Text Size

Dec 14

## Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged

Dec 11

## Stanley Deser's negative bare mass model of electron 12-11-11 V2

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged

On Dec 10, 2011, at 11:55 PM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Yes, the negative bare mass ADM model has the really neat feature of particle stability at a finite radius. Because the negative bare mass makes gravity effectively repulsive

understood

and the electric interaction (for like charges) effectively attractive.

not understood

Since gravity remains non-linear, when the charge distribution at the radius where the two interactions balance is disturbed, the resulting force tends to restore the undisturbed configuration.  :-)  No multiple shells of charge.  No renormalization needed.  A really cute model (as the negative bare mass also allows you to have apparently highly superluminal surface velocity for the charge, making it possible to account for the angular momentum and magnetic moment in an exceedingly small object).

Roughly, if we have a SSS situation with the Newtonian potential ignoring "spin"
V/c^2 = - / ^2 + e^2/rc^2

Note with this sign convention / > 0 gives repulsive gravity as in the usual de Sitter sign convention used in precision cosmology

Newton's g = - c^2dV/dr =  2c^2/ + e^2/r^2

There is no way to get stability here with / > 0 de Sitter, we need / < 0 Anti-de Sitter.

/ > 0 de Sitter is a way to model negative mass - repulsive gravity.

Therefore, I disagree with what Jim says here.

Technically, a shell of electric charge is stabilized by a plasma of virtual particles in which the density of virtual fermion-antifermion pairs exceeds the density of virtual bosons.

virtual bosons make / > 0

virtual fermion-antifermion pairs make / < 0

a more accurate model will use the Kerr-Newman-Reisser-Nordstrom metric with the cosmological constant / added.

On Dec 11, 2011, at 11:26 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

When you change the sign of the mass, you have to do so for the active and passive gravitational masses -- and also the inertial mass.

Agreed

This is the reason why a positive and negative mass pair of objects "self-accelerate".

Agreed

The repulsive force on the negative mass produces motion in the opposite direction because the inertial mass is negative too.  (Richard Price has a very nice, short paper on this in Am J Phys back in 1993.)

Can you send a pdf of that paper?

In the case of the electrical dust of the ADM model, the electrical force remains repulsive irrespective of whether the bare mass is positive or negative.

Right

But the direction in which the dust moves in response to the repulsive force depends on what the sign of the inertial mass is.  If it is negative, then the dust moves in a direction opposite to the force.  The result is that the repulsive electrical force, for negative bare mass dust, becomes effectively attractive.  Weird but true.

Interesting. Thanks.

By the way, the negativity of the inertial mass when the gravitational masses are negative is required by the Equivalence Principle.

Of course.

Dec 11

## Is Stanley Deser's negative bare mass model of electron unstable?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged

Consider classically two concentric spherical thin mass shells. The inner one is negative mass, the outer one is positive mass. Seems to me that is unstable - it explodes. The outer shell of positive mass would be a model for the cloud of virtual particles.'

Of course adding the Bohm quantum potential may stabilize it?

Indeed, Deser's 1960 model you cite makes more physical sense in my opinion.

On Dec 10, 2011, at 4:56 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Jim
I never suggested negative mass micro-black holes. The pomeron vacuum trajectory has a tachyon negative mass squared intercept at J = 0.

Negative mass makes repulsive gravity. A positive-negative mass gravity dipole self-accelerates.

If the micro-black hole has an Unruh temperature at the horizon then the Hawking radiation should explain its decay rate viewed as a hadronic resonance.

On Dec 10, 2011, at 2:51 PM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Hmmm. . . .  With negative bare mass you don't need f-gravity to get a realistic answer.  Gotta go do some work on the car before it gets dark.  :-)

Dec 10

## PPS Higgs vs Mach on 12-10-11

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged

On Dec 10, 2011, at 2:30 PM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

ADM dates to 1960, so they have the drop on everyone these days.  With positive bare mass, the ADM model gives m = (e^2/G)^1/2; far too large (by 21 orders of magnitude in Gaussian units).

