Initiated RV Program at SRI
www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html
[2] Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ, "Perceptual Augmentation Techniques ... and Long-Distance Precognitive Remote Viewing of Geographical Locations," in ...
You've visited this page 5 times. Last visit: 12/8/12
Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
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
Report number:    Imperial/TP/1-02/15
Cite as:    arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
     (or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)

JS: Nick you continually miss the key points here.
Of course presponse & RV are not orthodox physics experiments.
However, Helmut Schmidt's retro-PK experiments were and Henry Stapp published a paper in Phys Rev A about them for which they would have hung him if they could - You know who I mean.

The RetroPsychoKinesis Project
www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/
Retropsychokinesis experiments are now on-line. ... Channeling evidence for a PKeffect to independent observers by H. Schmidt, ... Henry Stapp's controversial 1994 modification of quantum mechanics which accomodates RPK-phenomena. Stapp acted as an independent observer on some of Helmut Schmidt's more ...
Observation of a PK effect under highly controlled conditions
www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/observ.html
by H SCHMIDT - Cited by 35 - Related articles
By HELMUT SCHMIDT ... The discovery of PK effects on prerecorded random events (Schmidt, 1976) did not .... of the subject in the test session has a retroactive effect on the moment the random events were generated (Schmidt, 1975, 1978). ..... Henry Stapp is a theoretical physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.


Physical reality is bigger than orthodox physics experiments done so far.

On Aharonov's claims. I say his retrocausal INFORMAL LANGUAGE (Bohm) interpretation is TRUE, but Godel-undecidable within the algorithmic RULES of the orthodox quantum physics GAME.

Get out of your box. Think more like a homicide detective - presponse, remote viewing are CLUES.

On Dec 21, 2012, at 12:32 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

NH: You may choose to muddy the waters, Jack.
by citing other non-physics experiments.
But restricting the topic to Aharonov's claims.
Even smart people make mistakes.
Smart people learn from their mistakes.
Dumb people never do.

Jack:  Have you learned from yours? ;-) Nick u also miss my logical point here as well as the significance of the presponse data. The presponse data + your friend Russell Targ's published evidence on CIA vetted precognitive remote viewing proves that real retrocausality is the fundamental fact of nature even though it is covered up encrypted as it were (passion at a distance) in the orthodox quantum limit. Now you can simply deny the validity of the presponse data and say that Radin, Bierman, Bem, Targ, May et-al are bad scientists and that their data is bogus. Indeed that's what James Randi et-al will say if pushed to the wall.
We then have a religious paradigm war like the Shias and the Wahabbis ;-)
Of course, the real proof in the pudding will be conscious AI nano-chips based on Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality" but no one will try to make them if they believe what you believe - a bias against the very notion.

On Dec 21, 2012, at 11:50 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

NH: On the interpretation of weak delayed-choice measurements as retro-causal: given three choices: necessary, sufficient or mistaken, Nick Herbert votes
(along with Kastner) for "mistaken".

On Dec 21, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:


REK: If the fancy new experiments don't require it, then it shouldn't be claimed that they have demonstrated it. And remember that the fancy new experiments have no different ontological status than any other  qm experiment. There is no new physics here and certainly nothing
meriting an invoking of  'back from the future' as pertaining only to those experiments, as the popular press keeps suggesting. This is all hype and nothing more.

RK
________________________________________
From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 2:20 AM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Retrocausality is a sufficient but not a necessary explanation in orthodox quantum theory

Jack: They do not require, it i.e. retrocausality is not necessary, it is sufficient. Invoking retrocausality does not contradict any orthodox quantum experiments. Retrocausality is a true Godel undecidable proposition within the too limited rules of the orthodox quantum theory game.


On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

REK: Jack, you'll need to say which argument you're talking about. If it's the claim in the abstract from the arxiv preprint I mentioned (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6224), yes, all the results
are nicely predicted by ordinary qm and do not require 2-state formalism as 'the only 'reasonable resolution' as claimed by Aharonov et al in that abstract. In fact the alleged 'contradictions' that they claim need 'resolution' are spurious; under a standard qm analysis, which I've already provided, there are no special problems or contradictions that need 'resolving' by recourse to a different formulation.

