Text Size


So Jim means frame invariant rest mass m by "inertia" in the quote below. He does not mean the global geodesic pattern solution of Einstein's GR field equations in matter
Guv + (8piG(index of refraction)^4/c^4)Tuv = 0.
Now Jim claims a bare mass cosmological screening.
m is from Higgs field, + Quantum Chromodynamica + Low Energy Nuclear + Atomic + Molecular + Solid State Physics.
Jim claims
m* = m(Cosmological Screening Factor) = mC
C =/= c = speed of light in vacuum.
and his Mach Effect Thruster claims to control C.
Personally I think, MY BIAS, this is astrology and that his effect in the lab is simply bad measurement. However, I may be wrong, and since I am writing my own book and my review of his book will be the in it - I continue.
We now know that Einstein was naive about the Origin of Inertia, Mach even more so. We have come a long way since those pre-quantum theory days.
The Origin of Inertia is
1) Higgs vacuum coherent Glauber state field post-inflation
2) SU(3) strong force Quantum Chromodynamics & it's low energy tail - Nuclear Physics
3) Atomic, Molecular, Solid State Many Body Problem - models of binding energies on different scales.
Inertia m is a FREE PARAMETER in Einstein's GR which is a local gauge theory of the T4 group.
The origin of inertia needs the U1, SU2 & SU3 internal groups + Higgs-Goldstone-Anderson "More is different" emergence of order in the spontaneous breakdown of symmetries in the ground states of complex many particle systems both real and virtual.
to be continued
Like · · Share
Jack Sarfatti There is no way to change the internal energies by a large fraction without destroying the material!

I fundamentally disagree with Jim Woodward .The inertia of the starship has nothing to do with real warp drive or the construction of a benign wormhole star gate time travel machine.

to be continued

"in a manner that produces "weak interference" without resorting to coincidence signals."
Yes Nick, but is it true? - is the 64 trillion dollar question. ;-)
On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:51 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Each single photon of the pair is produced in a SUPERPOSITION
of a and b directions. Observation of "which path" can collapse the
superposition into either a or b but (in conventional experiments)
these collapses (in the absence of coincidence signals) appear
to occur at random.
Destroying the path information by conventional means
(say, combining a and b in a beam splitter) does not
produce interference by itself but can do so if coincidence
signals are introduced.
DAK claims that by adding coherent states to the separated
halves of the superposition, that he can destroy "which path"
information in a manner that produces "weak interference"
without resorting to coincidence signals.
On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:30 PM, $ wrote:
Hi guys,
....and thanks for the interest in my idea....and SORRY! Fred for not getting back to you, I've been traveling all last week and this week for my job....I'm responding from an MIT computer right now (as I'm working).
Let me try to quickly clarify some points:
The source S produces only SINGLE PAIRS of photons, with a photon pair created in modes a1a2 !OR! b1b2.
In Mandel's experiment, it is the overlap of the two idler modes causes erasure of the 'which-way' info for a signal photon. I wanted to find an 'unfolded' version of this concept so that space-like separation could be achieved.
The method that, I purport, does the job of erasing the 'which-way' info for a left-going photon (that could be in EITHER mode a1 OR in mode b1) is that the corresponding modes, a2 and b2, are 'mixed' with weak coherent states (each having at most one photon) such that, sometimes, we'll get one photon in each of the two output modes, a2' and b2', and this makes it impossible to tell where each of these two photons came from. If the math is valid, this procedure leads to a small amount of 'pure state' on the left wing of the experiment....as opposed to the completely mixed state that would arise if the coherent states were absent and only the two-photon state from S was present.
I'll try to keep up with any further comments, questions, and discussions.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:03:37 -0800
JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
OK the two coherent state inputs replace Mandel's idler photons. So when you include a3 & b3 with the original pair from S you have 4-photon states in the Hilbert space two of them are Glauber states and the original pair are Fock states.
Begin forwarded message:
On Jan 30, 2013, at 12:56 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
Wait a second, he has 4 photons s1, i1, s2, i2 - at least in the Mandel experiment
However, you & Fred are right, Kalamidas's picture is confusing it seems to show only two photons, but he cites Mandel, so does he actually have 4 photons - two signal & two idler like Mandel?