JS: Not when you add Abdus Salam's f-gravity - that was my point of course. Then Deser's 1960 idea works pretty well, but it needs to be supplemented by the Bohm quantum potential. Again today Salam's f-gravity is reborn in brane theory with extra space dimensions.

JW: The negative bare mass version that returns a realistic electron mass, though wasn't worked out until 1993-4; and spin didn't get included until 2010.  So your '73 work is quite a bit earlier.  :-)

Dec 10

## PS on Higgs vs Mach 12-10-11

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged

On Dec 10, 2011, at 1:16 PM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Photons don't have infinite energy.

JS: I don't think that Z meant that. If we naively use F/m = g  with m as "inertia" then the fact that classically null geodesics have m = 0 and have g = 0 by definition, formally m is infinite if there was a finite F on the photon. This would pose problems for

E = mc^2 and the equivalence principle - and I think that was Z's point?

Of course the obvious answer to this conundrum is that F = 0 for photons and/or F = ma simply makes no sense for m = 0 particles?

On the other hand, the standard model posits m = 0 quarks and leptons prior to the Higgs mechanism and this poses a problem as Z points out.

On the other hand, leptons and quarks are micro-quantum mechanical and the classical restriction to null geodesics is not really correct because of wave-particle duality.

JW: That's just silly.  When you try to push them off geodesics, they are annihilated and their finite energies are converted.

JS: What precisely do you mean here? An example? You mean when an electron absorbs a photon for example?

JW: A photon is not a non-zero restmass particle that has been accelerated to c.

JS: No one suggested it was.

JW: As for the Higgs process, it doesn't create the energy of the nonzero restmass particle produced by the interaction.  It merely converts some pre-existing non zero amount of zero rest mass energy into nonzero restmass energy.  The energy, before and after, has mass (given by Einstein's second law), and it is conserved.  That is, the Higgs process converts, not creates.  The energy, whatever its form, has mass and gravitates.

JS: I don't quite understand the above. Can you give an example? Of course, I agree that the Higgs micro-quantum mechanism should not locally violate long time on-mass-shell energy conservation (time translation invariance via Noether's theorem) - unless there are strong micro-gravity effects without a timelike Killing vector field that might describe virtual off-mass-shell processes with temporary violation of 4-momenta conservation restored in the long run in the sense of S-Matrix asymptotics of in and out states and all that stuff that 't Hooft loves. ;-)

For example in the U1 superconducting version of the Higgs mechanism

This is a harmonic oscillator with frequency ~  |?|2 (=?2) is the density of the condensate of superconducting particles.

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

that is, the frame-invariant mass given to the photon inside the superconductor is proportional to the ground state macro-quantum coherent order parameter. Similarly for fermions in SU2 theory there are the Yukawa couplings.

JW: Gravity, through E = m phi, cannot be the Higgs field as the Higgs field does not act on everything as gravity does.

JS: Fine, I never seriously thought it was. However, for reasons I have given I do not think there is any deep theoretical justification for phi nor is there any way to locally measure it. If I am wrong please show details. Appealing to the Schwarzschild metric is not correct in my opinion since

g00 = 1 - 2(Hubble Radius)/r

is not a good cosmological model.

that metric is only good for

outside the universe so to speak

Indeed, a better approximation for our FUTURE universe, though not our PAST early universe is

g00 = 1 - r^2/(Hubble Radius)^2

where WE are at r = 0

and

both the metrics above are only for accelerating static LNIF detectors held at fixed r on timelike non-geodesics by non-gravity forces.

Indeed their local proper accelerations stuck in curved spacetime are

g(r) = (Newton's g)/[g00(r)]^1/2

they see Unruh black body radiation at temperature

T(r) = hg(r)/ckB

Dec 10

## Debate on Origin of Inertia Mach vs Higgs 12-10-11

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged

On Dec 10, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On 12/9/2011 11:59 PM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:
Sorry, that's not right.  Energy -- possessed by photons and gluons (charged or uncharged) -- has inertia (that is, mass, its measure).  It goes into E of SRT in Einstein's second law [m = E/c^2; the first law being E = mc^2].  And in GRT, it goes into the source tensor of the gravitational field.