Jack: As I said. Yakir & Co only have an argument of sufficiency of the retrocausal interpretation in which psi* is a post-selected advanced destiny influence and psi is the pre-selected retarded history influence colliding as it were in the intermediate weak measurement. Since orthodox quantum theory is degenerate in this regard, i.e. admits a meta-Hilbert space of Godel undecidable Bohmian "informal languages" or interpretations, e.g.

1) Copenhagen epistemological

2) Bohm ontological

3) Parallel Worlds (Tegmark Level 3)

4) Cramer Transactional

5) London-Wigner consciousness reduction --> Penrose Orch OR

etc.

Only strong signal nonlocality in Antony Valentini's sense can settle the issue.

Libet --> Radin --> Bierman --> Bem

I claim is clear evidence for the breakdown of orthodox quantum theory in living matter.

Quantum theory is only limiting case of a more general post-quantum theory as special relativity was for general relativity.

REK: So they are taking something that is perfectly sensible under standard qm and making it seem strange and obscure to create an apparent need for their formulation. There are no special problems with these experimental phenomena under a standard qm analysis. It all boils down to steering of quantum systems (by way of weak measurements) into tilted error states more likely to give certain 'strong' outcomes. So of course the strong outcomes are more likely to have come from the weakly measured states which lean toward those outcomes. It's just the shoe factory analogy: If Alice is known to have a high rate of defective shoe production on Saturdays (because she partied too hard the night before), if Bob gets a Saturday shipment, he's going to find that more of those shoes are defective. That doesn't indicate that Bob's identification of a particular defective shoe forces that shoe to retroactively have been (probably) made on a Saturday the week before. It just means that it's more likely to have been made on a Saturday. This is all ordinary statistical inference,
no different conceptually from my inferring that in the past you interacted with your computer because I got an email from you. My getting that email did not retroactively influence you to have done something in the past. Neither do any of the fancy experiments referred to recently in the popular press require a 'back from the future' explanation.

Jack: They do not require, it i.e. retrocausality is not necessary, it is sufficient. Invoking retrocausality does not contradict any orthodox quantum experiments. Retrocausality is a true Godel undecidable proposition within the too limited rules of the orthodox quantum theory game.

REK: Rather than the 'back from the future' explanation being more 'elegant' or 'simpler' as 2-state vector proponents claim, it is tendentious and misleading since it's based on taking results perfectly consistent with standard qm and trying to argue that they require something beyond standard qm. They don't. Remember the shoe factory. Now if someone gets reliable statistically significant deviation from the Born Rule, that's a completely different matter: in that case, both standard qm and the 2-state formulation fail.

Jack: I think the history-destiny picture naturally generalizes to include signal nonlocality - that's what John Cramer claims in his back from the future experiment and in Chapter 16 of Frontiers of Propulsion Science.

________________________________________
From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 1:16 AM
To: Kafatos, Menas

Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

That's what I have been saying. However Ruth seems to think her argument refutes Yakir's
It doesn't Difference in logic between a sufficient explanation and a necessary one.


Sent from my iPad mini

On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:07 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:

I agree with Ruth, they are not by themselves.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:33 AM, "Ruth Elinor Kastner" <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

Ok Jack -- the only thing I question is holding up these experiments in the popular press as evidence of retrocausality -- they aren't.

RK
________________________________________
From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:25 PM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 20, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

The presponse data is a separate issue from what's going on in the experiments referred to by CL.


Jack:  Agreed The retrocausal phenomenon is moot in orthodox qm
Yakir agrees with that
The presponse data is a violation of it
So orthodox qm is not interesting for retrocausality
What Yakir shows is that there is no contradiction
It's like lifting a degeneracy in the meta Hilbert space of parallel qm interpretations

REK: I don't rule out that humans might be able to get around QM statistics and that there may be other physics out there, but my point is just that
_these experiments do not contain that new physics_. These experiments are perfectly consistent with standard QM without explicit retrocausality.
Therefore, of course they are also consistent with TI as an interpretation of standard QM. Yes in TI there are advanced states but these are sub-empirical; i.e.
their existence cannot be revealed/confirmed by experiment- -- at least not by these experiments. On the other hand, Valentini's work predicts deviations from standard QM (i.e. Born Rule).

Jack: That's my point.

