Text Size

Stardrive


On Mar 4, 2014, at 11:30 AM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:

"(dS4) is holographically dual to a three-dimensional conformal field theory
(CFT3) living on the spacelike boundary of dS4 at future timelike infinity. The CFT3 is the Euclidean Sp(N) vector model with anticommuting scalars”

CFT3/Sp(N) must be the software running on the dS4 future horizon hardware

"The AdS/CFT correspondence provides a non-perturbative holographic definition of anti-de Sitter (AdS) quantum gravity in terms of a CFT living on the timelike conformal boundary of AdS."

“living” quite literally from non-unitary signal nonlocality violating Shimony’s “passion at a distance."

"Our own universe is unlikely to have an anti-de Sitter boundary, but may well have a de Sitter (dS) boundary in the far future. This dS boundary shares a number of mathematical properties with the AdS boundary. Hence it is natural to try to define dS quantum gravity in terms of a CFT living on the future conformal boundary of dS [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. One key difference is that in AdS/CFT, the radial direction emerges holographically from the CFT,
while in dS/CFT time itself must be holographically emergent. It is challenging to reconcile this with our usual quantum notions of unitary time evolution.”

I have come to drive the priests of unitarity out of the Temple. 

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).

"A second key difference is that we have had no useful microscopically complete examples of the dS/CFT correspondence. This has stymied progress in the subject and at times rendered the discussions somewhat formal.1 It is the purpose of this paper to begin to fill this gap."

to be continued.

On Mar 4, 2014, at 10:58 AM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

No, but I claim I have done exactly that! Of course like the Cardinals in the Curia of Rodrigo Borgia there will be schisms on this. 
See Michael Towler's Lecture 8 of his online Bohm course @ Cambridge

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 4, 2014, at 9:58 AM, Deepak Chopra <wrote:

Can any theory be called Grand Unified in the absence of mind / matter unification ? 

2013 Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009
DeepakChopra.com
YouTube/ChopraWell.com
Dream Weaver
The Chopra Center for Wellbeing
The Chopra Foundation
Chopra Connect

On Mar 4, 2014, at 9:41 AM, "Jack Sarfatti" <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:

Note that it's nonunitary hence signal nonlocality hence conscious in my model
So my intuition or precognition shall we say may prove right
The future boundary the brane  of Hawking's mind of I j good's "god(d)" is a conscious computer 
So Seth the Lloyd 

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:52 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

Excellent just what I was looking for thanks
Saul-Paul

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:32 PM, Saul-Paul and Mary-Minn Sirag <sirag@mindspring.com> wrote:

For ds/CFT check out Strominger et al:

<Strominger-dS:CFT-2011.pdf>

But as David Gross points out in his talk, AdS/CFT has been used to correctly model the quark-gluan plasma created at Brookhaven. 

Saul-Paul
-----------------------
On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:25 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Yes I have said that many times
It's obvious for cosmology
But I think they model black holes in higher dimensions with it as well?
We need a dS/CFT

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Saul-Paul and Mary-Minn Sirag <sirag@mindspring.com> wrote:

There's an easier way to falsify AdS.
Simply point out that AdS requires a negative cosmological constant, while the observational evidence is for a small positive cosmic constant---thus the dark energy picture. 

However the superstring theory as a quantum gravity theory deals mainly with physics at the Planck scale, where things can be quite different. 

Saul-Paul
---------------------
On Mar 3, 2014, at 7:25 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Of course I know who gross is I have even eaten at table with him at ucsb
But if bizon is right in his claim that's the end of it
Can't have it both ways

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 3, 2014, at 7:20 PM, Saul-Paul and Mary-Minn Sirag <sirag@mindspring.com> wrote:

Jack,
David Gross doesn't mention Bizon's claim of AdS instabiility at all.
Probably Gross considers it as irrelevant to the AdS/CFT duality.

You should watch the David Gross YouTube talk, anyway.

Certainly Gross would be familiar with Bizon's claims, since he has presented it at KITP-UCSB in Feb. 2012.
Note that David Gross is the director of KITP-UCSB.
Also Bizon's paper on this has been on the web since 2011.

<Bizon-AdSInstability-2011.pdf>

Bizon tests the stability of Einstein's GR equations in 4-d AdS
He claims in the last paragraph that 5-d AdS is also unstable, but doesn't demonstrate this.

5 AdS is unphysical - Jack

However, the AdS/CFT theorem is based on IIB superstring theory whose 10 dimensions are asymtotically the 10-d space AdS_5 x S^5.
The CFT theory is an SU(N) theory (with N being large) on the 4-d boundary of AdS_5.

As David Gross describes in his YouTube talk, the 4-d boundary at infinity of AdS_5 is 4-d Minkowski space. 

So the quantum gravity theory entailed in this picture is radically different from applying Einstein's equations to AdS_4 or AdS_5. 

All for now;)
Saul-Paul
------------
On Mar 3, 2014, at 5:01 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

so what? 

"On the mathematical and numerical side, Prof. Piotr Bizon presented his striking result that the anti-de Sitter space-time, is unstable in full, non-linear general relativity although it was known to be perturbatively stable. This is surprising both because it has been known for some time that de Sitter space-time and Minkowski space-time are non-linearly stable and because the anti-de Sitter space-time is assumed to represent the ‘ground state’ in the
ADS/CFT correspondence.” GR20/Amaldi10 Conference held at Warsaw, Poland
Abhay Ashtekar, IGC, Penn State ashtekar@gravity.ps.edu

Are you saying that Bizon’s result is wrong? I mean did Gross say Bizon was wrong?

Note that our universe is deSitter in the future and that is allegedly stable.

dark energy density ~ hc/Lp^2A

A = area-entropy of our far future de Sitter event horizon computer of ~ 10^124 qubits

so Seth the Lloyd! 

On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Saul-Paul and Mary-Minn Sirag <sirag@mindspring.com> wrote:

But see the strong endorsement of AdS/CFT by David Gross at the Dyson Festschrift a month after the GR 20 conference'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1ml3uZGGQE

At the end Gross makes the point the Spacetime seems to be Emergent.

That is a separate point not connected. I have been saying it’s emergent for years, but there are many different ideas of emergence. I don’t think that AdS/CFT being wrong would deny such emergence?

All for now;-)
Saul-Paul
---------------
On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:54 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

<MattersofGravity1402.2817v1.pdf>






 

Jack Sarfatti shared a link.

Michio Kaku's new book Future of the Mind
We will be able to test whether brain presponse for example is really retro causal 
Everything nick herbert envisioned in his elemental mind book is now either done in brain labs or will be soon including uploading memories and emotions into the internet immortality wit the connect dome. Hawking is now completely paralyzed cannot use his fingers but operates computer with brain waves via something like google glass.

I do think Kaku is wrong about 11 dimensions and mind of god, however he may be right if I am wrong both pictures popper falsifiable eventually
Indeed even the 11 d geometrodynamical Kaluza Klein super string field though rocklike has a thought like super quantum bit Bohm pilot field in Hilbert space 

Kaku is mistaken about Sri CIA RV he does not know about signal nonlocality and he says the empirical results were nothing

It's time for russell Targ to challenge Kaku on that

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:39 AM, Deepak Chopra wrote:

This is Part 1 of a series of articles I'm writing with Menas Kafatos and Subhash Kak
I'm horrified that intelligent people buy into the naive realism of Richard Dawkins and his pseudo skeptic gang
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Hidden-Truths-Going-Beyond-Common-Sense-Reality-5283560.php 
From: Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 6:04 AM

Subject: Re: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc


On 3 Mar 2014, at 11:00, Deepak Chopra <nonlocal101@chopra.com> wrote:

> Some future as yet unborn could access these emails - also in mind space Where is it located ?

