from endnotes of my book Destiny Matrix 2010 up-date of the 2002 book Yakir Aharonov wrote : 4.2 Destiny states: new solution to measurement problemUp until now we have limited ourselves to the possibility of two boundary conditions which obtain their assignment due to selections made before and after a measurement. It is feasible and even suggestive to consider an extension of QM to include both a wavefunction arriving from the past and a second “destiny” wavefunction coming from the future which are determined by two boundary conditions, rather than a measurement and selection. This proposal could solve the issue of the “collapse” of the wavefunction in a new and more natural way: every time a measurement takes place and the possible measurement outcomes decohere, then the future boundary condition simply selects one out of many possible outcomes [35, 32]. It also implies a kind of “teleology” which might prove fruitful in addressing the anthropic and fine tuning issues The possibility of a final boundary condition on the universe could be probed experimentally by searching for “quantum miracles” on a cosmological scale. While a “classical miracle” is a rare event that can be explained by a very unusual initial boundary-condition, “Quantum Miracles” are those events which cannot naturally be explained through any special initial boundary-condition, only through initial-and-final boundary-conditions. By way of example, destiny-post-selection could be used to create the right dark energy or the right negative pressure …However, Aharonov et-al here do not invoke the hologram principle nor does he seem to be aware of how Tamara Davis’s 2004 Ph.D. from the University of New South Wales provides the connection of our observer-dependent future event horizon boundary condition of the accelerating universe to the dark energy in my formula Dark energy in our past light cone ~ (area of our future horizon)-14.1 Reformulation of Dynamics: each moment a new universe This is Tibetan Buddhism! “ … the description of the time evolution given by QM does not appropriately represent multi-time-correlations which are similar to Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen/Bohm entanglement (eq. 1.1) but instead of being between two particles in space, they are correlations for a single particle between two different times. Multitime-correlations, however, can be represented by using TSQM. As a consequence, the general notion of time in QM is changed from the current conceptual framework which was inherited from CM, i.e.: 1): the universe is viewed as unique, and the objects which inhabit it just change their state in time. In this view, time is “empty,” it just propagates a state forward; the operators of the theory create the time evolution; to a new conceptual framework in which: 2): each instant corresponds to a new pair of Hilbert spaces, (i.e., each instant is a new degree of freedom; in a sense, a new universe); instead of the operators creating the time evolution as in the previous approach, an entangled state (in time) “creates”the propagation: a whole new set of structures within time is able to “propagate” a quantum state forward in time …http://il.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.1232v1.pdf
Rough draft of the book plus my Santa Fe Lectures from I think 2004 or 2005.
On Aug 25, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:41 PM, JACK SARFATTI <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Yes, but "objective" must mean some local tensor way of measuring the retardation relative to an identical clock in the absolute rest frame.Yes. In relativity theory the tensor description of quantities like proper time reflects physical objectivity (frame invariance) of the quantities concerned. The only property we need from a Poincare-type ether is a preferred rest frame, in which otherwise "good" clocks register true time intervals. Then "time dilation" is an objective physical effect of inertial motion, judged *theoretically* with respect to that preferred frame.There are at least two different aspects here in the measurement theory.1) Locally Alice knows she is moving at constant velocity vector v relative to the global absolute co-moving frame by measuring Doppler shift anisotropy of the cosmic blackbody radiation from surface of last contact about 380,000 years after Big Bang.2) Independent of 1) can Alice locally and independently detect her objective time dilation relative to the absolute rest frame? I think not. There is no intrinsic v-dependent Minkowski SR tensor that gives the "real" gamma factor (1 - (v/c)^2)^-1/2 > 1 - this is unlike measuring intrinsic curvature - a curved spacetime tensor property.3) Said another way - Alice's clock clicks off NA tick-tocks, a measurement of objective proper time along her world line. Comparing tick-tocks for Alice and Bob starting and ending in coincidence: all they can do is measure their respective number of tick-tocks initially and finally along their worldlines respectively. They can also compare time series plotting their respective CMB Doppler anisotropies, but there is no tensor v-dependent quantity that measure say a distortion of Rydberg atom electron orbits - nothing analogous to local curvature tensor measurements. Therefore, a literal dynamical interpretation of SR time dilation and length contraction does not seem meaningful.That is a *minimal* ether hypothesis that satisfies the relativity principle. Nothing else need be said about the properties of the vacuum to get objective clock retardation. All you need is a preferred inertial frame.Depends what you mean by "preferred." It can't be in the action principle - it is already in the vacuum as spontaneous broken translation symmetry in the accelerating universe solutions to Einstein's action that has no preferred frames. Indeed, that is why total dark energy is not conserved.I don't see why you can't have that in a condensate model. As long as everything is Lorentz invariant, there should be no problem. Not only Lorentz invariant, but also general coordinate invariant and internal symmetry invariant. My condensate model is better than the competition because I get the LIF tetrads and spin connections automatically from the macro-quantum coherent vacuum supersolid hologram phases. So all of the symmetries of Einstein's classical field theory are trivially obeyed. That is, there would have to be some new tensor observable that depended on absolute velocity v. In other words, the guy on the moving clock would have to have a local absolute velocity meter - of course scanning the CMB over 4pi solid angle quickly and computing its redshift-blueshift anisotropy does that.