On Jan 30, 2013, at 12:41 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Fred Wolf is right. Like the original EPR this is a TWO-PARTICLE experiment -- one particle going to the left and one particle going to the right in each elemental emission. If DAK's argument depends on seeing this as a 4-particle experiment, then DAK is certainly WRONG.
Nick Herbert

On Jan 29, 2013, at 10:22 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Thanks Fred.
I hadn't thought to check out his starting point Eq. 1 I only looked at Eq. 6. These experiments are tricky. I have not yet understood the details. Hopefully Nick & others will chime in. Begin forwarded message:

From: "fred alan wolf" <fawolf@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: RE: PPS Demetrios A. Kalamidas's new claim for superluminal entanglement communication looks obvious at second sight
Date: January 28, 2013 11:11:31 PM PST
To: "'JACK SARFATTI'" <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Of course it is wrong for some serious and perhaps not so obvious reason. He has confused a four photon state with an entanglement of two entangled (two) particle states. He approached me and I explained why it was wrong. Here is my explanation sent to him to which he has not responded:
“Thanks for the paper. Following Zeilinger’s paper (attached) I am having some trouble understanding your eq. 1. If I understand it correctly you are using a path entanglement scheme similar to the one illustrated in Zeilinger’s attached paper (p S290). Therefore I think you should have a1 entangled with b2 and a2 entangled with b1. We would get e.g., (|a1>|b2>+ |b1>|a2>)/Ö2. Given that |a1> = (|0>+exp(iphi)|1>)/Ö2, and similarly for a2, b1, and b2, I fail to see how you get your eq. 1, which seems to be some kind of mixed four photon state.” Best Wishes,
Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D. aka Dr. Quantum

On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:51 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Yes Paul, it is possible to treat inertia, and inertial forces in particular, in GRT just as one does in Newtonian mechanics -- that is, inertia (and its measure, mass-energy) is a primary quality of matter not requiring further explanation. 
Jack: "Inertia", "Inertial" is used in self-contradictory ways, often by the same author in the same paper or text book.

Wheeler & Co seem to use it consistently. In the book "Gravity & Inertia" by the "origin of inertia" they do not mean the rest mass "m" of the observed test particle in Newton's second law F = ma in inertial frames. They mean the pattern of force free geodesics. Note, that in non-inertial frames

F +   Ffictitious = ma'
where  F is the external non-gravity force spacelike 3-vector, a is the proper acceleration 3-vector in the inertial frame. In a rotating non-inertial frame for example in the v/c << 1 limit with rotation 3D pseudo-vector w with apparent velocity v' and radial vector r' in the non-inertial frame.

 Ffictitious ~ -mw x w x r' - 2m w x v' - GMmr'/r^3 - mdw/dt x r'

= 0 in an inertial frame

The apparent acceleration (aka "kinematical") of the test particle in the non-inertial frame is a'

In the formalism of Einstein,  Ffictitious is contained in the Levi-Civita connection term of the covariant derivative.

Case 1 test particle on a geodesic

F = 0, a = 0

Here the fictitious force is really fictitious as far as the test particle m is concerned, though it may be caused be real forces on the detector/observer.

Case 2 test particle is off-geodesic - case of uniform circular motion, with M = 0

Specializing to the now non-inertial co-rotating rest frame of the test particle

F =/= 0, a =/= 0,  dw/dt = 0, a' = 0, v' = 0

All we have left is

F = -mw x w x r'

Where F is the real radially inward non-gravity centripetal force, with an equal and opposite centrifugal force on the source of F.

Case 3  gravitational geodesic orbit - no real force on the test particle.

 -mw x w x r' - 2m w x v' - GMmr'/r^3 - mdw/dt x r' = ma'

m cancels out of the equation.

w and v' are the rotation pseudo-vector of the source mass M and relative velocity of the detector with the test particle of mass m.

The proper acceleration of the test particle a = 0.

Jim: That is why I included Abraham Pais's quote of Einstein on Mach's principle that is the header for Chapter 2 in the book.  But I think you will agree that the discussion of the past year and a half about inertia has been about substantially more than just semantic disagreements.  Unless there is some backsliding, we now seem all to be talking about the same thing, though there is still no agreement on the CAUSE of inertia and inertial "effects" [that is, inertial reaction (third law) forces].