NSA? GCHQ? Are they, even now, figuring out how to take advantage of quantum entanglement?

Brian

PS when quite some time ago (pre-Snowden) there was news of internet problems with an underground cable I said to myself, aha! what’s really happening here is that they are breaking into that cable to plant a tap!

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: 
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

Like ·  · 

  •  

    William Kuch and Derek Cooper like this.

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1498038/posts

    Timeline of Secret Government Projects LSD, Esalen, HAARP and the Cosmic Cointelpro

    www.freerepublic.com

    note: because important web-sites are frequently "here today but gone tomorrow" the following was archived from http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/timeline.htm on November 3, 2002. This is NOT an attempt to divert readers from the aforementioned web-site.  Indeed, the reader should only read this back-u...

    6 hours ago · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

     

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti The basic germ of an explanation that I propose is rather simple:

    My idea is well described here
    http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT/lectures/bohm8.pdf...See More

    6 minutes ago · Like

     

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti Subject: Kaku's book & CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc
    From: jacksarfatti@icloud.com
    Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:37:21 -0800
    ...
    See More

     

     

    Michio Kaku on 'The Future of the Mind' | KQED

    www.kqed.org

    In his new book, 'The Future of the Mind,' theoretical physicist Michio Kaku explores how the next century of scientific innovation will expand the brain's abilities. Kaku joins us to discuss the latest in neurological research, how the brain resembles a corporation, and the fantastic inventions tha...

    5 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview

     

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:04 AM, "JACK SARFATTI" <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

    A wise decision. 


    Sent from my iPhone

    On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Bernard Carr <b.j.carr@qmul.ac.uk> wrote:

    There's a lot about string theory and higher-dimensional physics in "Universe or Multiverse?" (eg. Susskind's article) and also some discussion of consciousness and mind (because of the anthropic connection). However, there's nothing explicitly about the connection between mind and higher dimensions. I felt it best not to mix these ideas in the book. Even the multiverse is a step too far for some physicists and the mind is one step further! My personal view is that these topics (multiverse, mind, higher dimensions) are all connected but the number of people interested in all three topics is probably rather small. Best wishes, Bernard. 
    ________________________________________
    From: Ruth Kastner [rekastner@hotmail.com]
    Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:50 AM
    To: Bernard Carr; Brian Josephson
    Cc: JACK SARFATTI; creon levit; nick herbert; S-P Sirag; David Kaiser; Kim Burrafato;beowulfr@interlog.com Addinall; Fred Wolf; Dean Radin; George Knapp; Russell Targ; York Dobyns; Ronald Pandolfi
    Subject: RE: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc

    Fascinating, many thanks Bernard!
    I'm entertaining the idea that quantum objects have both mindlike and matter-like aspects, in which case we might not need a deeper theory but just the appropriate interpretation of the existing one (including relativistic qm).

    Does your edited collection Universe or Multiverse have any essays on this topic?

    Best
    Ruth

    From: b.j.carr@qmul.ac.uk
    To: rekastner@hotmail.com;bdj10@cam.ac.uk

    Subject: RE: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc
    Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:28:33 +0000

    Dear Ruth

    There are a small number of physicists (eg. Saul-Paul, Russell and maybe others on this email list) who have explored the idea that mind can be identified with a higher dimensional "reality structure", which might be viewed as an extension of general relativity. Ordinary 4-dimensional spacetime is then regarded as a slice of this higher-dimensional space. These theories are not exactly aspatiotemporal but they are a(normal)spatiotemporal. Currently there is interest in linking this idea up with M-theory (e.g. with ordinary matter being associated with the brane and mind with the bulk). I've written quite a lot about this but not in mainstream physics journals. Most string theorists of course would do more than merely roll their eyes at this suggestion! In this approach, one is not trying to deny a link between quantum theory and mind but seeking a deeper theory which underlies both.

    Best wishes, Bernard Carr
    ________________________________________
    From: Ruth Kastner [rekastner@hotmail.com]
    Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 10:02 PM
    To: Brian Josephson
    Cc: JACK SARFATTI; creon levit; nick herbert; S-P Sirag; David Kaiser; Bernard Carr; Kim Burrafato;beowulfr@interlog.com Addinall; Fred Wolf; Dean Radin; George Knapp; Russell Targ; York Dobyns; Ronald Pandolfi
    Subject: RE: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc

    Interesting. I'll think about this. BTW do you have a specific physicist in mind who is explicitly OK with the idea that real entities need not exist in spacetime? My experience has been that the minute I suggest such a thing, the eyes roll.

    Subject: Re: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc
    From: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
    Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 20:53:20 +0000

    To:rekastner@hotmail.com

    On 2 Mar 2014, at 19:57, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

    those micro-physical entities are possibilities in a pre-spacetime realm, and based on that aspatiotemporal aspect, they could well be described as mental sorts of entities. It all depends on what we mean by 'physical' -- most physicists equate that to space-time objects

    Ruth,

    That all depends on what species of physicist you consult. The theoreticians are happy to consider reality beyond ordinary space-time.

    and that rules out the mental. However in my new popular book (almost finished the draft now) I explore the idea that quantum objects could be the fundamental basis for both the mental (extra-spacetime) and material (spacetime) realm. This also implies that the entire quantum realm has some degree of consciousness as well as potential materiality, which would also resolve the 'strong problem of consciousness' (Chalmers)

    I don’t think QM should be considered primary, but rather mind, which Peirce equates with ‘thirdness’, something that emerges and connect. There is a nice compilation of his quotes on this at
    http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/thirdness.html. Now how do things become precise and mathematical? Following Bateson in ‘mind and nature, a necessary unity’ we can argue that it is in some sense an outcome of what he calls calibration, which is connected with the ability to learn to get things right without feedback (getting them right from the start), though one might also connect this with symmetry, which is like calibrating one part of a system with another. You could argue that space-time is the outcome of subjects shaping the form of an object in order to be able to exploit its potential: imprecise mind creates precise object through technology.

    Brian

    5 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview

     

  •  

     

     

Jack Sarfatti shared a link.

For the record i consider quantum information as intrinsically mental, i.e. Stapp’s “thoughtlike”, though not “conscious” in orthodox “special” QM because of violation of the action-reaction principle in Einstein’s general sense. There must be direct back-reaction of “rocklike” (Stapp) hidden variables (Bohm) on their quantum potential pilot field Q to excite conscious qualia in the Q field (macro-quantum coherent order parameter piloting perhaps the electrons in the protein dimers in Hameroff’s model.
Michael Towler Lecture 8 describes my idea on this. My idea is consistent with David Chalmers’s disiderata and with what Brian says below.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

On Mar 2, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

On 2 Mar 2014, at 19:57, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

those micro-physical entities are possibilities in a pre-spacetime realm, and based on that aspatiotemporal aspect, they could well be described as mental sorts of entities. It all depends on what we mean by 'physical' -- most physicists equate that to space-time objects

Ruth,

That all depends on what species of physicist you consult. The theoreticians are happy to consider reality beyond ordinary space-time.

and that rules out the mental. However in my new popular book (almost finished the draft now) I explore the idea that quantum objects could be the fundamental basis for both the mental (extra-spacetime) and material (spacetime) realm. This also implies that the entire quantum realm has some degree of consciousness as well as potential materiality, which would also resolve the 'strong problem of consciousness' (Chalmers)

I don’t think QM should be considered primary, but rather mind, which Peirce equates with ‘thirdness’, something that emerges and connect. There is a nice compilation of his quotes on this at
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/thirdness.html. Now how do things become precise and mathematical? Following Bateson in ‘mind and nature, a necessary unity’ we can argue that it is in some sense an outcome of what he calls calibration, which is connected with the ability to learn to get things right without feedback (getting them right from the start), though one might also connect this with symmetry, which is like calibrating one part of a system with another. You could argue that space-time is the outcome of subjects shaping the form of an object in order to be able to exploit its potential: imprecise mind creates precise object through technology.