Yes, but according to the relativity principle inertial motion is not detectable by any experimental means. However -- unless you are a troglodyte positivist -- that does NOT necessarily imply that such a preferred frame is "scientifically meaningless". On Aug 25, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:The real issue here is objective *clock retardation* as referred to a hypothetical fixed ether frame. Then the same argument that is used in special relativity -- that all measurements of the lengths of moving objects rely on simultaneity determined by moving clocks -- can be deployed in exactly the same manner, except that the moving clocks according to this view do not record the kinematically correct time, but only apparent "local" time. Any positivist argument that theory cannot correct readings of clocks in inertial motion for the objective effects of their inertial motion is simply naive, as even Einstein himself later acknowledged. Einstein himself even talked about the "original sin" of special relativity, which was taking rods and clocks as primitives without reference to their microscopic physical constitution.So we don't even have to propose a mechanism for length contraction, but just for objective universal clock retardation, in a Lorentz-Poincare type theory. Again, how has Mach's principle been implemented in GR? If it hasn't been implemented, what's left? An obvious candidate is: local interaction of moving matter with a Lorentz-invariant physical vacuum!
Notwithstanding the kind of antiquated positivist nonsense that is constantly wheeled out by troglodytes like Nick.On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:16 PM, JACK SARFATTI <email@example.com> wrote:
Here is what I think is the real issue here. You are free-floating on a zero g-force timelike geodesic in curved spacetime. You will nevertheless feel Weyl stretch-squeeze & Ricci compression tensor forces in your relative to your center of mass coordinates. Now suppose you are in globally flat spacetime and that there is an absolute rest frame in which Bohm's Q acts instantly and that this is the global comoving frame where the CMB is maximally isotropic - i.e. spontaneous symmetry breaking of the T4 group in the vacuum.Consider length contraction - well if this is dynamical in Lorentz's sense, then there should be an actual physical compression in the direction of motion - this would need to be a tensor under the Poincare group. I don't think there is any evidence for that. In the standard ontology, the "contraction" is merely an optical illusion from the time delays of light signals coming from different parts of the moving object relative to the detector and there are no actual tensor contractions depending on uniform velocity relative to the absolute rest frame. Note, that the objects actually look rotated not contracted - as shown by Terrell.On Aug 25, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:The same erroneous positivistic arguments were made at the end of the 19th century against the reality of atoms. Mach for one never accepted atoms as scientifically meaningful. Einstein's 1905 paradigm was rooted in Mach's positivist philosophy, later abandoned and repudiated by Einstein himself. If science accepts the reality of atoms, then how can the same threadbare positivist argument be used to exclude any ether hypothesis (AKA "quantum vacuum")? Why the double standard? Nick's methodological ideas seem to me to have frozen in 1905. He now seems to be outscoring Mach for sheer anti-intellectual pigheadedness -- no mean accomplishment, Anyone who today like Nick flatly denies, for specious positivist reasons, that there is no such thing as an objective physical vacuum simply has his head firmly stuck in the sand IMHO.Of course any viable ether hypothesis has to respect the relativity principle. Anyone competent in this field should know that the electrodynamics of Poincare and Lorentz did precisely that. After all it was Poincare who coined the term "Lorenz transformations", well before Einstein published his 1905 relativity paper!Ignorance is bliss.
Subject: Re: Do we need warp drive and large stable wormholes? (Dr. Quantum)On Aug 24, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Jonathan Post wrote:I'm not going on one of these things.Glad to hear it. ;-)But we can send practical robotic interstellar probes.No doubt especially if they are tiny - nano-scale.I pitched this at the United Nations, during their 50th anniversary week.I worked backwards to figure out what stars could be reached bystarships at what velocities in order that the 100th anniversary couldbe celebrated by signals (images, science data) returned from thosestars. Time dilation? Big deal. We correct for that in the signals bysoftware, as we already do for interplanetary probes (albeit adifferent number of digits from the decimal point).
I mean for long trips at high gamma >>1 where (Earth time) = (gamma) (ship time) like in muon cosmic rays. There is also fact that universe is accelerating from positive cosmological constant not included in global special relativity that we have assumed here.
Shielding? The point of my design is the the frozen hydrogen is first astructural material and shielding, then melts to be fuel, then afterfission or fusion, as reaction mass. There's no need for a whole starship to get to the destination. "Autophage" consumes itself, and leaves little more than payload at destination.I am not doubting your multi-stage engineering increasing efficiency a bit. No doubt it can be done in this brute force inelegant fashion, but it would take too long for us personally and it would be too expensive and it simply will not happen in the foreseeable future with all the ecological crises and the financial meltdown from our string theorists inventing financial derivatives so some say. ;-)On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 4:19 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:This is not the way to do itStill have time dilation & shielding issuesOn Aug 24, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Jonathan Post wrote:Dear Jack and Stardrive Forum enthusiasts,That's exactly the oversimplification that my paper transcends.Cf. "Feasibility of Interstellar Travel", Joffe and White I think. aJPL document of around 1968 or 1969. Maybe #32-225 or something likethatI'd argued with my later co-author and co-editor Sir Arthur C. Clarkewhen he came to the New York Premiere of "2001: A Space Odyssey."So I gave him my only copy of said document when we next spoke, atCaltech 1968 or 1969. I read it, apologized to me, and we becamefriends.The old stupid equation assumes a 1-stage rocket.Hello! Ever since Robert Goddard, we've known better. Von Braun gotit. remember the 2-stagers we fired in the early 1950s, with V-2 asfirst stage? Or the 2-stage system he'd designed that could launchfrom Peenemunde and hit New York or Washington D.C., the A-4?One needs to Do The Math for a relativistic multi-stage rocket. Mycalculations have been checked and double-checked by others. They aretrivial to a physicist as smart as Jack Sarfatti.Sure, the mass ratio gets huge, but as I say, the earlier stagesbefore the payload can carry their own payloads, get to thedestination first, and relay back data for mid-course corrections.