REK: Only if there is deviation from the Born Rule is there truly
new quantum physics in this sense. In terms of the Transactional Interpretation, deviation from the Born Rule would mean that there might be some way to directly influence _which_ transaction is actualized from a set of possible ones.


Jack: Cramer say that in ch 16
I prove it using entangled Glauber states

________________________________________
From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:59 PM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

Right I still have not had time to respond properly in depth
But your critique noted
Crucial test is presponse evidence u ignore
Also Russ Targ's CIA RV SRI report
John Cramer disagrees w you in ch 16 of exotic propulsion book
I mean your not addressing issue that qm is limit of more general theory with entanglement signaling.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

I've seen a discussion elsewhere about these kinds of experiments. As soon as you detect a single particle (say Alice's), a one-particle Alice state is necessarily detected
and actualized on Alice's side, even if nobody 'looked' at it (i.e. even if there is still epistemic uncertainty about what state was actualized) and that
collapses the pair (both Alice's and Bob's particles) in that particular run into a particular state . Then the subsequent measurements you perform on Bob's particle
will reflect the statistics of the state that was created via the detection of Alice's particle.

In the experiments involving a superposition of the interferometer mirror in a 'which-slit' and 'both slits' configuration, detection of Alice's particle projects that combined system of Alice + Bob + IFM mirror into a particular state, and then detection of the mirror in a particular state further projects Bob's particle into a particular state corresponding to the mirror's detection, so of course Bob's particle is later detected with statistics reflecting those earlier detections.

No explicit retrocausality is necessarily present in these kinds of experiments.
The claims are usually overstated based on a conflation of any given individual run with the statistical analysis of sets of runs.

RK
________________________________________
From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
To: Levit, Creon (ARC-P)
Cc: Kim Burrafato; Ruth Elinor Kastner; Fred Wolf; Daniel Sheehan; Nick Herbert; Saul Paul Sirag; Menas Kafatos
Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

I know about this and I think kim already has it posted on Stardrive

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:26 AM, "Levit, Creon (ARC-P)" <creon.levit@nasa.gov> wrote:

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html#nRlv






  1.  
  2. See Your 2012 Year in Review
    Look back at your 20 biggest moments from the past year.
  3. Activity
    Recent
    Jack is now friends with Josh Everett and 18 other people.
    · Comment
  4. Discussion with Ruth Elinor Kastner Physicist at University of Maryland and Menas Kafatos, Dean of School of Physical Science, Chapman University & MIT Physics Professor's book on me and my associates that got 2012 physics book of the year award. My name appears ~ 600 times in the Hippies Saved Physics book reviewed in NY TIMES, WALL STREET JOURNAL, NATURE, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, PHYSICS TODAY, AMERICAN SCIENTIST ...
    Like · · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti They do not require, it i.e. retrocausality is not necessary, it is sufficient. Invoking retrocausality does not contradict any orthodox quantum experiments. Retrocausality is a true Godel undecidable proposition within the too limited rules of the orthodox quantum theory game.
    • Destiny Matters Congratulations!!!
    • Gareth Lee Meredith And not to mention, Wheeler delayed choice experiment is experimental evidence for retrocausality.
    • Jack Sarfatti On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

      Jack, you'll need to say which argument you're talking about. If it's the claim in the abstract from the arxiv preprint I mentioned (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6224), yes, all the results
      are nic
      ely predicted by ordinary qm and do not require 2-state formalism as 'the only 'reasonable resolution' as claimed by Aharonov et al in that abstract. In fact the alleged 'contradictions' that they claim need 'resolution' are spurious; under a standard qm analysis, which I've already provided, there are no special problems or contradictions that need 'resolving' by recourse to a different formulation.

      Jack: As I said. Yakir & Co only have an argument of sufficiency of the retrocausal interpretation in which psi* is a post-selected advanced destiny influence and psi is the pre-selected retarded history influence colliding as it were in the intermediate weak measurement. Since orthodox quantum theory is degenerate in this regard, i.e. admits a meta-Hilbert space of Godel undecidable Bohmian "informal languages" or interpretations, e.g.

      1) Copenhagen epistemological

      2) Bohm ontological

      3) Parallel Worlds (Tegmark Level 3)

      4) Cramer Transactional

      5) London-Wigner consciousness reduction --> Penrose Orch OR

      etc.