PZ: If massless particles move along null geodesics, and they can't be pushed off those trajectories, then I would have thought that implies that the inertia associated with the energy stored in the quanta of the field is infinite, not zero.

JS: Fair enough. Yes, I accept the inertia of photons is infinite. However, as we see in renormalizable quantum field theory, physicists are not comfortable with truly infinite-valued observables.

PZ Why would it be any different from a non-zero rest mass particle moving arbitrarily close to c, where the relativistic effective inertial mass approaches infinity?

JS: Good point.

PZ: But of course that poses a serious problem for the equivalence principle. Is the gravitational mass of a zero rest mass particle therefore infinite? If not, why not?

JS: Even better point. There is a problem.

PZ: In fact I don't think I've ever seen a fully satisfactory  discussion about how the equivalence principle applies to relativistic mass-energy of moving particles.

JW: Surprisingly enough, we now know that at cosmic scale space is flat, so critical cosmic matter density obtains.  That means that phi [the total scalar gravitational potential] equals c^2.  So, in Einstein's second law c^2 can be replaced by phi, and now m * phi = E.  It takes no genius to read this to say that E is the total gravitational potential energy -- and that the origin of E in SRT is due to the gravitational interaction.  Since m arises from E (irrespective of whether E is due to zero or non-zero restmass stuff), the origin of mass is the gravitational interaction [not the Higgs process].

PZ: That's certainly an interesting hypothesis.

JS: I don't know what Jim means in practical operation terms. How can we falsify Jim's hypothesis?

JW: And when phi = c^2, inertial reaction forces are due exclusively to the gravitational interaction.

PZ:Yes but how do you square this Machian interpretation with the anti-Machian character of the Higgs model?

JS: I simply don't understand what phi = c^2 means.

For example, in a material do we have

phi' = c^2/(index of refraction)^2

and if not, why not?

After all the index of vacuum is from virtual particles and the equivalence principle does not discriminate between real and virtual particles.

JW: Those two things, which could only be stated as above after the WMAP results were known (not the 19th century), are the modern assertion of Mach's principle.  The instantaneity of inertial reaction forces tells one that either Wheeler was right about initial data and elliptic constraint equations, or that Wheeler-Feynman action-at-a-distance is right.  I think W-F is correct -- and that makes the future hologram interpretation possible if you are so inclined.

This isn't rocket science, so with a little luck, eventually folks will figure all this out.  The hard part is getting used to W-F action-at-a-distance.  :-)

PZ: Agree the modern version of the "Machian" hypothesis is more sophisticated empirically and viable than the more traditional versions. But I'm not sure you have adequately addressed the anti-Machian features of the Higgs mechanism.

JS: I think the historical version of Mach's Principle cannot be sustained in modern physics. However, it's basic idea reappears in the 't Hooft-Susskind World Hologram Ansatz in my opinion, and, further, it demands the kind of retrocausality we see in Yakir Aharonov's theory of pre and post-selection in weak measurements.

On Dec 9, 2011, at 6:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

In any case if CERN does find the Higgs at where the U1xSU2xSU3 standard model places it, most physicists will not even know what Jim means by the origin of inertia in the sense of classical 19th Century Mach. Being able to compute rest masses is the issue here. Higgs gives rest masses of leptons and quarks. QCD using Higgs input computes hadron rest masses. Special relativity and equivalence principle do the rest. Problem solved - at a significant level.

On Dec 9, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Paul Zielinski  wrote:

I'm not sure the situation is quite so simple. If the inertia associated with the non-zero rest masses of gauge bosons physically arises from *local* interactions of the accelerating particles with the Higgs field, then as far as I can see the Higgs model is fundamentally *anti-Machian*.

