Fred writes:
Let me add a few more comments of my own here. I believe that until the ontology/epistemology issue is fully resolved (although readers may believe it already resolved after reading this review), we still have the “measurement problem” that stimulated such considerations as given by PBR, Bell, Bohm, and many others. We also still have the nonlocality issue to deal with. Perhaps PBR can resolve this issue.
Ontologically speaking, what does it mean to have nonlocal influences? What does it mean to have an observer effect (collapse of the QWF)? Does the PBR solution resolve these problems?
Consider the effect of observation on an ontic QWF. Does a human being alter the QWF simply by making an observation? If the QWF is ontic then we have a real observer effect—observation (including nonlocal) indeed alters the QWF and therefore reality. That would mean that mind is inextricably tied into matter; they are truly entangled and such a finding could lead to breaking discoveries in the study of consciousness. On the other hand, if the QWF proves to be epistemic in violation of the Born probability rule, observation is simply the usage of the Bayesian approach to probabilities wherein new information simply changes what we know, but leaves reality unscathed—at least what we mean by ontic reality. I hope that PBR and others continue this line of research. The next frontier may indeed not be space but will be the mind.
The PBR argument seems to be that overlapping HV probability distributions for states |alpha> and |beta> even if they are non-orthogonal like Glauber states will violate the Born Probability Rule.
If a specification of a HV uniquely determines a QWF, then the QWF is ontic. If, on the other hand, specification of a HV does not uniquely determine a QWF, the QWF is said to be epistemic.
The alleged PBR argument then seems to say that Bohr’s epistemic QWFs with Fig 2 conjoint HV probability distributions for |alpha> & |beta> violate the Born probability rule. Therefore, the QWFs of orthodox quantum theory must be ontic obeying Fig 1 for |alpha> & |beta>.
On the other hand, we know that Bohm’s ontic theory has Born’s probability rule only as the thermodynamic limit of HV’s as in e.g.
Subquantum Information and Computation
arxiv.org › quant-ph
by A Valentini - 2002 - Cited by 38 - Related articles
arXiv.org > quant-ph > arXiv:quant-ph/0203049. Search or Article-id ... Authors: Antony Valentini. (Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this ...
You've visited this page many times. Last visit: 7/5/12
Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
Beyond the Quantum
arxiv.org › quant-ph
by A Valentini - 2010 - Cited by 2 - Related articles
arXiv.org > quant-ph > arXiv:1001.2758. Search or Article-id. (Help | Advanced search). All papers ... Authors: Antony Valentini. (Submitted on 15 Jan 2010) ...
Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay ...
arxiv.org › quant-ph
by G Bacciagaluppi - 2006 - Cited by 14 - Related articles
Sep 24, 2006 – arXiv.org > quant-ph > arXiv:quant-ph/0609184. Search or Article-id ...Authors: Guido Bacciagaluppi, Antony Valentini. (Submitted on 24 Sep ...
And that we need to violate the Born probability rule for ontic QWFs to get stand-alone entanglement signal nonlocality without the need of a classical signal key sent to Bob to decode the entangled message from Alice to Bob. Therefore, the issue of the violation of the Born probability rule is peculiar but logically consistent. On the one hand, obeying the Born probability rule demands ontic QWF (Quantum Wave Functions) implying that Bohm’s theory is better than competing Bohr theories for themodynamic equilibrium HV probability distributions. On the other hand, violation of the Born probability rule is required in a more general post-quantum theory with signal nonlocality and ontic QWFs.
On Jul 9, 2012, at 4:00 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Hi Fred
I have not had time to really understand the arguments, but does this result impact on the PBR argument?
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-classical-problem-undecidable-quantum.html
For example you write p. 15
there is always at least one of the 2^n QWFs predicted with zero probability
Compare with
“The problem as such is simple - merely asking whether certain outcomes can occur in quantum measurements,” Eisert said.
When using a classical measurement device, the physicists show that they can always find an algorithm that can answer whether or not any outputs with zero probability exist. So in a classical context, the problem is decidable.
However, when using a quantum measurement device, the physicists show that there cannot be an algorithm that always provides the correct answer, and so the problem becomes undecidable. The scientists explain that the undecidability arises from interference in the quantum device, implying that, at least in this scenario, undecidability appears to be a genuine quantum property.
“In a way, one can say that it is undecidable whether certain processes are allowed by quantum mechanics or not; quite a puzzling situation,” Eisert said.
On Jul 9, 2012, at 2:41 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: "fred alan wolf" <fawolf@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: RE: Morgan Freeman on a Paris experiment simulating Bohm's ontology on a large scale
Date: July 9, 2012 2:29:08 PM PDT
To: "'JACK SARFATTI'" <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
I think this walker work is interesting as a hidden variable made visible by a complex droplet/wave in phase interaction. Stability is achieved through continuous energy supply to the liquid. Of course in quantum physics we have this all going on and more without such a supply handy.
Here also is the updated version of the paper I recently sent to you that will be published in JSE. I have made the explanation clearer than before and clearer than I believe the original authors have done. I used more graphics including some three dimensional graphics of the hidden variables involved in the argument. Please send it off to those who may be interested.