      Only strong signal nonlocality in Antony Valentini's sense can settle the issue.

      Libet --> Radin --> Bierman --> Bem

      I claim is clear evidence for the breakdown of orthodox quantum theory in living matter.

      Quantum theory is only limiting case of a more general post-quantum theory as special relativity was for general relativity.

      Ruth: So they are taking something that is perfectly sensible under standard qm and making it seem strange and obscure to create an apparent need for their formulation. There are no special problems with these experimental phenomena under a standard qm analysis. It all boils down to steering of quantum systems (by way of weak measurements) into tilted error states more likely to give certain 'strong' outcomes. So of course the strong outcomes are more likely to have come from the weakly measured states which lean toward those outcomes. It's just the shoe factory analogy: If Alice is known to have a high rate of defective shoe production on Saturdays (because she partied too hard the night before), if Bob gets a Saturday shipment, he's going to find that more of those shoes are defective. That doesn't indicate that Bob's identification of a particular defective shoe forces that shoe to retroactively have been (probably) made on a Saturday the week before. It just means that it's more likely to have been made on a Saturday. This is all ordinary statistical inference,
      no different conceptually from my inferring that in the past you interacted with your computer because I got an email from you. My getting that email did not retroactively influence you to have done something in the past.

      Neither do any of the fancy experiments referred to recently in the popular press require a 'back from the future' explanation.

      Jack: They do not require, it i.e. retrocausality is not necessary, it is sufficient. Invoking retrocausality does not contradict any orthodox quantum experiments. Retrocausality is a true Godel undecidable proposition within the too limited rules of the orthodox quantum theory game.

      Ruth: Rather than the 'back from the future' explanation being more 'elegant' or 'simpler' as 2-state vector proponents claim, it is tendentious and misleading since it's based on taking results perfectly consistent with standard qm and trying to argue that they require something beyond standard qm. They don't. Remember the shoe factory.

      Now if someone gets reliable statistically significant deviation from the Born Rule, that's a completely different matter: in that case, both standard qm and the 2-state formulation fail.

      Jack: I think the history-destiny picture naturally generalizes to include signal nonlocality - that's what John Cramer claims in his back from the future experiment and in Chapter 16 of Frontiers of Propulsion Science.

      ________________________________________
    • Jack Sarfatti From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
      Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 1:16 AM
      To: Kafatos, Menas

      That's what I have been saying. However Ruth seems to think her argument refutes Yakir's It doesn't Difference in logic between a sufficient explanation and a
      ...See More
      phys.org
      Physicists of the group of Prof. Anton Zeilinger at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), the University of Vienna, and the Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ) have, for the first time, demonstrated in an experiment that the decision whether two particl...
 
Back From The Future Post-Quantum Theory
  • Laurel Weiner likes this.
  • Jack Sarfatti I think Yakir only claims that real retrocausality is a sufficient consistent interpretation of orthodox quantum theory, but not a necessary condition. My claim, consistent with Antony Valentini's papers, is that the experimental presponse data from Libet -> Radin -> Bierman -> Bem is a violation of orthodox quantum theory's no-entanglement signaling "theorems". Therefore, that proves with a high degree of Baysean confidence in my opinion, that real retrocausality is a fact of nature and quantum theorists need to expand their boundaries if they are to remain intellectually honest.

    On Dec 20, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

    Ok Jack -- the only thing I question is holding up these experiments in the popular press as evidence of retrocausality -- they aren't.

    RK
    ________________________________________
    From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
    Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:25 PM
    To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

    Subject: Re: I missed this. You?

    Sent from my iPad

    On Dec 20, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

    The presponse data is a separate issue from what's going on in the experiments referred to by CL.

    Agreed

    The retrocausal phenomenon is moot in orthodox qm
    Yakir agrees with that
    The presponse data is a violation of it
    So orthodox qm is not interesting for retrocausality
    What Yakir shows is that there is no contradiction
    It's like lifting a degeneracy in the meta Hilbert space of parallel qm interpretations

    I don't rule out that humans might be able to get around QM statistics and that there may be other physics out there, but my point is just that
    _these experiments do not contain that new physics_. These experiments are perfectly consistent with standard QM without explicit retrocausality.
    Therefore, of course they are also consistent with TI as an interpretation of standard QM. Yes in TI there are advanced states but these are sub-empirical; i.e.
    their existence cannot be revealed/confirmed by experiment- -- at least not by these experiments.