Jack: Jim your above remark is mostly metaphysics not physics. Your remark on the "CAUSE of inertia" is not Popper falsifiable. Again, do you mean "m" or "geodesic pattern"? Probably the former. The cause of Newton's third law is not a mystery. It's mainstream physics Noether's "first" theorem applied to the translation group T3 in an isolated non-dissipative system.
Noether's (first) theorem states that any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law. The theorem was proved by German mathematician Emmy Noether in 1915 and published in 1918.[1] The action of a physical system is the integral over time of a Lagrangian function (which may or may not be an integral over space of a Lagrangian density function), from which the system's behavior can be determined by the principle of least action.
Noether's theorem has become a fundamental tool of modern theoretical physics and the calculus of variations. A generalization of the seminal formulations on constants of motion inLagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (developed in 1788 and 1833, respectively), it does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian alone (e.g. systems with a Rayleigh dissipation function). In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law. ...
Time invariance
For illustration, consider a Lagrangian that does not depend on time, i.e., that is invariant (symmetric) under changes t → t + δt, without any change in the coordinates q. In this case,N = 1, T = 1 and Q = 0; the corresponding conserved quantity is the total energy H[5]

Translational invariance
Consider a Lagrangian which does not depend on an ("ignorable", as above) coordinate qk; so it is invariant (symmetric) under changes qk → qk + δqk. In that case, N = 1, T = 0, andQk = 1; the conserved quantity is the corresponding momentum pk[6]

In special and general relativity, these apparently separate conservation laws are aspects of a single conservation law, that of the stress–energy tensor,[7] that is derived in the next section.
Rotational invariance
The conservation of the angular momentum L = r × p is analogous to its linear momentum counterpart.[8] It is assumed that the symmetry of the Lagrangian is rotational, i.e., that the Lagrangian does not depend on the absolute orientation of the physical system in space. For concreteness, assume that the Lagrangian does not change under small rotations of an angle δθ about an axis n; such a rotation transforms the Cartesian coordinates by the equation

Since time is not being transformed, T=0. Taking δθ as the ε parameter and the Cartesian coordinates r as the generalized coordinates q, the corresponding Q variables are given by

Then Noether's theorem states that the following quantity is conserved,

In other words, the component of the angular momentum L along the n axis is conserved.
If n is arbitrary, i.e., if the system is insensitive to any rotation, then every component of L is conserved; in short, angular momentum is conserved.



Jim: As far as I am concerned, this is real progress.  I gave up hope of even getting this far a year ago.  That is why my participation in this discussion over the past few months has been minimal. The other part of the issue of inertia, on which I still hold out no hope of getting understanding and agreement, is that we now -- 90 years after Einstein said what was reported by Pais in the mentioned quote -- know a lot more about cosmology.  Indeed, we know that critical cosmic matter density obtains, and accordingly that space is flat at cosmic scale AS MATTERS OF FACT. 
Jack: This is irrelevant it seems to me.

Jim: That means that, as Jack is now calling it, Sciama's "screening factor" -- the coefficient of time derivative of the gravitomagnetic vector potential in the gravielectric field equation (in the approximation where only the g_oo and g_oi potentials need be considered) is one.  And that means that inertial "effects" are accounted for as the gravitational action of chiefly cosmic matter (where "matter" is everything that gravitates).

Jack: Jim, I think your sentences here are very ambiguous.  First of all g00 and g0i are local observer frame-dependent. They are not invariant geometric objects. Also the universe on the large scale is not rotating so g0i = 0 in the usual representations. For example, in the usual comoving observer representation g00 = 1 and g0i = 0, so what happened to your theory here?