JS: Correct However in the hologram idea the local Higgs coherent vacuum ODLRO field is a image from the Mach horizons both past and future.

PZ: Of course that is not to say that the inertia of zero rest mass particles doesn't operate independently of such interactions.

JS: Zero mass particles are on null geodesics classically. They have zero inertia u can't push them off the null geodesic classically ignoring quantum fluctuations.

PZ: but neither does it follow from this that the physical origin of such inertia conforms to Mach's principle.

On 12/9/2011 9:03 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Of course everyone knows that
Higgs gives rest mass to quarks and leptons
QCD does the rest for hadrons
So who needs Mach for that?
Mach only comes into its own as the Wheeler Feynman future world 2D hologram computer at the end conformal time computing gravity and matter as 3D hologram images back from the future. That's my new theory of everything;-)
A dS/CFT duality Stokes Greens theorem analog

On iPhone.
On Dec 9, 2011, at 1:02 AM, "jfwoodward@juno.com"   wrote:

The Higgs is irrelevant to the Mach considerations.  The Higgs is NOT the origin of mass-energy (as Wilczek has repeatedly pointed out).  It is a process that confers RESTMASS on otherwise zero restmass particles.  Those zero restmass particles, via m = E/c^2, have mass if they have energy.  The origin of mass is the question of the origin of mass-energy.  Mach's principle does have something to say about that.

JS: I think Einstein already did that in 190

---------- Original Message ----------
From: JACK SARFATTI
To: JACK SARFATTI

Subject: Re: 2000 to 1 Odds: The Higgs Boson Has Probably Been Found
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:31:11 -0800

PS Classically zero rest mass particles have no "inertia" in the sense that you cannot apply a force on them to move them off the null geodesics of curved spacetime. Of course this assumes that zero rest mass particles have no charge. Only when the Higgs + QCD give positive squared invariant mass can we push the particles off a timelike geodesic in the sense of Newton's 2nd law on to a timelike non-geodesic.

Suppose we had an electrically charged zero rest mass particle and applied an electric field to it. What happens?

Need to use the mass-shell equation

(Pu - (e/c)Au)(P^u - (e/c)A^u) = 0
Lorentz Force?

dPu/ds - (e/c)dAu/ds = eFuvP^v ?

On Dec 9, 2011, at 6:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

In any case if CERN does find the Higgs at where the U1xSU2xSU3 standard model and its minimal extensions within the same paradigm places it, most physicists will not even know what Jim means by the origin of inertia in the sense of classical 19th Century Mach.

On Dec 10, 2011, at 9:07 AM, Jim Woodward wrote:

Those two things, which could only be stated as above after the WMAP results were known (not the 19th century), are the modern assertion of Mach's principle.  The instantaneity of inertial reaction forces tells one that either Wheeler was right about initial data and elliptic constraint equations, or that Wheeler-Feynman action-at-a-distance is right.  I think W-F is correct -- and that makes the future hologram interpretation possible if you are so inclined.

JS: We do agree here of course. Indeed, at a deeper level, the local Higgs field may be a hologram image from the future and probably the past horizon hologram computers. We need both in the sense of Aharonov's pre and post-selection.

Dec 08

## 2000 to 1 odds in favor of the Higgs Boson?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged

Looking good for the standard Higgs model and not so good for the Haisch-Puthoff model? The H-P model is however "good physics" because it's Popper falsifiable. Also not so good for Jim Woodward's Mach model? I prefer the standard Higgs model - indeed much of my work uses the "More is different" spontaneous symmetry breakdown in the ground state idea in several different contexts from the origin of gravity in the moment of inflation to the presponse retrocausal signal nonlocality using distinguishable non-orthogonal Glauber states in the conscious brain.

Dec 07

## Questions put to me by Anthony Forwood on Time Travel, UFOs & Paranormal

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged

Ask Gary Bekkum who has followed a lot of this. Saul-Paul Sirag also has a lot of information. Also see The Star Gate Conspiracy and the article Weird Science - all on Google.