Brian

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: 
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

 

 

 

On Mar 2, 2014, at 2:59 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

 

There are now papers coming out linking the emergence of geometrodynamics as a classical field to quantum entanglement in Hilbert space and holography all coming from Bekenstein’s horizon area ~ entropy in some way I am not yet clear on the details.

One key idea is the equivalence principle in the form of a local uniformly accelerating frame = gravity field in a frame at rest etc ties in with Rindler horizon thermodynamics and that holds locally at every local “event."

On Mar 2, 2014, at 2:48 PM, Brian Josephson wrote:


On 2 Mar 2014, at 22:02, Ruth Kastner wrote:

Interesting. I'll think about this.  BTW do you have a specific physicist in mind who is explicitly OK with the idea that real entities need not exist in spacetime? My experience has been that the minute I suggest such a thing, the eyes roll.


Can't go into any detail at this hour, but have you ever talked to a string theorist about this?  Supersymmetry which they like as it allegedly allows gravity to be quantised without divergences requires 10 or 11 dimensions.


I am very suspicious of such claims and I find extra geometrodynamic dimensions in order to avoid causality violation as a cure that is much worse than the disease. Indeed, I think nonunitary nonlinear QM signal nonlocality fits the facts of experience. Ordinary strings in 3 + 1 are OK - just my opinion.
 

And my colleague at Trinity in the field who is very well informed tells me that some people are unhappy just assuming there is such a thing as a space and want to explain how it comes about.  Here’s a possible reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Hiley#Implicate_orders.2C_pre-space_and_algebraic_structures

Here’s a quote from it, quoting very respectable people:

The notion of another order underlying space was not new. Along similar lines, both Gerard 't Hooft and John Archibald Wheeler, questioning whether space-time was the appropriate starting-point for describing physics, had called for a deeper structure as starting point. In particular, Wheeler had proposed a notion of pre-space which he called pregeometry, from which spacetime geometry should emerge as a limiting case.


Have you any comments on this, Bernard?

Brian

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory and the foundations of quantum mechanics - A graduate lecture...

www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk

Some new additions to my Stargate book

Stargate 
Making Star Trek Real
Jack Sarfatti
Internet Science Education Project
Foreword

“The future, and the future alone, is the home of explanation.”
Henry Dwight Sedgwick 

“Sarfatti's Cave is the name I'll give to the Caffe Trieste in San Francisco, where Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. in physics, writes his poetry, evokes his mystical, miracle-working ancestors, and has conducted a several-decade-long seminar on the nature of reality … to a rapt succession of espresso scholars. ... It's Jack Sarfatti against the world, and he is indomitable. …One of his soaring theories is that things which have not happened yet can cause events in the present.” Gold, Herbert. Bohemia: Where Art, Angst, Love & Strong Coffee Meet. 

There is now a significant body of results on quantum interactions with closed timelike curves (CTCs) in the quantum information literature, … As a consequence, there is a prima facie argument exploiting entanglement that CTC interactions would enable superluminal and, indeed, effectively instantaneous signaling. …. Using the consistency condition, we show that there is a procedure that allows Alice to signal to Bob in the past via relayed superluminal communications between spacelike-separated Alice and Clio, and spacelike-separated Clio and Bob. This opens the door to time travel paradoxes in the classical domain … offering a possible window on what we might expect in a future theory of quantum gravity. Quantum interactions with closed timelike curves and superluminal signaling, Jeffrey Bub and Allen Stairs, PHYSICAL REVIEW A 89, 022311 (2014)

‘In this case, Bob possesses the unknown state even before Alice implements the teleportation. Causality is not violated because Bob cannot foresee Alice’s measurement result, which is completely random. But, if we could pick out only the proper result, the resulting “projective” teleportation would allow us to travel along spacelike intervals, to escape from black holes, or to travel in time.” Seth Lloyd et-al 

This is a series of blog essays about teleological destiny, quick time travel to colonize Earthlike exoplanets through stargates, and the possibility that we are three-dimensional hologram images in a virtual reality programmed by a cosmological conscious super-intelligence that is alive and well on our future two-dimensional dark energy edge of space that we can ever hope to see with light signals. My speculative hypothesis-conjecture of this book is that our idea of time and cause and effect is profoundly wrong. In particular the “unproven theorem paradox” of time travel is not a paradox at all.
“The “unproved theorem” paradox points out that if there are CTCs, then it might be possible to take a published proof of a theorem into the past and present it to someone, who then uses it to produce the very manuscript that leads to the theorem’s publication Bub & Stairs op-cit 

Evidence on “brain presponse” (Libet, Radin, Bierman, Bem) suggests that our consciousness and creativity are such meme self-creating strange loops. The universe does only not emerge out of the past, but is also pulled toward the future for a purpose. This idea is not new in philosophy, but has reappeared in physics starting with the work of John Archibald Wheeler and Richard Feynman in the 1940s. This back-from-the-future effect is needed to understand the nature of both dark matter and dark energy that is most of the stuff in our accelerating universe and most importantly to understand our own consciousness and how to reach the stars and beyond.
 
Jack Sarfatti
6 minutes ago via Twitter
  •  
    http://t.co/1Su7kSJkJk
    Phys. Rev. A 89, 022311 (2014) - Quantum interactions with closed timelike curves and...
    journals.aps.org
    There is now a significant body of results on quantum interactions with closed timelike curves (CTCs) in the quantum information literature, for both the Deutsch model of CTC interactions (D-CTCs) and the projective model (P-CTCs). As a consequence, there is a prima facie argument exploiting entangl…
     
     
     
  • Jack Sarfatti "There is now a significant body of results on quantum interactions with closed timelike curves (CTCs) in the quantum information literature, for both the Deutsch model of CTC interactions (D-CTCs) and the projective model (P-CTCs). As a consequence, there is a prima facie argument exploiting entanglement that CTC interactions would enable superluminal and, indeed, effectively instantaneous signaling. In cases of spacelike separation between the sender of a signal and the receiver, whether a receiver measures the local part of an entangled state or a disentangled state to access the signal can depend on the reference frame. We propose a consistency condition that gives priority to either an entangled perspective or a disentangled perspective in spacelike-separated scenarios. For D-CTC interactions, the consistency condition gives priority to frames of reference in which the state is disentangled, while for P-CTC interactions the condition selects the entangled state. Using the consistency condition, we show that there is a procedure that allows Alice to signal to Bob in the past via relayed superluminal communications between spacelike-separated Alice and Clio, and spacelike-separated Clio and Bob. This opens the door to time travel paradoxes in the classical domain. Ralph [T. C. Ralph, arXiv:1107.4675 [quant-ph].] first pointed this out for P-CTCs, but we show that Ralph's procedure for a “radio to the past” is flawed. Since both D-CTCs and P-CTCs allow classical information to be sent around a spacetime loop, it follows from a result by Aaronson and Watrous [S. Aaronson and J. Watrous, Proc. R. Soc. A 465, 631 (2009)] for CTC-enhanced classical computation that a quantum computer with access to P-CTCs would have the power of PSPACE, equivalent to a D-CTC-enhanced quantum computer."
  • Jack Sarfatti This is high octane fuel for my starship warp engine with Q continuum telepathic psychokinetic mind-control. 


Sent from my iPad

On Jan 17, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:



Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Basil Hiley 
Date: January 17, 2014 at 3:11:50 AM PST
To: Ruth Kastner 

Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory

Whenever I see the term “Bohm picture" my heart sinks.  Bohm never had one picture.  I have never had one picture.  Our starting point was that we did not find the majority view on quantum mechanics held in the 50s and 60s began to touch the questions we felt deserved answers.  Yes we could recite the formal mantra and get results that agreed with experiment but we wanted more.  There were too many questions that could not be framed in the available mathematical language physicists had at their disposal then.  For me the main question was “Why had the observer become central to the theory?”  The universe existed before there were observers and the quantum formalism could not handle that situation.  
 