    On the other hand, Valentini's work predicts deviations from standard QM (i.e. Born Rule).

    That's my point.

    Only if there is deviation from the Born Rule is there truly
    new quantum physics in this sense. In terms of the Transactional Interpretation, deviation from the Born Rule would mean that there might be some way to directly influence _which_ transaction is actualized from a set of possible ones.

    Cramer say that in ch 16
    I prove it using entangled Glauber states

    Best
    Ruth
    ________________________________________
    From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
    Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:59 PM
    To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

    Subject: Re: I missed this. You?

    Right I still have not had time to respond properly in depth
    But your critique noted
    Crucial test is presponse evidence u ignore
    Also Russ Targ's CIA RV SRI report
    John Cramer disagrees w you in ch 16 of exotic propulsion book
    I mean your not addressing issue that qm is limit of more general theory with entanglement signaling.

    Sent from my iPad

    On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

    I've seen a discussion elsewhere about these kinds of experiments. As soon as you detect a single particle (say Alice's), a one-particle Alice state is necessarily detected
    and actualized on Alice's side, even if nobody 'looked' at it (i.e. even if there is still epistemic uncertainty about what state was actualized) and that
    collapses the pair (both Alice's and Bob's particles) in that particular run into a particular state . Then the subsequent measurements you perform on Bob's particle
    will reflect the statistics of the state that was created via the detection of Alice's particle.

    In the experiments involving a superposition of the interferometer mirror in a 'which-slit' and 'both slits' configuration, detection of Alice's particle projects that combined system of Alice + Bob + IFM mirror into a particular state, and then detection of the mirror in a particular state further projects Bob's particle into a particular state corresponding to the mirror's detection, so of course Bob's particle is later detected with statistics reflecting those earlier detections.

    No explicit retrocausality is necessarily present in these kinds of experiments. The claims are usually overstated based on a conflation of any given individual run with the statistical analysis of sets of runs.

    RK
    ________________________________________
    From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
    Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
    To: Levit, Creon (ARC-P)

    Subject: Re: I missed this. You?

    I know about this and I think kim already has it posted on Stardrive

    Sent from my iPad

    On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:26 AM, "Levit, Creon (ARC-P)" wrote:

    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html#nRlv
    phys.org
    Physicists of the group of Prof. Anton Zeilinger at the Institute for Quantum Op...See More
[1208.0034] Violation of Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements
arxiv.org
Like · · Share
  • John Collier Not surprising. James Leggett's work on the theory of weak measurements more or less implies this. I wrote in 1997 in a review of a book on hte direction of time: The chapters by physicists James Leggett and Phil Stamp deal with the distinction between...See More
  • Jack Sarfatti So does Antony Valentini's but in a different way.
  • Leonardo Varesi Yes, but do you think that in quantum gravity theories applied for example to blacks holes, this fact would be a serious problem to be reassessed?Isn't it?
  • Jack Sarfatti Violation of Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements
    Lee A. Rozema, Ardavan Darabi, Dylan H. Mahler, Alex Hayat, Yasaman Soudagar, Aephraim M. Steinberg
    (Submitted on 31 Jul 2012 (v1), last revised 15 Aug 2012 (this version, v2))

    While there is a rigorously proven relationship about uncertainties intrinsic to any quantum system, often referred to as "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle," Heisenberg originally formulated his ideas in terms of a relationship between the precision of a measurement and the disturbance it must create. Although this latter relationship is not rigorously proven, it is commonly believed (and taught) as an aspect of the broader uncertainty principle. Here, we experimentally observe a violation of Heisenberg's "measurement-disturbance relationship", using weak measurements to characterize a quantum system before and after it interacts with a measurement apparatus. Our experiment implements a 2010 proposal of Lund and Wiseman to confirm a revised measurement-disturbance relationship derived by Ozawa in 2003. Its results have broad implications for the foundations of quantum mechanics and for practical issues in quantum mechanics.
  • Jack Sarfatti Compare to: Subquantum Information and Computation

    Antony Valentini
    (Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
    It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
    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
    Report number: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
    Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
    (or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)