-- Prof. Jonathan Vos PostOn Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:06 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:The standard calculations are easy - too much is energy/work/fuel is neededto get a large mass up to close to speed of lightE = (rest mass of ship)c^2(1 - (v/c)^2)^-1/2relative to Earth baseand there will be a large time dilation, which we do not want"In other words, on board our C-ship, we can go anywhere in the universe infive years ship's time, though millions or billions of years may have passedat our port of departure. As absurdly close to the speed of light as thelast few velocities may seem, and however unimaginable the energy it maytake to attain them, they're nowhere close to the speed record for materialobjects in the universe. On October 15, 1991, a cosmic ray proton collidedwith the Earth's atmosphere, releasing an energy of 3×1020 electron volts—asmuch energy as a brick falling on your toe. To pack such energy,this Oh-My-God particle had to be travelling at 0.9999999999999999999999951times the speed of light, so much faster than even the maximum velocity onour 17 billion light-year journey to the edge of the universe that theparticle would make the trip in only 19 days, compared to the 4.9 years ittook our ship." John Walkerthis is not the way it's done by UFOs if the latter are realalso there is the problem of blue shift of cosmic microwave background,starlight, hydrogen helium atom clouds etc as the ship moves near theirlocal invariant light cones - requires heavy shielding of the ship - thiswon't work."Powerplant and EnginesOur C-ship is powered by the annihilation of matter and antimatter, and canaccelerate at a sustained rate of 100 metres per second per second--a littlemore than 10 Earth's gravities--to velocities arbitrarily close to the speedof light. Most C-ship missions are unmanned: probes or lifeseeds. Mannedmissions generally accelerate no faster than 1.2 gravities due to thefrailness of their cargo. The C-ship violates no known principle of physics,but producing the antimatter consumed by a C-ship's drive in a single secondwould cost, using current technology, many orders of magnitude more than allthe economies of Earth combined. But by the time our descendents are able tomake use of all the resources of the Solar System, including the entireenergy output of the Sun, they'll be able to build C-ships, albeit with amaximum speed set by the energy available to power them.StreamliningC-ships are streamlined not for style, but by necessity. Space is not avacuum but rather a diffuse gas of relict photons left over from the BigBang--the cosmic background radiation with a temperature at the currentepoch of about 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. When we travel at velocitiesapproaching the speed of light, this radiation creates a drag on ourship which we must minimise through radical streamlining. Interplanetaryships may look like flying junkyards, but our interstellar and intergalacticcraft must be rapier-like to pierce the tenuous birth-cry of the universe.ShieldOur ship is icy-white in colour for the very excellent reason that itsexterior is made of water ice, one of the most abundant substances in theuniverse. When we travel at extreme velocities, dust particles impact ourship with the energy of a nuclear bomb, and even hydrogen atoms erode herhull. Before embarking on a mission, we re-make the surface of the ship withice harvested from the abundant comets surrounding the star we're departing.During the mission, self-reproducing robots built with molecular-scaleengineering repair damage to the ice shield around our ship. The iceprotects us against impacts with interstellar and intergalactic gas and tinydust particles. If we hit something of tangible size, like a rock, it'll bea really bad day; astronomers on distant planets will catalogue yet anotherenigmatic gamma ray burst."http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.html
OK suppose you have a detector placed at a distance L from the X-wave antenna whose arrival time of the longitudinal signal is shorter than the time it takes for the peak to reach the front, could we then use a matrix array network of such tiny senders and receivers, maybe at the micron scale if not at the nano-scale, to make an ultra-fast computer chip?What about for X-wave radar? Can the time it takes the peak to reach the front correspond to a great enough distance for useful radar ranging? Need some way to delay the peak relative to the front. Can the peak be switched to a delay line after the front has left the transmitting antenna?These longitudinal X-waves sound like the urban legends of Tesla scalar waves.On Aug 23, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr. wrote:If you look carefully to the extraordinary solutions of Maxwell equationsyou will find that they have longitudinal electric and/or magnetic fields(which I found, can be modulated)...They FAA (finite apertureapproximations) can be generated with antennas (some I invented) and can betransmitted for long distances. The peaks of the FAA travel at superluminalspeed for a while (until the peak arrives at the front), then the pulseexplodes in two, it is amazing ...-----Mensagem original-----De: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Enviada em: segunda-feira, 23 de agosto de 2010 21:27Para: Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr.Assunto: key question re: X-WavesIs there any possibility of real signaling faster than light with X-Wavese.g. with practical application to fast computing and/or propulsion?From what I can tell orthodox causality is never violated - no genuinefaster than vacuum light propagation of energy and decodable information.Why was... interested in X-wave antennas? Is there X-wave radar? Whatadvantage does it have over ordinary radar?