It those days the appeal was to find a “realist” interpretation, but what was the meaning of the term “realist”?  There were two extremes: there is no 'realist picture', just the mathematics or at the other extreme we take the classical view as basic and just change it a little, say, by adding hidden variables.  What Bohm discovered while playing with the WBK approximation was that up to the first and second approximation we could still maintain the notion of a particle following a trajectory.  At what stage of the approximation do we abandon the notion of a particle?  There is nothing in the formalism to give us an answer, so don’t truncate the series.  Following that line Bohm was led to propose his 52 model.  It is remarkable how far that idea offers a way into quantum phenomena.  
 
Please note for Bohm and for myself this is only the beginning and leads to number of questions.  
 
Firstly: if we take the idea of a classical particle, an object that exists as a solid entity in it own right independent of everything else, then there should be some ‘ultimon’, but there doesn’t seem to be any ‘ultimon'.  To every particle there is an anti-particle and we know what happens when they meet!  Where is the little rock?  There doesn’t seem to be one.  The nucleon is a hive of activity.  Remember QM was introduced to explain the stability of matter.
 
Secondly: Bohm immediately noticed that his analysis did not cover the photon.  The classical limit in this case is the field.  Already in the appendix of his 52 paper, he proposed that the field and its conjugate momentum should be treated as the two beables.  With one of our students Pan Kaloyerou, we later took this analysis much further.  We illustrated the principles lying behind the ideas using a scalar field and later Pan treated the em field.  Where was the photon in this approach?  What we found was that the energy is stored in the field and can, at best, be quasi localised in an excited state of the field.  In our paper (Phys. Reps. 144 (1987) 349-375) we show how the notion of a photon arises as the energy absorbed by an atom.  The non-linear, non-local super quantum potential sweeps out an quantum of energy, sufficient to excite the atom to one of its higher energy states.  This gives the impression that photon exchange has taken place.  We noticed further that the field does not need to contain energy in fixed units of hν.  This is where coherent states come in.  We also explained how this enables us to explain two-slit interference without the photons travelling along trajectories. NB Photons do not travel on trajectories!   We even explained the interference of two independent lasers as observed in the Pfleegor-Mandel experiment.  The details are contained in our paper and a later paper by Pan Kaloyerou.
 
Thirdly: Since there is no ‘ultimon’, where do we start?  We touched on this question in the last chapter of the Undivided Universe.  However since then I have taken the story a lot further.  I assume that we must start with activity or process which can be described by what I call the algebra of process.  I have recently presented these ideas in Process, Distinction, Groupoids and Clifford Algebras: an Alternative View of the Quantum Formalism, in New Structures for Physics, ed Coecke, B., Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 813, pp. 705-750, Springer (2011).  There I show how the basic symplectic and rotational symmetries emerge and can be linked up with the von Neumann-Moyal non-commutative algebraic approach which shows how the Bohm approach emerges from the heart of what are now called quantum algebras that were originally discussed under the title 'Heisenberg matrix mechanics'.  We now have the mathematics available to see exactly how to develop the quantum ideas without being trapped in the standard Hilbert space formalism.
 
Basil.

On 17 Jan 2014, at 02:14, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
Basically I'm just pointing out that position beables are not field currents, and it's field currents that exchange virtual photons. So not sure about your interpretation of your interesting result, nor whether position beables really apply to Glauber states. But I'll wait and see what Basil has to say.


Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory
From: jack
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:27:55 -0800



On Jan 16, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Ruth Kastner  wrote:

Everettian picture is opposed to Bohm picture.  Classical field configs corresponding to Glauber states don't involve virtual particle exchanges between Bohmian particles describable by S.  The latter are not field currents.
 
That's not true. In superfluid helium the macro-quantum coherent Glauber state order parameter is a reservoir for incoherent bosons. Indeed there is only about 8% bose-einstein condensate in the ground state of Helium II.
 
In any case I do not think is a formal problem in the theory.
 
The math argument I gave I think is very convincing.
 
In the EM case
 
A is a Glauber coherent state order parameter of virtual near field photons of all three spin 1 polarizations f =/= ck
 
+ real photons f = ck of only transverse polarizations in the far field.
 
S is the quantum phase of the fermion charge, not of the boson condensate.
 
hGradS is obviously a longitudinal polarized momentum transfer between test charge and its coincident EM vector potential (order parameter) A
 
It is the cancellation of the hGradS terms in the formal gauge transformation algebra that describes exchange of virtual photon momentum between particle hidden fermion variable and classical boson field.
 
It is this cancellation that keep canonical momentum P = mdr/dt + (e/c)A gauge invariant.
 
hGradS/&t  is the action/reaction "force"
 
&E&t < h
 
In the gravity analog hGradS is replaced by the coincident LNIF -> LNIF' frame transformation XdX for exchange of virtual graviton acceleration between 
 
geodesic test mass m and non-tidal gravity-acceleration field {Levi-Civita Connection}.
 
XdX/&t is a "jerk" as in EM radiation reaction, but here its the gravity analog.
 



From: jack
Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:36:23 -0800
To: Ruth 

Parallel universes that phase communicate
David Deutsch
 
However bosons have super quantum potential and no problem for them
Classical field configurations are already Glauber states

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Ruth Kastner  wrote:

How can particles have definite positions if they might not even exist?



From: jack
Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:30:01 -0800
To: Ruth

Even nonrelativistically one can have uncertain knowledge of what total particle number is.
I see no problem here either conceptually or formally.
The rules are that of Finkelstein's quantum logic 
 

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 16, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Ruth Kastner
wrote:

Basil as I understand it has acknowledged that particle position beables are not the right beables for a relativistic version of the Bohmian theory. Basil do correct me if I am wrong...


From: jack
Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:56:11 -0800
To: Ruth

I dont think what u say about coherent states is true
I am sure Basil Hiley has a counter argument?
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Ruth Kastner wrote:

Ah OK I see that by adding dS you are in effect including a Bohmian 'quantum potential' term as the gauge here. So yes, it does act as an additional effective force on a putative Bohmian particle that is otherwise behaving classically. Thisis of course how the Bohmian theory regains quantum predictions based on assuming the existence of particles pursuing
deterministic trajectories. 

Interesting, although as you know I don't buy the existence of Bohmian particles ;)   For one thing, assuming a persistent particle is inconsistent with coherent states that must always have an indefinite number of particles. 


From: jack
Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:45:04 -0800
To: Ruth 


On Jan 16, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Ruth Kastner wrote:

Jack that is very interesting. But wouldn't such an exchange give rise to an additional force on the charge--implying a change
in observed E field?

 
I don't understand your question.
 
The argument below has nothing to do with Jim's gravity theory. It's pure QED.
 
The result of the local gauge invariance is in this simple case
 
md^2r/dt^2 = eE   Newton's second law
 
from
 
P = mdr/dt + (e/c)A
 
dP/dt = md^2r/dt^2 + (e/c)dA/dt
 
E = - (1/c)dA/dt
 
Under an internal symmetry local U1 gauge transformation - that conserves electrical charge generating U1(x)
 
mdr/dt -> mdr/dt + hGradS
 
(e/c)A -> (e/c)A - hGradS
 
S = phase of particle's quantum wave function (Bohm)
 
This is simply an exchange of longitudinally polarized virtual photon momentum between particle (e,m) and classical field A which takes time &t 
 
It is the quantum field mechanism for near field electrical contact force.
 