By the way, Dave Hestenes and I were graduate students together at UCLA going for our PhDs.
Best Wishes,
Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D.
From: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:39 PM
To: Exotic Physics
Subject: Morgan Freeman on a Paris experiment simulating Bohm's ontology on a large scale
http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/27827-how-quantum-wave-particle-duality-couders-walking-droplets.html
On Jul 9, 2012, at 12:15 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
How can this be reconciled with the Higgs vacuum field explanation of the electron’s rest mass? The two pictures do not intrinsically conflict - the radius of the helix must be proportional to the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs Glauber coherent state of virtual off-mass-shell Higgs particles.
Begin forwarded message:
From: CL
Subject: cool paper
Date: July 9, 2012 11:59:44 AM PDT
To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Hestenes_Electron_time_essa.pdf
_______________________________________________
ExoticPhysics mailing list
ExoticPhysics@mail.softcafe.net
http://mail.softcafe.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exoticphysics
011001 EmerQuM 11: Emergent Quantum Mechanics 2011 (Heinz von Foerster Congress) Gerhard Grössing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/011001 Tag this article Abstract Full text PDF (321 KB)
011002 Peer review statement doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/011002 Tag this article Abstract Full text PDF (312 KB)
012001 Probabilities and trajectories in a classical wave-particle duality Y Couder and E Fort doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012001 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (3.72 MB)
012002 Quantum Theory as an Emergent Phenomenon: Foundations and Phenomenology S L Adler doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012002 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (589 KB)
012003 Emergence: Key physical issues for deeper philosophical inquiries B L Hu doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012003 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (594 KB)
012004 Four questions for quantum-classical hybrid theory H-T Elze doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012004 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (628 KB)
012005 A study of the Lorentz-Dirac equation in complex space-time for clues to emergent quantum mechanics M Davidson doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012005 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (594 KB)
012006 Experimental tests of Quantum Mechanics: from Pauli Exclusion Principle Violation to spontaneous collapse models C Curceanu (Petrascu), S Bartalucci, A Bassi, S Bertolucci, M Bragadireanu, M Cargnelli, A Clozza, S Di Matteo, S Donadi, J-P Egger, C Guaraldo, M Iliescu, T Ishiwatari, M Laubenstein, J Marton, E Milotti, D Pietreanu, M Poli Lener, T Ponta, A Rizzo, A Romero Vidal, A Scordo, D L Sirghi, F Sirghi, L Sperandio, O Vazquez Doce, E Widmann and J Zmeskal doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012006 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (1003 KB)
012007 Quantum Phase from the Twin Paradox G N Ord doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012007 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (858 KB)
012008 The Quantum as an Emergent System G Grössing, S Fussy, J Mesa Pascasio and H Schwabl doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012008 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (783 KB)
012009 A causal net approach to relativistic quantum mechanics R D Bateson doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012009 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (672 KB)
012010 Remarks on Osmosis, Quantum Mechanics, and Gravity R Carroll doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012010 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (559 KB)
012011 Review of stochastic mechanics E Nelson doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012011 Tag this article Abstract References Cited by Full text PDF (514 KB)
012012 Probabilistic whereabouts of the "quantum potential" P Garbaczewski doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012012 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (614 KB)
012013 Quantization as an emergent phenomenon due to matter-zeropoint field interaction A M Cetto, L de la Peña and A Valdés-Hernández doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012013 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (630 KB)
012014 Weak Values: Approach through the Clifford and Moyal Algebras B J Hiley doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012014 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (592 KB)
012015 A Pseudo-Quantum Triad: Schrödinger's Equation, the Uncertainty Principle, and the Heisenberg Group M A de Gosson doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012015 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (652 KB)
012016 Quantumness beyond quantum mechanics Á S Sanz doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012016 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (1.55 MB)
012017 Non-equilibrium in Stochastic Mechanics G Bacciagaluppi doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012017 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (628 KB)
012018 Understanding quantization: a hidden variable model A Budiyono doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012018 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (556 KB)
012019 Particle and/or wave features in neutron interferometry H Rauch doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012019 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (4.01 MB)
012020 Nonlinear quantum mechanics, complex classical mechanics and conservation laws for closed and open systems D Schuch doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012020 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (573 KB)
012021 Quantum features derived from the classical model of a bouncer-walker coupled to a zero-point field H Schwabl, J Mesa Pascasio, S Fussy and G Grössing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012021 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (595 KB)
012022 Particles as stable topological solitons M Faber doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012022 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (957 KB)
012023 An extended model of electrons: experimental evidence from high-resolution scanning tunneling microscopy W A Hofer doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012023 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (1.24 MB)
012024 Quantum Mechanics from Classical Logic G 't Hooft doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012024 Tag this article Abstract References Cited by Full text PDF (612 KB)