So far no actual faster-than-light messaging seems possible with these finite aperture EM X-Waves, but apparently they do have advantages over ordinary EM waves - possible application to radar, sonar, oil-exploration, computing, propulsion? I don't know yet.Waldyr wrote inWHAT IS SUPERLUMINAL WAVE MOTION?1J. Emlio Maiorino and Waldyr A. Rodrigues, Jr.January, 25 2001"During the last decade of the last century two kinds (a) and (b) of super-luminal wave motion have been theoretically predicted and experimentallyverified. They are:(A1) Superluminal group velocities of electromagnetic field congurationspropagating in dispersive media with absorption or gain .(A2) Superluminal group velocities of tunneling microwaves [38, 39, 40,58].(A3) Superluminal group velocities of tunneling electrons .(A4) Superluminal propagation of microwaves in air [48, 65, 109].1(B) Superluminal velocities of peaks of QUPWs [117, 133].2The main purpose of this work is to clarify the meaning of the superluminalityinvolved in these phenomena, and to investigate its implications (ifany) for the foundations of Relativity and Quantum Theory. ...we found it a good idea to beginthis introduction by recalling the main results of the theory of Sommerfeldand Brillouin (SB) , who long ago investigated the propagation of light indispersive media with absorption. They studied the propagation in a dispersivemedium (in the z-direction) of a particular transverse electromagneticfield configuration which Brillouin called a signal ...Such a signal with compact support in the time domain is generated byan abrupt turn-on and then a turn-off of a special source (see e.g., )and has a front [21, 145], i.e., the discontinuity defined by eq.(1.2). Thefirst important observation to be made is that Fourier theory implies thatelectromagnetic signals with compact support in time domain in general haveinfinite frequency spectra ...We also observe that signals with a Fourier transform defined over afinite frequency spectrum, are in general non-causal. This means the following:a band limited frequency spectrum pulse shows signal components at negativetimes. ...Sommerfeld & Brillouin introduced five different types of velocities:5(i) The phase velocity, at which zero crossings of the carrier wave moves.(ii) The group velocity, at which the peak of a wave packet moves.(ii) The front velocity, at which the first appearance of a discontinuity moves.(iv) The energy velocity, at which the energy would be transported by the wave.(v) The signal velocity, at which the half-maximum of the wave amplitude moves.3The opposite statement is not true, i.e., a signal with have infinite frequency spectrumis not necessarily finite in the time domain. A well known example is that of a Gaussianwave packet.4This is a general result. Indeed, from Fourier theory (see, e.g., ) it follows thatany pulse with a band limited frequency spectrum is unbounded in the time domain, i.e.,is acausal.5The precise definitions of the ve kinds of velocities are given in Chapter 6.Sommerfeld & Brillouin (SB) found that in a region of anomalous dispersion 6 near an absorptionline, all velocities (i-v) are different. In particular, they found that the phaseand group velocities may be superluminal, without upper bound, and evennegative! They concluded that group velocities, when superluminal or negative,have no meaning, and this conclusion is repeated in almost all textbooks,as e.g. [141, 67]. Nevertheless superluminal (and even negative) groupvelocities have a precise meaning, being associated with the extraordinary reshapingphenomenon, ...SB found that the front velocity is always the velocity of light in vacuum.Moreover, in all situations studied by them it was found that the energy andsignal velocities were subluminal.The natural question that experimentalists ask themselves after the experimentalobservation of superluminal group velocities predicted by thestudies of SB is: are there situations in which the energy and signal velocitiesmay become superluminal?This question is indeed very important because if genuine superluminalenergy and signal velocities were possible, the Principle of Relativity (PR)would be in serious danger.7Now, the fact is that some authors claim that their experiments show superluminalsignal velocities and superluminal velocities of energy transport.Among these experiments are tunneling of microwaves experiments , anexperiment showing the superluminal tunneling of a single photon wave function and experiments in dispersive media with gain . Even experimentsshowing negative group velocities have been performed 8. Arethese claims supported by theoretical analysis?to be continued - leave them hanging twisting in the wind. ;-)
See below how Einstein came to the right result for the somewhat wrong reason.
You miss my point Nick - time dilation ruins the trip - too many years pass back on Earth and by the time you return all your friends you left behind are dead. With warpdrive and wormholes and assuming Hawking is wrong about chronology protection we don't have that problem. UFO evidence suggests that we do not live in the boring universe without time travel, warp drive and dark energy wormholes. Slower than light drives do not work fine because of time dilation and also the huge energy needed to get anywhere interesting in short proper time on the ship that will be long proper time back on Earth.On Aug 23, 2010, at 5:17 PM, nick herbert wrote:You don't need warp driveto travel (subjectively) and returnfaster than light.Slower than light driveswill work just fine.On Aug 23, 2010, at 5:05 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:The problem with special relativity is time dilation in the last case you cite below. With warp drive, and if chronology protection is wrong, then we can go home again and return to our original time after a trip to the edges of our observable universe and beyond sandwiched between our future and past horizons.On Aug 23, 2010, at 4:52 PM, nick herbert wrote:On page 59 my book "Faster Than Light" I list 14 "things" that can go faster than lightincluding the ends of searchlight beams and the intersection of closing scissors. Of course none of these FTL "things" can be used for sending energy and/or information. It's my impression that the EM X-wave is closely analogous to the closing scissors. Also it has long been realized that the travel velocity as seen by inhabitants of a space ship traveling at near-light speeds can be many times light speed and (courtesy of relativity) it would be possible to complete a journey of hundreds of light years in a few (subjective) weeks.Nick HerbertNick HerbertOn Aug 23, 2010, at 3:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:On Aug 23, 2010, at 1:52 PM, Erasmo Recami wrote:P.S.:as to the problem of "precursors" (which, incidentally, can be theones with the lowest speed, instead of the largest speeds, as you
can easily demonstrate), let me add a paper, attached here with as thesecond (last) paper.The 1st attachment contains the initial two (introductory)chapters of our recent J.Wiley (2008) book on LocalizedWaves (super- and sub-luminal)Thanks for any attention from you and /or your correspondentsYoursErasmo (Recami)On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, JACK SARFATTI wrote:OK Waldyr, but as I read in a bit more detail you never claim actual superluminal energy transport or signaling in violation of traditional signal locality. You have a finite aperture space-time limit pulse with dispersion and the front is always limited to c it's only a central peak that is FTL for short time until peak catches the front where it is trapped - correct?