Under these virtual gauge transformation dP/dt = 0, which is the action-reaction principle.
 
If A exerts near field contact force hGradS/&t on e, then e has equal and opposite back-reaction force on A and vice versa.
 
This is intuitively obvious, elegant beautiful and I have never seen it explained this way before, so I claim it as an original insight in the LOCAL physical meaning 
 
of all internal symmetry transformations and how they connect to spacetime conservation-symmetry laws.
 
An analogous argument for gravity - is not momentum transfer but proper tensor acceleration transfer between test particle and Levi-Civita LNIF field in time &t, 
 
i.e. the kinematical jerk d^3r/dt^3   - mathematically it's the XdX term in the LC LNIF transformation, where X = GCT
 
{LNIF} -> {LNIF'} = XXX{LNIF} + XdX
 
The origins of LNIF and LNIF' are PHYSICALLY COINCIDENT ALWAYS
 
ROVELLI EXPLAINS THIS NICELY IN HIS CH2 QUANTUM GRAVITY FREE ONLINE LECTURES
 
d^2r/ds^2 -> d^2r'/ds^2 = Xd^2r/ds^2 + XdX
 
This keeps proper acceleration of the test object invariant!
 
D^2r/ds^2 -> D^2r'/ds^2 = Xd^2r/ds^2 + XdX - XXX{LNIF}X^-1dr/dsX^-1/dr/ds - XdX
 
= XD^2/ds^2
 
The "jerk" transferred between test particle and gravity acceleration field (first order non-tidal Newtonian field LC connection of EEP)
 
is simply XdX/&t  from virtual spin 2 graviton exchange. It's not a momentum transfer as in all spin 1 gauge theories.
 
IN EFFECT
 
i.e. D^3r/ds^3 = 0
 
THIS ALSO EXPLAINS WHY ONE NEEDS THE STRESS ENERGY PSEUDO-TENSOR.
 
Alex Poltorak's PhD was based on a common misconception

> Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory
> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 05:05:03 -0800
> To: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
> 
> Yes of course, also it corresponds to charge conservation 
> But I am talking about a direct local physical meaning to
> 
> A -> A' = A + (hc/e)dS
> 
> hdS is virtual photon momentum exchange between charge kinetic momentum and field momentum (e/c)A
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> > On Jan 16, 2014, at 1:56 AM, Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> On 16 Jan 2014, at 05:22, Jack wrote:
> >> 
> >> gauge invariance is usually treated very abstractly as a purely mathematical device
> >> There is a picture of it in terms of fiber bundles but not in terms of physics
> > 
> > In the case of electromagnetism, there is a direct physical correlate, the Eherenberg-Siday-Aharonov-Bohm effect.
> > 
> > 
> > Brian
> > 
> > ------
> > Brian D. Josephson
> > Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
> > Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
> > Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
> > WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
> > Tel. +44(0)1223 337260/337254
> >
 

Jack Sarfatti NOW FOR THE REAL PHYSICAL MEANING OF THE LEVI-CIVITA THEOREM THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN TWO LC CONNECTIONS IS A TENSOR

THAT TENSOR IS THE PROPER ACCELERATION OF THE LOCAL NON-INERTIAL FRAME.

On 1/8/2014 9:55 PM, Jacob Sarfatti wrote:
Its physical significance is pretty simple:
The non-tensor inhomogeneous term in the transformation of the Christoffel symbol connection field is the change in proper acceleration of the lnif.

Sent from my iPad

More precisely,

What I meant was that the XdX inhomogeneous term in the GCT gauge transformation LNIF -> LNIF' CANCELS OUT in the computation of the proper acceleration of the LNIF detector, which by definition is a property of its REST FRAME, i.e. the reading of the accelerometer clamped to its center of mass. We are here talking about the local rest frame of the detector not that of the test particle the detector is monitoring.

It's this cancellation of the two equal and opposite XdX terms in the respective rest frames of the detectors that maintains the tensor property of the proper accelerations of the two coincident LNIF/LNIF' connected by GCT X.

GCT X is a an element of the local translational gauge group T4(x).

So in EM we have

A -> A' = A + (hc/e)dS

this keeps

P = mV + (e/c)A gauge invariant.

mV -> mV' = mV + hdS

S = quantum phase of wave function of test particle with inertia m and with charge e.

(e/c)A -> (e/c)A' = (e/c)A - hdS

hdS is the momentum carried by a longitudinally polarized virtual photon that is the CONTACT electrical force in quantum field theory.

dP/dt = 0 is ACTION-REACTION principle between electric charge and coincident EM field.

dP/dt = 0 is the real force law

mdV/dt = eE

since E ~ (1/c)dA/dt

Now for gravity, we focus on the proper acceleration of the detector (a rest frame property of the detector) not the test particle.

The GCT X induces an XdX kinetic acceleration term which is canceled by the equal and opposite XdX term in the LC transformation.

This keeps the tensor property intact for

DV^i(LNIF)/ds = {LNIF}^i00

in every rest frame

i.e.

DV^i'(LNIF')/ds = {LNIF}^i'0'0'

The LC connection in flat spacetime is exactly like the LC connection in curved spacetime.

Flat spacetime is simply an unstable solution of Einstein's field equations. 

Mathematically the LC connection has zero self curl in flat spacetime. The self curl of the LC connection is the curvature tensor.

The LC connection is not zero in flat spacetime in non-inertial frames.

The inhomogeneous term is the change in proper acceleration of the frame.

Symbolically X = GCT which physically is the transformation between two COINCIDENT LNIFs each with proper acceleration encoded in their corresponding LCs.

LC --> LC' = XXXLC + XdX

I must have the patience of a saint.

More accurately of a demon!

The proper acceleration of the test particle is the tensor

DV(test particle)/ds = dV(test particle)/ds - LC(LNIF)V(test particle)V(test particle)

The proper acceleration of the LNIF in its rest frame is

DV(LNIF)/ds = dV(LNIF)/ds - LC(LNIF)V(LNIF)V(LNIF)

but in the rest frame, for the 3-vector parts

V(LNIF) = 0

dV(LNIF)/ds = 0

Therefore

DV^i(LNIF)/ds = - LC(LNIF)^i00V^0(LNIF)V^0(LNIF)

V^0 = 1 in the REST FRAME always

therefore,

DV^i(LNIF)/ds = - LC(LNIF)^i00

Under the GCT in the REST FRAME of LNIF'

DV^i'(LNIF)/ds = - LC(LNIF')^i'0'0'V^0'(LNIF')V^0'(LNIF') = - LC(LNIF')^i'0'0'

Because, just like in the U(1) EM gauge transformations

dV(LNIF)/ds -> dV(LNIF')/ds = dV(LNIF)/ds + XdX

Whilst

- LC(LNIF)^i00 -> - LC(LNIF)^i'0'0 - XdX

Therefore the XdX inhomogeneous terms cancel out for the transformation LNIF -> LNIF' when we calculate the proper acceleration change of the center of mass /origin of the LNIF.

 

On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:


I'm enjoying Rob's analysis which I think is very helpful.
 
Agreed

Based on his comments it occurred to me that it might be useful to recall that Aristotle talked about four kinds of explanatory causes for any phenomenon: material, efficient, formal, and final. In these terms Jack is content with a formal cause (the symmetries) as an explanation,
 
See below
 
while Jim and Paul regard that as inadequate. Instead they seem to be looking for a material and/or efficient cause.
 
Are they? Let's review.
 
Four Causes refers to an influential principle in Aristotelian thought whereby causes of change or movement are categorized into four fundamental types of answer to the question "why?". Aristotle wrote that "we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its why, that is to say, its cause."[1][2] While there are cases where identifying a cause is difficult, or in which causes might merge, Aristotle was convinced that his four causes provided an analytical scheme of general applicability.[3]
Aristotle held that there were four kinds of causes:[2][4]
  • A change or movement's material cause is the aspect of the change or movement which is determined by the material which the moving or changing things are made of. For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.
 