On Dec 6, 2011, at 6:09 PM, anthony forwood wrote:

Dear Dr. Sarfatti,

I was supposed to get back to you last month with some interview questions I wanted to ask you, but I’ve been a little late in getting to it, so I apologize and hope that you still have the time and inclination to do this for me. The purpose of these questions are for a book I’m writing.

I’ve compiled quite a number of questions that I want to ask you, and since there are so many and I know your time is valuable, I don’t expect you to answer every one of them (although it would be great if you did), nor do I expect you to do so in short time. Therefore, feel free to only respond to those you choose to, and ignore those you don’t.

I’d like to start out by focusing on your experiences that stem from the mysterious phone calls in 1953 and your resulting involvement with Puharich, Geller, etc. at SRI in 1973, and then I want to ask you questions related to your work and ideas about the future affecting the past.

1) Puharich claimed in his book on Uri Geller that he began communicating with ‘The Nine’ at the very end of 1952 and into 1953, through a medium named Dr. Vinod. Geller had his UFO experience in 1949, when he was three years old, and soon after, discovered his psychic abilities. Looking back in retrospect, what relationship, if any, do you think the phone calls you received from the metallic voice in 1953 might have had with Puharich’s and Geller’s involvement with similar entities during the time leading up to you working with them 20 years later? Do you think it was the same entities? Do you think they were non-human?

Obviously I think they are from the same source. What that source is - I don't know.

2) By the early 1970s, Andrija Puharich had supposedly developed certain electronic equipment that could enhance telepathic abilities. Do you know anything about that, and if so, can you describe what it was and how it was supposed to work?

No, not in any detail.

3) Do you know if Andrija Puharich was working for the CIA during his work with Uri Geller?

I assume so.

4) I’m sure you’ve heard of the ‘Montauk Project’ (Project Phoenix), which involved children in various experiments, including ‘enhanced development’ projects.

I was a kid in such a project so was Hank Harrison. I don't know if it was called "Montauk" or "Phoenix" - again this is in my book. Puthoff also may have been a kid in such a project. I am not sure. You would have to ask him. I do know that government agents from New Mexico visited the project I was part of.

Irrespective of the more outrageous claims made about Montauk, do you think that the special program you were involved in during the 1950s was related to the Montauk Project? Were the kids in this enhanced learning program separated into various different classes for different types of training and testing, or were you all following the same basic curriculum? Do you think that they were providing special long-range training to you and the other kids because of certain relatively recent events of the time that called for the urgent need (i.e. Roswell crash/alien contact), or do you have another idea about what the purpose of this program was?

Obviously I think it was this project most likely. Since I was 13 - 16 I was not privy to the information you seek. All I know is that this project got me into Cornell on full scholarship to work with the men who built the atomic bomb at Los Alamos.

5) What’s your response to the rumors that some of these secret government programs have involved both time-travel, astral travel, and mind-control experiments? What’s your response to the idea of involvement of the government with extraterrestrials?

The X-Men is based on this project. They tried to induce psychic abilities in us and they also got us interested in UFOs.

6) What’s your opinion of the reality of the Philadelphia Experiment (Project Rainbow) that reportedly occurred in 1943, and supposedly continued into the 1980s at Montauk? Do you think it might have been a real event, and could the physics stand up, as far as you know?

All I know is that a board member of SARA claimed to have been part of the Philadelphia Experiment in a meeting we had at ISSO in 2000. Also a CIA official who was also an advisor to Nixon and whose daughter I was sleeping with in 1980 said that something weird did happen at that event.

7) You were in contact with Philip Corso through your grandfather in those early years.

This is not a fact. I am not sure. I seem to remember it was him. But it was about 1950 or so and the memory of his face is dim. However, when I saw his photo decades later it rang a bell.

This was the same time that the Roswell crash supposedly occurred, of which he claims to have become involved, and eventually wrote The Day After Roswell. Do you think that this book was relating the facts, or do you think it was disinformation? If it was disinformation, what effect do you think it was meant to have on the public, and for what purpose?