Begin forwarded message:From: Erasmo Recami <Erasmo.Recami@mi.infn.it>Date: August 23, 2010 1:46:46 PM PDTTo: JACK SARFATTI <email@example.com>Cc: Stardrive Forum <firstname.lastname@example.org>Subject: Re: Waldyr Rodrigues's "Superluminal" X EM Wave (Dr. Quantum)Many answers to the comments contained in your last email can be foundin my homepage www.unibg.it/recami , and in the review article onX-shaped localized waves, that I want to put at your disposal, and atthe disposal of the colleagues you'll kindly contact.Finite-energy solutions have been mathematically contracted,and experimentally constructed, since MANY years, both as exactsolutions, and as mere approximate solutions by space-timetruncation (the big expert being Michel Zamboni-Rached)In recent times we worked especially about localized solutionsnot super- but subluminal (they are know to exist with anygroup-velocities, from zero to infinity), and in particularon the ones "at rest" (with static envelope) that we calledFrozen Waves, and promise to have the greatest applications
("Bracco Inaging" wanted to Patent them...)I just came back from Rio de JaneiroRegards,Erasmo ================
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, JACK SARFATTI wrote:However, before we get too excited traditional retarded causality excluding both faster-than-light signals and faster-than-light propellant escape speeds is not violated it appears because Waldyr wrote:(iii) Is it possible to build a physical device to launch a finite energysuperluminal electromagnetic X pulse? Our answer is no. Indeed, finiteaperture approximations (FAA) to exact superluminal X-like solutions ofMaxwell equations (which, of course have finite energy) have already beenproduced [7,8]. However, these FAA are such that their peaks move withvelocity v > 1 but their front always moves with the speed of light. Thisresult has been predicted in [16,18] and is endorsed by the experimentalresults of [7,8] as proved in . Now, concerning the solutions we justfound, in order for them to be produced (by an antenna) as real physicalwaves it is necessary to produce waves that extend in all the z = 0 planewhere the antenna is located for the time interval -T < t < T. Of course,this is physically impossible because it would require that the antenna shouldbe an infinite one.(iv) Besides the superluminal solutions just found, there are also finiteenergy subluminal solutions (to be reported elsewhere). We must say thateven if the new superluminal solutions cannot be produced by physical devicesthe only possible reason for their non existence in our universe is thatof a possible violation of the principle of relativity. Eventually these new superluminalsolutions may also find applications in the understanding of somefundamental issues concerning the nonlocality problem in quantum mechanics.Finite Energy Superluminal Solutions ofMaxwell EquationsE. Capelas de Oliveira1*and W. A. Rodrigues, Jr.2+?1 Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Scientific Computation,IMECC-UNICAMPCP 6065, 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil2Department of Mathematics, University of LiverpoolLiverpool L69 3BX, UKFebruary 5, 2008On Aug 22, 2010, at 9:18 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:Begin forwarded message:From: "Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr." <email@example.com>Date: August 22, 2010 3:22:29 AM PDTTo: "'JACK SARFATTI'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>Subject: RES: Yakir Aharonov's book Quantum Paradoxes - Note #1 (Dr. Quantum)Dear Jack,In your note you state: " ...although a spatially oscillating electromagnetic radiation far field at rest does not exist in Maxwell's classical field equations...."Well, in the summer of 1997 I found some extraordinary sub and superluminal solutions of the free Maxwell equations. In particular I found a solution that can be at rest in a given inertial frame (there are infinite number of solutions of this kind, contrary to a famous Einstein statement...). In that solution E?B! One of my students called that solution the Jedi sword. You can see how I found that solution on page 16 and sequel (see Eq.(3.19)) the attached paper (upwlast1.pdf), which has been originally published in Found. Phys. 27 435-508 (1997).In reading the paper take notice that I changed my mind concerning some issues discussed there, as it is clear from other papers I wrote on the subject and which are also attached here. I am preparing (since a long time ago) in my free time a book on the subject.Best regards,Waldyr
On Aug 22, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:50 PM, nick herbert <email@example.com> wrote:Shimony's "passion at a distance" as I understand it is meant to definea weaker form of non-locality than action-at-a-distance.Yes, it reconciles special relativity's light cone barrier with orthodox quantum theory, i.e. signal locality - built into the unitary evolution + Born probability interpretation.Seems to me PAD means Local Facts/Non-local RealityJust that.I need more detail there. One means by "non-local reality" the argument by John S. Bell that quantum entanglement in some instances violated the light cone barrier - this can be seen in hindsight but not, so to speak in real time. The local decoding is always random noise without any message signal until light cone limited key arrives to allow the decoding of the nonlocally stored message - this is passion at a distance signal locality. This would obviously not allow remote viewing, but worse, it does not allow our ordinary consciousness in my opinion, therefore quantum theory fails in living matter - the realm of non-equilibrium of the matter hidden variables that feel the quantum potential Q.On Aug 22, 2010, at 6:38 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:On Aug 22, 2010, at 5:58 PM, nick herbert wrote:There are three levels of descriptionTheoryFactRealityAgreedQuantum Theory is patently non-local cause it's formulated in configuration space not 3D space.AgreedZ: I'm not sure it's quite that simple. If that were true, couldn't you also argue that classical statistical mechanics is patently non-local?Yes, indeed, Nick's condition is necessary, but not sufficient. We need Q =/= 0 and even more.