I say the material cause is the "marble" of Einstein's geometrodynamical field molded by the "wood" of the stress-energy current densities of all the non-gravity fields.
 
Therefore, I invoke a material cause as well as symmetries.
 
  • A change or movement's formal cause is a change or movement caused by the arrangement, shape or appearance of the thing changing or moving. Aristotle says for example that the ratio 2:1, and number in general, is the cause of the octave.
  • A change or movement's efficient or moving cause refers to things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter, or a person working as one, and according to Aristotle the efficient cause of a boy is a father.
  • An event's final cause is the aim or purpose being served by it. That for the sake of which a thing is what it is. For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom.
I am definitely into teleological final cause - Destiny in a Block HOLOGRAM Universe.
 
the future and past cosmological horizons encode the interior bulk
 
the horizons are the hologram plates (computers)
 
the interior bulk are the hologram images
 
  1. Seth Lloyd on The universe as quantum computer - H+ Magazine

    hplusmagazine.com/.../video-friday-brainfood-seth-lloyd-on-the-univers...
     
    Dec 27, 2013 - A recent paper from Dr. Lloyd discusses limits to digital computation as we now employ it, but he further shows that the universe itself is a sort of ...
 
  1. Our universe is a hologram, and we're floating inside of it, suggests ...

    www.extremetech.com › Extreme
    Dec 16, 2013 - If we're living within a hologram and made to think it's just our.... I'm sure the religious nuts of the world would love to have this theory proved.
     
  2. "Our Holographic Universe" --Will It Prove to Be the Greatest Theory ...

    www.dailygalaxy.com/.../our-holographic-universe-it-could-prove-to-be...
     
    Dec 14, 2013 - Re 'vk', just preceding this comment: perhaps one might be able to move in the 3rd dimension of a hologram if one was part of a virtual world...
  3. Physics breakthrough: Is the universe a giant hologram? — RT News

    rt.com/news/space-evidence-universe-hologram-195/
     
    Dec 13, 2013 - In physics, the 'holographic principle' is a property described in string theory. ... This produced a world without gravity laws. However, it did not ...
  4. Holographic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
     
    For the book by Michael Talbot, see The Holographic Universe. .... because the world-sheet theory of string theory was just such a holographic description.
    You've visited this page 5 times. Last visit: 2/13/13
 
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes
 

I think this points up how important it is to be aware  there is a meta-question involved here concerning what constitutes an adequate explanation and that this is probably what most of the disagreement is really about. Is there a 'right answer' to this? I doubt it, but it's probably good to have as many of the 'causes' addressed as possible (except perhaps for 'final cause' which invokes notions of design and takes us farther away from modern science as usually understood).
 
Here I strongly disagree.
 


Ruth
 
On Jan 8, 2014, at 1:41 AM, Robert Addinall <beowulfr@interlog.com> wrote:

Jim,
 
I anticipated that part of your criticism might be that Jack is accepting things as primitives that aren't - that circles around the sun are nice and symmetrical but that circles being an observed fact doesn't explain why they are there. Sounds like you intend to do a detailed note or two here - so thanks, this should be more interesting than rehashing the fictitious forces argument as it stood (although I realize that this discussion will likely at some point lead right back into it).
 
One thing I'm curious about is where does the inertial reaction force fit into, align with or contradict Jack's gauge invariance math? I can make a verbal argument of sorts about how such a force would relate to the conservation law (along the lines that it is what causes an opposite and equal reaction), but I don't know where to try to plug it into the sort of detailed discussion going on here.
 
Also, I'd like to add Happy New Year to everyone here who uses the standard western calender!
 
 
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
From: jfwoodward@juno.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 3:24 AM
To: beowulfr@inte
Subject: RE: About to watch Downton Abbey new series - but before I forget a me
mory about Sylvan Schweber at Brandeis
 

Rob,

Paul will tell you, I expect, that Jack's "explanations" in terms of transformation invariance and Noether's theorem and the like aren't really explanations at all. And I agree. Saying that a conservation law is the physical cause of mass and inertia is really just silly. It's like saying that the Sun and Moon are circular because circles have the most perfect symmetry. Sounds profound. And says nothing about the physics of gravitational accretion and energy minimization.

To characterize my position as in some sense a theory that is independent of general relativity and so dismissable without doing violence to general relativity is also wrong. I assert that general relativity and the standard procedures of field theory, with the WMAP results, accounts for inertia and inertial forces without ANY further theoretical assumptions. Those determined to believe that the quantum vacuum has something to do with inertia are, understandably, not please with this as it renders their speculations irrelevant. But physics is about what's right, not what makes us feel warm and fuzzy.

I had planned on addressing this tonight. But it is late; and I have an early trip into LA in the morning. And I want those who are not professional physicists on the list to be able to follow the main points of the argument. That means providing some historical context, for this stuff is hard enough to follow when you know the context. Without the context, it's all a bunch of symbol salad for most. So I'll tackle this maybe tomorrow. And do it in as many digestible pieces as seems warranted. Jack can then tell everyone it's a bunch of word salad. And Paul can correct my errors. :-)

Best,

Jim
____________________________________________________________
 
On Jan 8, 2014, at 1:18 AM, Robert Addinall <beowulfr@interlog.com> wrote:

 

One point I should add: when I talk about the causally connected universe from the point of view of Jim's phi=c^2 gravity, I talk about the future cosmological horizon (where the event horizon and hubble sphere coincide) because we've been assuming that Wheeler-Feynman advanced radiation-reaction is the mechanism for some of this stuff. Basically an effect propagates (ie. radiates) through spacetime in the "forward" time direction and interacts with other matter in our future, which then sends a reaction wave back through spacetime in the "backwards" direction.
 
There would be a different (more complete) definition if you were talking about the causally connected universe extending into our past.
 
However, I didn't get into such details (which have been argued over before) because I wanted to stay with relatively simple analogies that I wouldn't get terribly wrong ;)
 
Rob

 

 
On Jan 7, 2014, at 7:34 PM, Robert Addinall <beowulfr@interlog.com> wrote:

There is actually potentially a really interesting discussion here.  We have Jack’s theory that particles with mass exhibit inertial resistance to being pushed off geodesic because action-reaction arises purely locally based on gauge invariance and gauge transformation – a local theory.  And, we have the opposite, a distance approach – Jim’s argument that the origin of inertia is to be found in the gravitational interaction of all matter in the causally connected universe.  Both claim to be consistent with GR, but are at opposite ends of a spectrum.
 
If we agree that spacetime curvature around sources and off-geodesic acceleration are frame invariant objective realities, then we all agree that objects in free fall will “fall” towards the COM of the Earth and that objects “hovering” in the Earth’s gravity field on the surface of the Earth due to electrical contact forces always weigh the same on a scale.  So, then the question of whether there is a real Newtonian gravity force comes down to whether a force is needed to explain why objects remain on inertial trajectories until pushed off them by electrical contact forces (ie. an “origin of inertia”) or whether the gauge invariance idea is sufficient.
 
So in terms of Jack’s gauge invariance discussion – is it wrong?  If so, why?  Is it not wrong but incomplete?  If so, why?  Then we can compare its strengths and weaknesses to the strengths and weaknesses of Jim’s argument.
 