I have no reason to think that Corso would lie about this. Colonel John Alexander vouches for his character.

8) In your book, Destiny Matrix, you say that an Israeli military official recently disclosed that he had witnessed Uri Geller being zapped by a beam of light from a UFO when the latter was seven years old (I think Puharich wrote in his book that Uri was three). Do you have anything more you can add to that? Do you think that this person might have witnessed the event as part of a secret military project?

9) I’ve read a number of books about the RV program that took place at SRI and Fort Meade, and these books vary in describing the extent that RVing was able to reach. My own few experiments show that the clairvoyant aspects are real, but what about the remote influencing, such as causing a person to get sick, or to affect a person’s thoughts? What about the claims of astral projection and the level of clarity that certain RVers were able to ‘see’ their targets? Do you know if any technological enhancements to RVing were used, such as psychotronics? If so, can you describe what they were and how they worked?

You need to ask Hal Puthoff, Russell Targ, Ed May, Dean Radin, James Spottiswoode - who did the work not me.

10) I don’t know how much you may have been involved with RVing, but I’m wondering if you might have ever heard of phenomena occurring at a target site when it’s being RVed, specifically, a small green light or orb?

No

11) What’s your opinion of James Randi?

He's a fake.

Do you think he’s out to cover up the reality of paranormal phenomena, or does he really doubt that it’s real?

Can't tell.

12) You were involved with the Esalen Institute, and a group there were getting messages from the ‘The Nine’ that Puharich had been in contact with. Were you involved with this group at Esalen? What sort of activities did you involve yourself with in the Consciousness Research Group? Was it just discussion, or was there any investigative research involved? If so, what?

Yes, again this is in my book - the part about Jenny O Conner.

13) Were Rabbi Sarfatti and Samuel Sarfatti the same person? Why do you feel that you might be the reincarnation of him/them?

No. Again this is in my book. Several hundred years separate them. Samuel Sarfatti physician to Pope Julius II was descended I think from Solomon ha Zarfati aka Rashi in Troyes France during the First Crusade. Because Rashi was a precognitive remote viewer. Back from the future phenomena play the major role in his Merlinesque exploits.

14) Trauma is known to be used in mind-control programs to create alternate personalities, and these personalities can later be called forth again by similar means, or through specific pre-programmed triggers. Do you think it possible that the incident you had in France with the three SS-type bikers, where you were hit with a truncheon, might have been part of some sort of occultic ‘awakening’ ritual (a trigger), that was part of a centuries-long plan that began far in the past, perhaps having to do with your ancestor Rashi de Troyes, to awaken him you, in his living descendant?

Obviously.

15) How do you know Betty Andreasson?

The one I keow is in the photo at Westebeke Ranch in Destiny Matrix - we had an affair, but I don't think it's the same woman you mean who is into UFOs - only same name.

16) Have you ever heard of a woman by the name of Blanche Chavoustie? She was involved in a similar government program for highly intelligent college students at about the same time as you, but this was at Oswego State Teachers College, somewhere near Lake Ontario.

No.

17) There must be something beyond the ‘observer effect’ in QM that has brought you to the conclusion that consciousness is so fundamental to physical reality, leading you to study it for over 40 years.

Any person who is not asleep in Gurdjieff's sense must ponder what consciousness is and how it works.

Where or how does consciousness take precedence in your understanding of physical reality? How does it reveal itself to you as being primary to matter? Do you have any way to explain its effect on physicality outside of a purely mechanistic framework? For instance, do you see something like belief or intent having an effect on physical processes?

In my theory the Bohm quantum potential in the macro-quantum case (spontaneous symmetry breaking of some brain degrees of freedom in their ground state) is the mental field (as in Freeman-Vitiello model) It has signal non-locality in Antony Valentini's sense. The back-reaction of the Bohm hidden variables i.e. electromagnetic fields and charges on this macro-quantum coherent Bohm quantum potential excites our conscious experiences - qualia.