Z: After all, if there is an interaction between classical particles then any probability distribution that takes account of the interaction (i.e., registers statistical correlations between the positions and momenta of the particles) has to be constructed in the entire configuration space of the system, since a correlated probability function cannot
be factored into statistically independent parts each referring to a separate single particle configuration space.Right, but the Bellians will argue that the classical stat mechanical regime will always obey the Bell-type locality statistical constraints.Z: In addition such an interaction imprints non-zero correlations on the multi-particle distribution which persist after the interaction ceases to operate. Then when the actual positions of the particles are empirically determined the correlated distribution "collapses", reflecting a mere change in our subjective state of knowledge of the states ofthe particles. This of course cancels the correlation information contained in the n-particle distribution. What is difficult about the quantum case (it seems to me) is that we cannot easily separate the objective and subjective components of the statistical information contained in a correlated n-particle wave function. May I suggest that this is the true EPR conundrum.N: Quantum Fact is empirically localAgreedN: What about Quantum Reality? Is it local? (obeys relativity) or non-local? (disobeys relativity)Your error here may be that nonlocality means disobey's relativity - Shimony's "passion at a distance" shows that is not the case. There is the third alternative of David Finkelstein.However, I think "passion at a distance" is only a limit like the limit of zero curvature reducing 1916 GR's LIFs to 1905 SR's GIFs, e.g. limit of sub-quantal thermal equilibrium for the real particle hidden variables piloted by the nonlocal quantum potential Q.Note that in ordinary quantum theory the hidden variables are the localized real particles on local classical trajectories. All the weirdness is in the qubit quantum potential. "Beables" have garbled this clear distinction it seems to me. In field theory the hidden variables are the classical field configurations on either spacelike or lightlike hypersurfaces, e.g. the Penrose-Rindler null tetrads for the latter in the case of the gravitational field (curvature and maybe torsion).Z: If the non-local disturbance is truly physical, then we should be able to use it to transmit information. Evidently that is not the case according to what is known so far. N: Bell proved that any deterministic model of reality must be non-local.OKZ: Only in the Bell sense that there must be *some* kind of effect on the quantum state of the remote system that results from the local observer's measurement decisions. But this could still turn out to be an artifact of the manner in which the quantum state of a compound system is defined; logically it doesn't necessarily follow that we are dealing with an objective physical influence propagating instantaneously through space.It does in the Bohm ontology, but you are correct that the Bohm ontology is not testable until we achieve signal nonlocality that violates quantum theory in the same way that general relativity globally violates special relativity i.e. the smaller theory is a limiting case of the larger theory when some parameter vanishes.N: Bell proved that any probabilistic model of reality must be non-local.OK
Z: In Bell's definition of "non-local", which is not the same as the EPR definition, which is not as agnostic as Bell's. N: But Bell's theorem doesn't apply to the Multiverse model of reality.Agreed.N: Multiverse is local and reproduces (so tis said) the Quantum Facts.I don't understand "Multiverse is local." How is that falsified? I agree that quantum measurements must be local. I mean localized detectors, not Yakir Aharonov's more abstract idea of nonlocal measurements needing several localized detectors or the same detector at different times along its world line.N: This is Tipler's point. If Reality is local, then the Multiverse is where we REALLY LIVE.Z: Depends on what you mean by "local". Yes. You and Tipler have lost me. Also there are at least three levels of multiverse.Z: Me too. N: But the Multiverse is not the only choice.Nobody today looks for a mechanism (Reality) behind the Lorenz Contraction.I think Zielinski and Puthoff do - also Bell himself seems to prefer it in "How to teach relativity" in his Unspeakable book.Z: Why not? Because Einstein proved that there is no Poincare-Lorentz ether? Even Einstein himself gave that up! There is an ether and now we have condensate models, world crystal models, all kinds of models -- all perfectly consistent with the minimal Lorentz-Poincare ether model. According to contemporary physics the vacuum is an objective physical system. There is a "there" there.Yes.N: (Altho a lot of theorists wasted their time constructing ether models of matter which contracted in motion)
Today we regard time and space transformations as basic properties of spacetime NOT NEEDING AN EXPLANATION
IN TERMS OF SOME DEEPER REALITY such as the ether.Z: There is nothing in Minkowski's model that contradicts the idea that moving clocks objectively slow down. That's the whole point of the clock problem. To the contrary, Minkowski's model strongly supports the idea that clocks in inertial motion objectively slow down in a frame-invariant manner. In a generally covariant formulation of Minkowski's model, the choice of coordinates is completely arbitrary -- you get the same invariant proper time intervals even is you use Galilean transformations.
Not quite, the Galilean transformation are local - not global, they are different at different events.Z: This whole "Einstein proved that there is no ether" slogan is a canard. I'm not so sure of that because objective changes suggest inhomogeneous stress-strains in the material objects relative to the global absolute rest frame of the ether and I don't think that will agree with observation, it would mean that the stress-strain configurations in our bodies, for example, would depend on which force-free geodesic we were on above and beyond the Weyl and Ricci curvature tensor effects. That the real rate of a clock should depend on its unaccelerated motion seems implausible. In principle there should be some local stress-strain pattern dependent on powers of (v/c) that would allow an intrinsic local proper time measurement where v is the speed relative to the absolute global frame in which say Q acts instantaneously. In that regard, the only way to save Bohm's Q relativistically is using the Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar-Costa-de-Beauregard-Cramer advanced-retarded time loop transactions.We do have the generally covariant and locally special relativistic aether of virtual bosons and closed virtual fermion loops. Indeed, the former is the dark energy and the latter is the dark matter in my opinion.Z: Meaning Lorentz invariant? Meaning locally Lorentz group O(1,3) invariant (excluding accelerating frames) and locally T4(x) invariant (AKA local frame transformations including accelerating frames) - all frames are local i.e. LIF or LNIF and are locally coincident for the relevant invariance symmetry groups. This is most easily implemented by using the tetrad/spin-connection formalism on the local equations of matter fields in special relativity e.g. worked out in detail in Ch 2 of Rovelli's text Quantum Gravity.N: Likewise we could simply accept the ULTRA-STRONG QUANTUM CORRELATIONS AS A BASIC FEATURE OF NATURE not
to be explained by some deeper structure (Reality). This is close to what Bohr was saying, I believe. No need to invoke the Multiverse.