Again, Jack’s argument (highlighted in red):
 
I actually have not seen it in any textbooks, which treat the gauge transformations purely as formal manipulations with no direct physical meaning
 
Again because the basic idea is so simple and beautiful that it's amazing that not even Feynman noticed it 
In the case of Maxwell's electromagnetic field the argument goes like this
 
The Canonical momentum of a test charge is
 
P = mv + eA
 
P is gauge invariant under U1 internal symmetry gauge transformations
 
mv -> mv + hgradS
 
eA-> eA - hgradS
 
S = quantum phase of test particle of inertia m and electric charge e
 
mv is charge's kinetic momentum
 
eA is the electromagnetic field momentum sitting smack on the center of mass of the charge
 
This is as local a contact force as one can imagine
 
hgradS is the momentum exchange of a virtual longitudinal near Field photon
 
Therefore newton's third law of action with equal and opposite reaction is trivially automatically obeyed locally between field and charged particle
 
dP/dt = 0
 
Canonical momentum is conserved in time when there were only virtual photon exchanges between particle and field forming a closed system
 
Of course A depends on faraway sources via the greens function propagator integrals with the source distributions
 
Implies
 
mdv/dt = - edA/dt = eE
 
E = electric real force field
 
When we do this in special relativity we get more terms 
 
I know how to extend the same kind of argument to the gravity field
 
Jack Sarfatti
2 minutes ago via Twitter
  •  
    http://t.co/wYnvApwlL2 updated 12-20-13
    Jack Sarfatti - Academia.edu
    lnkd.in
    More on the physical meaning of gauge transformations in both gravity and the electromagnetic-weak-strong interactions 12-18-13 The subject of gauge transformations is almost always presented in an obscure way as a purely formal mathematical exercise without direct physical meaning. This is all clas...
     
     
     
  • Jack Sarfatti On Dec 20, 2013, at 8:58 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

    On Dec 20, 2013, at 6:02 AM, Paul Murad wrote:

    So you are calling electric forces which I would call as real forces...

    Paul Murad
    Morningstar Applied Physics, LLC
    www.morningstarap.com
    pm@morningstarap.com

    Electric force is real because it pushes charges off timelike geodesics of Einstein's geometrodynamical field, i.e. the Ruvwl curvature tensor field, which can be zero of course - zero is a good real number.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_curvature_tensor

    My point is perhaps a bit surprising.

    The canonical 3-momentum of a charge e of mass m is

    P = mV + (e/c)A

    Total local momentum of the charge + EM field = Kinetic momentum of the charge + EM field momentum

    A gauge transformation is

    mV -> mV' = mV + hgradf

    (e/c)A -> (e/c)A' = (e/c)A - hgradf

    P -> P' -> P + hgradf - hgradf = P

    http://www.ippp.dur.ac.uk/.../QED/GaugeInvariance_2.html

    Therefore the canonical 3-momentum P is gauge invariant.

    h is Planck's constant, so this is a quantum effect in what first appears to be a purely classical problem.

    First surprise!

    From the point of view of local field theory if we suppose that the charge and the field at the charge are a closed system so that

    dP/dt = 0

    then what we have is simply a Newton third law 

    ACTION + REACTION = 0

    where

    mV -> mV' = mV + hgradf 

    is the ACTION of the electromagnetic field A on the charge e of mass m.

    (e/c)A -> (e/c)A' = (e/c)A - hgradf

    Is the equal and opposite REACTION of the charge e on the field A

    This is a LOCAL exchange of a virtual photon of momentum hgradf between COINCIDENT charge and field.

    The classical equation of motion in an inertial frame follows trivially

    dP/dt = mdV/dt + (e/c)dA/dt = 0

    E = - (1/c)dA/dt

    Therefore

    mdV/dt = eE

    Now I can do the same thing for Einstein's GR using the Levi-Civita connection, where now, instead of virtual momentum transfers between particle and field, we have real proper acceleration changes between locally coincident LNIFs measuring the motion of test particles that keep the proper forces on the observed test particles a tensor. This gives direct physical meaning to the inhomogeneous terms in the non-tensor Levi-Civita connection transformation induced by the formal general coordinate transformations. In other words it is a heuristic physical picture of gravity gauge symmetry on the Levi-Civita connection, which is not a tensor. 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory
    http://www.ippp.dur.ac.uk/.../QED/GaugeInvariance_1.html

    On Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:58 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
    it's real
    On Dec 18, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Paul Murad <ufoguypaul@yahoo.com> wrote:

    What electric force or is that fictitious?

    Paul Murad
    Morningstar Applied Physics, LLC
    http://www.morningstarap.com/
    pm@morningstarap.com

    On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:36 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
    Imagine two bricks taped together with a dynamite stick and timer released from an airplane 

    The dynamite explodes

    There are transient real electric forces on the shattered brick pieces momentarily pushing them off their geodesics
    After a while these forces vanish and all the pieces relax to geodesics 
    Where is the beef?

    The fact is that Jim uses an undefined primitive he calls "inertial reaction force" that has no relation to anything in textbooks on the subject unless he means

    F = DP/ds

    Jim has never given me a straight answer and I cannot find a clear definition in his book either.

    Any suggestions?

    Sent from my iPad

    On Dec 18, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

    Sent from my iPad

    On Dec 18, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Ruth Kastner wrote:

    But I should add that Jack can give a 'substantivalist' account of what you describe by appealing to the constraining effect of spacetime to keep the remaining block on its geodesic. What you describe as an inertial force, Jack describes as geodesically-constrained motion. Different, irreconcilable, metaphysical pictures. (I happen to question the substantivalist idea that spacetime has these sorts of causal powers. But that's the mainstream view.)

    RK

     

Classical Mechanics and Gravity From Newton to Einstein

 

Jack Sarfatti

 

Excerpted from Stargate

Version 12-19-13

 

I am taking the contemporary approach, not the historical one. This is a reconstruction of Newton and Einstein’s ideas using modern insights. It’s not exactly how they would have thought of what they did, but what I write does not contradict any essential battle-tested truths of their ideas.

 

Newton’s dynamics of particles is based on Euclidean geometry for space with absolute time the same for all observers no matter how they move. Newton had no idea that the speed of light was finite. In Newton’s theory the speed of light is infinite.

 

Newton’s first two laws are basically a single law.

Law 1. Force-free motions of test particles are geodesics independent of the mass and internal constitution of the particle.

A test particle is so small that we can neglect the gravity field it generates.

In Newton’s implicit geometry a geodesic is a straight line in space with a test mass moving at constant speed. There is also a state of absolute rest.

Law 2. A real vector[i] force F causes the test particle with velocity vector and instantaneous position vector  to have a curved motion with varying speed that is not geodesic.

Assume the mass m is constant, that is the calculus[ii] derivative dm/dt = 0.

F = dP/dt = d(mV)/dt = mdV/dt = md2r/dt2 = ma

This equation assumes a global inertial frame. A global inertial frame (GIF) is an imaginary cubic lattice of rigid steel rods across the entire universe with a clock at each vertex. All the clocks are synchronized. There are artificial intelligences with each clock that can communicate with each other by light signals. They all have Doppler radars to track the motions of test particles or UFOs. Jim Woodward, in his book Making Starships[iii], uses a simplistic model of the universe by the late Dennis Sciama that implicitly assumes such a global frame. Of course the equations that Professor Woodward proposes as an engine for spaceships will not work - more on this later.

Now in fact, such structures do not exist. We really only have local frames consisting of a finite network of detectors over a small region of space connected by the internet.

Physics is not mathematics. The crackpots I have dealt with do not understand the difference. Theoretical physics is about what detectors measure. We use mathematical models to do that, but the models have an enormous amount of redundant excess baggage that must be factored out in the sense of equivalence relation classes[iv] and homomorphisms[v] preserving essential relevant structure. It’s the same as a compression algorithm[vi] in computer science. Mathematics is like a high-resolution image. However, what we need to do real physics is a much lower resolution compressed image in which certain non-essential features are erased because only some small subset is needed for the measurements of interest.

Finally we have Law 3.