General metric for LIF geodesic co-moving observers

The FLRW metric starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space. It also assumes that the spatial component of the metric can be time-dependent. The generic metric which meets these conditions is

where  ranges over a 3-dimensional space of uniform curvature, that is, elliptical space, Euclidean space, or hyperbolic space. It is normally written as a function of three spatial coordinates, but there are several conventions for doing so, detailed below.  does not depend on t — all of the time dependence is in the function a(t), known as the "scale factor".
[edit]Reduced-circumference polar coordinates
In reduced-circumference polar coordinates the spatial metric has the form

k is a constant representing the curvature of the space. There are two common unit conventions:
k may be taken to have units of length−2, in which case r has units of length and a(t) is unitless. k is then the Gaussian curvature of the space at the time when a(t) = 1. r is sometimes called the reduced circumference because it is equal to the measured circumference of a circle (at that value of r), centered at the origin, divided by 2π (like the r of Schwarzschild coordinates). Where appropriate, a(t) is often chosen to equal 1 in the present cosmological era, so that  measures comoving distance.
Alternatively, k may be taken to belong to the set {−1,0,+1} (for negative, zero, and positive curvature respectively). Then r is unitless and a(t) has units of length. When k = ±1, a(t) is the radius of curvature of the space, and may also be written R(t).
A disadvantage of reduced circumference coordinates is that they cover only half of the 3-sphere in the case of positive curvature—circumferences beyond that point begin to decrease, leading to degeneracy. (This is not a problem if space is elliptical, i.e. a 3-sphere with opposite points identified.)

Jack: Not only that, but our future universe is asympotically de Sitter which in the static LNIF representation is

Static coordinates

We can introduce static coordinates  for de Sitter as follows:

where  gives the standard embedding the (n−2)-sphere in Rn−1. In these coordinates the de Sitter metric takes the form:

Note that there is a cosmological horizon at .

Jack to Jim: Indeed you did not seem to know that g00 = 0 is a condition for a horizon. Note that here g0i = 0.

Jack: Machian Screening Factor?

Analogy to Debye Screening

Debye length
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In plasmas and electrolytes the Debye length (also called Debye radius), named after the Dutch physicist and physical chemist Peter Debye, is the scale over which mobile charge carriers (e.g. electrons) screen out electric fields. In other words, the Debye length is the distance over which significant charge separation can occur. A Debye sphere is a volume whose radius is the Debye length, in which there is a sphere of influence, and outside of which charges are screened. The notion of Debye length plays an important role in plasma physics, electrolytes and colloids (DLVO theory).

For off-geodesic motion F = ma Newton's 2nd law

Jim based on an obscure model of Sciama & Berry? (who denies it in email to me) says

F = ma should be replaced by

F = (cosmological screening factor) ma
Exactly what it is and how to compute it using real Einstein GR as opposed to a completely unjustified EM analogy is not clear to me. I hope it is clear in Jim's book?

Suppose it is really there? Even so, it says nothing about m itself. You can think of m as the cosmologically bare mass of the test particle. m is still determined locally by Higgs field, + QCD + standard nuclear, atomic, molecular, solid state physics of binding energies.

Next step is to look at the Hoyle-Narlikar Wheeler-Feynman theory of gravity.

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

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

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

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

    guv = (Special Relativity Metric)uv + huv

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

      Thank you for the respect!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Now, in dealing with human subjects of enormous complexity with many variables we cannot control, you can't expect the kind of quantitative comparison of numerical data with equations that we get in Newtonian celestial mechanics or in the radiative corrections to quantum electrodynamics etc. If you are looking for that, you won't get it. However, given the idea that entanglement + signal nonlocality is the mechanism of consciousness itself, one may hope to mimic it in the laboratory with nano-engineering naturally conscious solid-state android brains for example - conscious computers. Such things become thinkable scientifically.
    • Jack Sarfatti BTW in case you are not aware of this:
      Subquantum Information and Computation
      Antony Valentini
      (Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
      It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
      Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
      Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
      Journal reference: Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
      DOI: 10.1007/s12043-002-0117-1
      Report number: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
      Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
      (or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)
      Submission history
      Excerpts from
    • Jack Sarfatti Theoretical model of a purported empirical violation of the predictions of quantum theory

      Henry P. Stapp

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Jack: Start here:

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

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

      Sent from my iPhone

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

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

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

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


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

      Sent from my iPad

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

      Chris & Jack-

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

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

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

      Evidence: presponse Libet, Radin, Bierman, Bem

      Puthoff & Targ SRI

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


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

      Hey Dr. S,

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

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

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

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


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

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

      // 2005 Paper TL Richards et al...

      // 2004 Paper Standish (TL Richards) et al...

      // 2003 Paper by Jiri Wackerman (published in Neuroscience Letters)

      Professor at University of Colorado's Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering guides students through experiments demonstr