Is Reality Local? The question makes no sense in this formulation.But Bohr's view is seriously inadequate in my opinion.Z: Bohr was forced to retreat after the EPR paper was published. N: There are problems with this "pragmatic approach" which do not exist in the relativistic/ether case but the possibility of taking this
"Bohrian" stance is why I have labeled Tipler's nice little paper a "proof" rather than a proof.I have not read Tipler's paper as yet as carefully as you have and your point may be correct. I don't know.Z: I think he is injecting the EPR definition of "local" into Bell's argument. On Aug 22, 2010, at 5:34 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:On Aug 22, 2010, at 3:47 PM, nick herbert wrote:If Relativity holds at the level of Realitythat FTL potentials of the Bohm variety are Kaput.I don't understand you, take the Relativistic Klein Gordon equation for 2 interacting particles A & Bthe quantum potential Q(A,B) comes out of the Hamilton-Jacobi piece of the Klein-Gordon equation.Entanglement means Q(A,B) =/= Q(A) + Q(B)or better yet the Bethe-Salpeter equation.The Bethe–Salpeter equation, named after Hans Bethe and Edwin Salpeter, describes the bound states of a two-body (particles) quantum field theoretical system in a relativistically covariant formalism. The equation was actually first published in 1950 at the end of a paper by Yoichiro Nambu, but without derivation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethe–Salpeter_equationThe Bohm ontology needs to be formulated in this case. I don't see why this is not possible, probably someone did it already?On Aug 22, 2010, at 3:16 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:On Aug 22, 2010, at 2:53 PM, nick herbert <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:I can see why you might not like this.If Relativity is correct at the level of Realitythis blows Bohm out of the water.How?However Tipler's argument does not prove the existence of Multiverse,anymore than observations on light prove existence
of the luminiferous ether.OkBegin forwarded message:http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2010/08/quantum-immortality.html
On Aug 22, 2010, at 5:58 PM, nick herbert wrote:There are three levels of descriptionTheoryFactRealityAgreedQuantum Theory is patently non-local cause it's formulated in configuration space not 3D space.AgreedQuantum Fact is empirically local.AgreedWhat about Quantum Reality? Is it local? (obeys relativity) or non-local? (disobeys relativity).Your error here may be that nonlocality means disobey's relativity - Shimony's "passion at a distance" shows that is not the case. There is the third alternative of David Finkelstein.However, I think "passion at a distance" is only a limit like the limit of zero curvature reducing 1916 GR's LIFs to 1905 SR's GIFs, e.g. limit of sub-quantal thermal equilibrium for the real particle hidden variables piloted by the nonlocal quantum potential Q.Note in ordinary quantum theory the hidden variables are the localized real particles on local classical trajectories. All the weirdness is in the qubit quantum potential. "Beables" have garbled this clear distinction it seems to me. In field theory the hidden variables are the classical field configurations on either spacelike or lightlike hypersurfaces, e.g. the Penrose-Rindler null tetrads for the latter in the case of the gravitational field (curvature and maybe torsion).Bell proved that any deterministic model of reality must be non-local.OKBell proved that any probabilistic model of reality must be non-local.OKBut Bell's theorem doesn't apply to the Multiverse model of reality.Agreed.Multiverse is local and reproduces (so tis said) the Quantum Facts.I don't understand "Multiverse is local." How is that falsified? I agree that quantum measurements must be local. I mean localized detectors, not Yakir Aharonov's more abstract idea of nonlocal measurements needing several localized detectors or the same detector at different times along its world line.This is Tipler's point. If Reality is local, then the Multiverse is where we REALLY LIVE.You and Tipler have lost me. Also there are at least three levels of multiverse.But the Multiverse is not the only choice.Nobody today looks for a mechanism (Reality) behind the Lorenz Contraction.I think Zielinski and Puthoff do - also Bell himself seems to prefer it in "How to teach relativity" in his Unspeakable book.(Altho a lot of theorists wasted their time constructing ether models of matter which contracted in motion)
Today we regard time and space transformations as basic properties of spacetime NOT NEEDING AN EXPLANATION
IN TERMS OF SOME DEEPER REALITY such as the ether.We do have the generally covariant and locally special relativistic aether of virtual bosons and closed virtual fermion loops. Indeed, the former is the dark energy and the latter is the dark matter in my opinion.Likewise we could simply accept the ULTRA-STRONG QUANTUM CORRELATIONS AS A BASIC FEATURE OF NATURE not to be explained by some deeper structure (Reality). This is close to what Bohr was saying, I believe. No need to invoke the Multiverse. Is Reality Local? The question makes no sense in this formulation.But Bohr's view is seriously inadequate in my opinion.There are problems with this "pragmatic approach" which do not exist in the relativistic/ether case but the possibility of taking this "Bohrian" stance is why I have labeled Tipler's nice little paper a "proof" rather than a proof.I have not read Tipler's paper as yet as carefully as you have and your point may be correct. I don't know.On Aug 22, 2010, at 5:34 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:On Aug 22, 2010, at 3:47 PM, nick herbert wrote:If Relativity holds at the level of Reality that FTL potentials of the Bohm variety are Kaput.I don't understand you, take the Relativistic Klein Gordon equation for 2 interacting particles A & B. The quantum potential Q(A,B) comes out of the Hamilton-Jacobi piece of the Klein-Gordon equation.Entanglement means Q(A,B) =/= Q(A) + Q(B)Or better yet the Bethe-Salpeter equation.The Bethe–Salpeter equation, named after Hans Bethe and Edwin Salpeter, describes the bound states of a two-body (particles) quantum field theoretical system in a relativistically covariant formalism. The equation was actually first published in 1950 at the end of a paper by Yoichiro Nambu, but without derivation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethe–Salpeter_equationThe Bohm ontology needs to be formulated in this case. I don't see why this is not possible, probably someone did it already?On Aug 22, 2010, at 3:16 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:On Aug 22, 2010, at 2:53 PM, nick herbert <email@example.com> wrote:I can see why you might not like this.If Relativity is correct at the level of Realitythis blows Bohm out of the water.How?However Tipler's argument does not prove the existence of Multiverse, anymore than observations on light prove existence of the luminiferous ether.Okhttp://quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2010/08/quantum-immortality.html