Newton’s third law of motion[vii] is very limited in its domain of validity and is a specialized case of the more general action-reaction conjecture.[viii] Newton’s third law assumes only central forces, which act instantly at a distance. Therefore, it’s only good really for contact interactions in his original theory. It can be generalized when fields are added to Newton’s particles. Newton did not really have the concept of extended dynamical fields[ix] that have a reality equal to localized hard massy marble-like particles. Today we have Noether’s theorem[x] that relates conservation laws to the symmetries[xi] of dynamical actions[xii] of systems of particles and fields in classical physics. Everything becomes fields in quantum physics, where the real particles are excited out of a very complicated vacuum that is a seething frothy quantum foam of virtual particles[xiii] in an ever turbulent Dirac sea.[xiv] Newton’s third law corresponds to only two systems forming a closed system.  More generally a group of space translation symmetries causes the total linear momentum of closed complex systems of particles and fields to be conserved. Similarly, time translation symmetry causes total angular momentum of closed systems to be conserved and rotational symmetry causes total angular momentum to be conserved. There are also internal symmetries beyond spacetime out of which spring the electromagnetic, weak and strong force fields.[xv] When we go to Einstein’s 1905 special relativity[xvi] where space is fused with time into space-time, then rotations that mix space and time together correspond to the Lorentz boosts[xvii] causing time dilation, length contraction and the equivalence of mass to energy. We can even go beyond that to Roger Penrose’s twistor[xviii] conformal group[xix] that includes uniformly accelerated local frames (LNIFs) with Rindler horizons[xx] as well as a topological stretching dilation symmetry that is badly broken in our world.[xxi]



[viii] Einstein, the reality of space, and the action-reaction principle

Harvey R. BrownDennis Lehmkuhl

(Submitted on 20 Jun 2013)

Einstein regarded as one of the triumphs of his 1915 theory of gravity --- the general theory of relativity --- that it vindicated the action--reaction principle, while Newtonian mechanics as well as his 1905 special theory of relativity supposedly violated it. In this paper we examine why Einstein came to emphasize this position several years after the development of general relativity. Several key considerations are relevant to the story: the connection Einstein originally saw between Mach's analysis of inertia and both the equivalence principle and the principle of general covariance, the waning of Mach's influence owing to de Sitter's 1917 results, and Einstein's detailed correspondence with Moritz Schlick in 1920.

Comments:

To appear in "The Nature of Reality", P. Ghose (ed.), Oxford University Press

Subjects:

History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)

Cite as:

arXiv:1306.4902 [physics.hist-ph]

 

(or arXiv:1306.4902v1 [physics.hist-ph] for this version)

 

  1. @JackSarfatti superconducting metamaterial

     
     
     
    Reply to @JackSarfatti 
    Image will appear as a link
  2. @JackSarfatti I envisioned such a material for low power warp drive in my 11-1-11 @DARPA @NASA Orlando talk @100YSS

 

 

We compute the total power P by multiplying the far-away redshifted energy density by the area A of the horizon. This may be a conceptual error in Hawking's original estimate of black hole evaporation time. The clock hovering at L distant from A is running much faster than our far away clock where we are. A is an infinite redshift surface, but including L makes it finite but large. Also it takes infinite far away clock time for objects to reach A etc.
 
Therefore, we can argue that the Wikipedia calculation is wrong. That is, for Hawking's surface gravity case, replace
 
P ~ A (energy density) ~ A^-1
 
by
 
P ~ g00(L)^1/2A (energy density)
~  [1 + z(L)]^-1A (energy density)
~ (L/A^1/2)^1/2A^-1
 
 
Therefore, even in Hawking's case, 
 
P ~ dM/dt ~ L^1/2/A^5/4
 
Therefore,
 
dM/dt ~ L^1/2/M^5/2
 
tHawking ~ M^7/2 /L^1/2  not M^3
 
remember there is no actual evidence for M^3.
 
Next our new case
 
Instead of
 
P' ~ AT'^4 ~ A/L^2A ~ L^-2 ~ mp^-2
 
dM'/dt ~ mp^-2
 
P' ~ [1 + z(L)]^-1AT'^4
~ (L^1/2/A^1/4)A/L^2A
~ 1/L^1/2A^1/4
 
dM'/dt ~ 1/L^1/2M^1/2
 
t' ~ L^1/2M^3/2

to be continued

Putting in some numbers
From Wiki
 
Stefan–Boltzmann–Schwarzschild–Hawking black hole radiation power law derivation:
For a solar mass black hole
Putting in the gravity time dilation factor L^1/2/A^1/4
 
L ~ 10^-35 meters
 
L^1/2 ~ (1/3) 10^-17
 
A^1/2 ~ 10^3 meters

A^1/4 ~ 3 x10
 
L^1/2/A^1/4 ~ 10^-17/3x3s10 ~ 10^-19
 
so
 
P ~ 10^-28 x 10^-19 ~ 10^-47 watts
 
Next for our gravity radiation
 
 
P' ~ [1 + z(L)]^-1AT'^4 ~ (L^1/2/A^1/4)A/L^2A ~ 1/L^1/2A^1/4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_constant
 
P' ~ 6 x 10^-8T'^4
 
Our T' = (A^1/2/L)^1/2T ~  10^23(M/mp)^1/2(1/M) ~ 10^23/(mpM)^1/2  deg K
 
Therefore, energy density is
 
6 x 10^-8 x 10^92/mp^2M^2
 
Multiply by the area A and the gravity time dilation factor L^1/2/A^1/4
 
So that's effective area    L^1/2A^3/4
 
Total power is then
 
P' ~ 10^85 L^1/2A^3/4/mp^2M^2  Watts
 
for a solar mass scale black hole that's roughly
 
P' ~ 10^85 (1/3) 10^-17 (10^6^)3/4 10^10 x 10^-60  Watts
 
P' ~ 10^23 Watts - very roughly in gravity wave black body radiation ~ 
 
peak wavelength ~ 10^-16 meters ~ 10^24 Hz
 
to be continued - next order of biz evaporation lifetime

The 10^23 Watts is only the initial output - that increases as the black hole evaporates

Putting in some numbers
From Wiki
 
 
 
In our new theory this is I think
 
t'ev = c^2(mpM)^3/2 /3Kev 
 
(mpM)^3/2 = xM^3
 
x = (mpM)^3/2/M = (mp/M)^3/2
 
t'ev = (mp/M)^3/2 tev ~  (mp/M)^3/2 10^-16[M/kg]^3
 
For a ~ solar mass black hole 
 
(10^ -35)3/2 10^67 years ~ 10^-52 10^67 ~ 10^15 years

 
 
On Dec 5, 2013, at 7:55 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
 
From the beginning:
 
First Hawking
 
L = Schwarzschild radial coordinate distance to horizon classical 2D surface g00 = 0.
 
Newton's surface gravity ~ A^-1/2
 
A = area-entropy of g00 = 0
 
What they do in Wikipedia above comes down to this
 
Redshifted Unruh temperature a long distant from the black hole is
 
THawking ~ A^-1/2
 
Stefan-Boltzmann law
 
energy density ~ THawking^4 ~ A^-2
 
Total redshifted power
 
P ~ A (energy density) ~ A^-1
 
A ~ M^2
 
P ~ dM/dt
 
tlifetime ~ M^3
 
OK now my new prediction following the same argument as above
 
The redshifted thickness gravity Unruh temperature is
 
T' ~ (LA^1/2)^-1/2
 
If we take
 
Lp ~ mp = Planck mass
 
T' ~ (mpM)^-1/2
 
P' ~ AT'^4 ~ A/L^2A ~ L^-2 ~ mp^-2
 
dM'/dt ~ mp^-2
 
t' ~ mp^2M << t ~ M^3