The qubit quantum potential is intrinsically mental or "thoughtlike" in Stapp's sense. The classical fields (hidden variables) are "rocklike" Stapp.  It's the macro-quantum coherent "two-way relation" (Bohm & Hiley) between them with signal nonlocality from phase rigidity (P.W. Anderson) that excites conscious qualia. Micro-quantum theory is one-way, hence no consciousness.

18) You have personally experienced the suppression of knowledge in certain areas of scientific investigation when you were excluded from you own conference a few years ago, with the reaction to your article on Uri Geller from Birkbeck College, and you’re aware of similar suppression in various other scientific fields. Do you think that there’s a major coverup going on regarding certain knowledge that has been discovered? If so, can you explain your thoughts further? Do you think that certain parties are trying to discredit you and your physics work because of its accuracy?

Ask Brian Josephson - Nobel Prize who has a whole website on this in relation to the Cornell archive.

19) Do you think that the scientific establishment might have been purposely led into following dead-end pursuits, such as string theory might be, and to encourage immense funding and investments to be put into it, in order to divert anyone from pursuing other avenues of research which have been suppressed and which those who possess it may wish to hold extremely tight control over?

Interesting suggestion. Maybe.

20) What is your opinion regarding the ability to physically travel backwards in time?

I think it has been happening for thousands of years in our history via wormholes.

Do you think that a person might only be able to go as far back as the point when the first time machine is built (an idea I think I read in Nick Herbert’s book, Faster Than Light), or do you see it as being conceptually possible to go beyond that point?

There may be old wormholes from the early universe naturally formed with dark energy that advanced intelligences can modify for time travel to the past.

21) What is your opinion of Tom Bearden’s theories regarding scalar waves or time-reversed EM waves?

Hogwash.

22) I have a personal hypothesis that time-travel can be accomplished in a subjective sense, where a person travels using their mind only,

Ask Fred Wolf and Russell Targ not me.

and what is seen as UFOs might often be the effect of this, perhaps due to the technology that’s used to do this (this ties in with question 7 as a similar effect). What do you think of this idea, and can it fit into your own theories about reverse-causality?

No, ufos are nuts and bolts metallic machines. They are advanced space-craft - weapons.

23) If I haven’t already bothered you enough with all these questions, do you mind if I pose some follow-up questions to your responses?

Anthony Forwood

Dec 06

## My talk at American Physical Society Boston March 2012

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged

On Dec 5, 2011, at 12:05 PM, ... wrote:

Dear March APS Meeting presenter,

My colleagues and I are working to publicize the upcoming 2012 March APS meeting in Boston. In order to foster coverage of the meeting for print, broadcast, and internet news outlets, we're contacting each meeting presenter in an attempt to identify the research that will most appeal to the journalists who will be covering the March meeting.

As soon as you have a chance, I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a moment to answer a few questions. Your responses will help us determine whether we should include information about your abstract in our press materials.

-In your opinion, how newsworthy is the research you will be presenting at the March meeting (not very, somewhat, exceedingly)? Why do you feel this way?

Extremely newsworthy: if I am right, the micro-quantum no-entanglement signaling theorems in quantum information theory are incomplete and have a loophole using Glauber macro-quantum coherent states. In effect, the local receiver detection probability depends on the settings of the distant sender apparatus contrary to conventional thinking because of the distinguishable non-orthogonality of the Glauber coherent states.

Not only that, in a Wheeler delayed choice arrangement, the message can be received retro-causally BEFORE it is sent, but only if it is sent. There is no time-travel paradox. This ties in to Daryl Bem's "feeling the future" psychology experiments at Cornell that have been peer-reviewed and no flaw found.

For background see David Kaiser's new book "How the Hippies Saved Physics".

-Are there any superlatives you could use in describing your research? (first, largest, smallest, fastest, strongest, hottest, coldest, most precise, etc.)

coolest, most amazing