On Aug 22, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:57 AM, JACK SARFATTI <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:No, that's not the way I understand the argument. The EPR argument is that without an action at a distance, the Heisenberg principle will be violated at one end of an entangled pair.Which assumes EPR "locality" -- no *physical* influence can propagate faster than the speed of light.Yes, the flow of the logic is that without spooky action at a distance connecting entangled real particles Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for one of the real particles can be violated (i.e. quantum theory is incomplete).Note for local observables on a real particle outside the vacuum (neglecting gravitation hologram tiny black hole formation & mod factors of 1/2 etc)&P&Q > <psi|[P,Q]|psi>& = root mean square ensemble fluctuation[ ] = commutatorP, Q are real Hermitian matrices with a basis in qubit Hilbert space.but for a virtual particle inside the vacuumTurn the argument on its head, i.e. entanglement + Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ---> spooky spacelike action at a distancehowever this is only the Catch 22 "passion at a distance" the local uncontrollable randomness in the presence of nonlocal entanglement ensures signal locality.&P&Q < <psi|[P,Q]|psi> That is, given an entangled pair A, B if there were no physical disturbance connecting them, even across a spacelike separation outside the local light cones of the local measurements, then one, e.g. could know both simultaneous momentum and position of say particle A in violation of the local Heisenberg uncertainty principle.According to the rules of standard QM one can predict the result of measuring the position of a spacelike separated subsystem, even while according to the EPR locality principle there can be no question that the measurement process *physically* disturbs the spacelike separated subsystem. Right and that leads to an inconsistency with Heisenberg's microscope. Of course we still have Shimony's "passion at a distance" that the local quantum randomness defeats any Nick Herbert FLASH scheme to send a message over a spacelike interval that can be decoded without a light cone limited key. Now this corresponds to Antony Valentini's "sub-quantal thermal equilibrium" of Bohm's hidden variables i.e. signal locality limit.Contrary to what one would expect to occur if the propagating "disturbance" were truly physical.Yes. However, in post-quantum theory beyond quantum theory we have sub-quantal non-equilibrium in which there is, in my theory, a stable two-way action-reaction (feedback control loop) between the entangled hidden variable "particles" and their piloting quantum potential Q(A,B) that permits signal nonlocality in direct violation of quantum theory's axioms.OK. Now the idea that a physical disturbance is not necessarily responsible for the alteration of a statistical expectation value of an observable Hermitian matrix is another story logically independent of the above, e.g. Yakir Aharonov's book "Quantum Paradoxes" (Vaidman bomb detector etc) - will come back to this.I think historically Bohr did modify his position re: quantum measurement under pressure from EPR, but I guess that is all before Bell's work which showed that the statistical correlations predicted by QM for EPR-like scenarios are fundamentally incompatible with locality. So yes if you retain EPR locality there can be no question of A's measurement *physically* affecting the results of spacelike separated B's measurements, but as Bell showed even without making any interpretive assumptions regarding the nature of the influence, the predicted correlations themselves mathematically rule out locality in the stronger sense that A's measurement decisions can have no influence *of any kind* on the results of B's.Clearly if the influence that Bell's argument shows must operate given the standard rules of QM were truly physical, then there should be no problem using such influences for signal propagation. So I suppose the $64K question here is, if the instantaneous influence is not truly physical, what is it? Yakir Aharonov's new book "Quantum Paradoxes" deals with these issues in detail. I plan to spend a lot of time on his book in the 2nd Edition of Space-Time and Beyond 2010On Aug 22, 2010, at 3:35 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:I thought the Heisenberg microscope argument was already undermined by the 1935 EPR paper?Wasn't Bohr forced by the EPR argument to renounce the idea that in quantum mechanics a
*physical* disturbance is necessarily responsible for the alteration of the expected value of a
physical quantity when any non-commuting quantity is measured?On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:52 PM, JACK SARFATTI <email@example.com> wrote:fyi
Subject: Re: Yakir Aharonov's book Quantum Paradoxes - Note #1 (Dr. Quantum)
On Aug 22, 2010, at 3:35 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote: I thought the Heisenberg microscope argument was already undermined by the 1935 EPR paper? Wasn't Bohr forced by the EPR argument to renounce the idea that in quantum mechanics a *physical* disturbance is necessarily responsible for the alteration of the expected value of a physical quantity when any non-commuting quantity is measured?No, that's not the way I understand the argument. The EPR argument is that without an action at a distance, the Heisenberg principle will be violated at one end of an entangled pair. That is, given an entangled pair A, B if there were no physical disturbance connecting them, even across a spacelike separation outside the local light cones of the local measurements, then one, e.g. could know both simultaneous momentum and position of say particle A in violation of the local Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Of course we still have Shimony's "passion at a distance" that the local quantum randomness defeats any Nick Herbert FLASH scheme to send a message over a spacelike interval that can be decoded without a light cone limited key. Now this corresponds to Antony Valentini's "sub-quantal thermal equilibrium" of Bohm's hidden variables i.e. signal locality limit. However, in post-quantum theory beyond quantum theory we have sub-quantal non-equilibrium in which there is, in my theory, a stable two-way action-reaction (feedback control loop) between the entangled hidden variable "particles" and their piloting quantum potential Q(A,B) that permits signal nonlocality in direct violation of quantum theory's axioms.Now the idea that a physical disturbance is not necessarily responsible for the alteration of a statistical expectation value of an observable Hermitian matrix is another story logically independent of the above, e.g. Yakir Aharonov's book "Quantum Paradoxes" (Vaidman bomb detector etc) - will come back to this.