012025 Noncommutative spectral geometry, dissipation and the origin of quantization M Sakellariadou, A Stabile and G Vitiello doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012025 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (587 KB)
012026 Quantum mechanics and local Lorentz symmetry violation P Jizba and F Scardigli doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012026 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (1.38 MB)
012027 A holographic map of action onto entropy D Acosta, P Fernández de Córdoba, J M Isidro and J L G Santander doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012027 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (569 KB)
012028 Classical-Quantum Coexistence: a 'Free Will' Test L Diósi doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012028 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (524 KB)
012029 Wave-particle duality in classical mechanics A Y Davydov doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012029 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (674 KB)
012030 Classical signal model reproducing quantum probabilities for single and coincidence detections A Khrennikov, B Nilsson and S Nordebo doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012030 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (574 KB)
012031 Quantum fermions and quantum field theory from classical statistics C Wetterich doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012031 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (592 KB)
012032 Gravitational strings beyond quantum theory: Electron as a closed heterotic string A Burinskii doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012032 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (664 KB)
012033 Quantization in relativistic classical mechanics: the Stückelberg equation, neutrino oscillation and large-scale structure of the Universe V D Rusov and D S Vlasenko doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012033 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (702 KB)
012034 Eigenforms, Discrete Processes and Quantum Processes L H Kauffman doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012034 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (498 KB)
012035 Emergence of classical theories from quantum mechanics P Hájíček doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012035 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (583 KB)
012036 Towards Einstein's dream of a unified field theory: Reports from a journey on a long and winding road T M Nieuwenhuizen doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012036 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (519 KB)
012037 No Drama Quantum Theory? A Akhmeteli doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012037 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (460 KB)
012038 Application of the Doubly Special Relativity to the Dirac equation formalism A Bérard, Z Belhadi, F Ménas, P Gosselin, Grandati and H Mohrbach doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012038 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (446 KB)
012039 From Maximal Entropy Random Walk to quantum thermodynamics J Duda doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012039 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (919 KB)
012040 Quantum mechanical motion of classical particles V D Rusov and K Lukin doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012040 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (465 KB)
012041 Classical Simulation of Double Slit Interference via Ballistic Diffusion J Mesa Pascasio, S Fussy, H Schwabl and G Grössing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012041 Tag this article Abstract References Full text PDF (454 KB)
Note that the total energy of the gravity field has this Q problem suggesting gravity as a "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) low-energy emergent field from a spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry at the Alpha Moment of Inflation (zero conformal time & zero comoving distance in Tamara Davis’s Fig 1.1 c) from false to true vacuum in the above picture.
On the other hand gravity is also induced by localizing the universal global gauge (De Sitter - Poincare group) - so how do we merge these two ideas from different levels?
One model is G = O(9) spontaneously breaks to H = O(8) giving 8 Goldstone post-inflation condensates whose quantized vibrations are the massless SU3 QCD gluons via an analytic continuation of non-compact O(9)/O(8) to compact SU3?
This model has 28 Higgs-like massive bosons - not to be confused with the single electro-weak Higgs allegedly now found at LHC from G = U1xSU2 ---> H = U1 where the three massless W bosons of SU2 essentially absorb the three massless Goldstone bosons leaving only the single massive Higgs boson in this simplest of models.
28 + 8 = 36 = 9x8/2 = number of spacetime charges in string theory type O(9) spacelike sub-group of string theory O(1,9) with 6 extra space dimensions.O(9) is for the spacelike slices of O(1,9) used in superstring theory
Jack Sarfatti http://sivasakti.net/articles/tantra/shiva-shakti-art37.html
sivasakti.net - THE DIVINE COUPLE SHIVA-SHAKTI
sivasakti.net
Contains techniques and information on Hatha Yoga, Asana, Tantra, Yantra and Karma Yoga.
9 minutes ago · Like ·
Jack Sarfatti Tao of Physics and all that. ;-)
9 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti [SHIVA, SHAKTI] = DIVINE UNITY ;-)
8 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti ACTUALLY I WANT KALI (DESTRUCTION OPERATOR)
7 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti KALI|GLAUBER COHERENT VACUUM STATE> = (HIGGS AMPLITUDE)exp[iGOLDSTONE PHASE]|GLAUBER COHERENT VACUUM STATE> this vacuum state contains a condensate of VIRTUAL Higgs-Goldstone quanta.
4 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti for example, an ordinary space crystal of atoms is a Glauber coherent state of VIRTUAL PHONONS of zero frequency and finite wave vectors corresponding to the reciprocal unit cells of the 230 finite crystal groups in 3 space dimensions. MIT's Frank Wilczek's TIME CRYSTAL is similarly a Glauber coherent state of VIRTUAL PHONONS with a finite frequency as well as some Fourier spectrum of wave vector. Each PHONON is a collective normal mode of ALL N ATOMS of the LATTICE.
Jack Sarfatti
about an hour ago near San Francisco
Bose-Einstein condensed string nets on a pre-space-time lattice gets spin 1 gauge bosons as string vibrations and spin 1/2 leptons and quarks as lattice point defects at ends of open boson strings. These a long strings NOT supersymmetry strings at 10^-33 cm but can be as long as 10^28 cm. Work done at MIT Physics. Problems with chirality, consistent with Loop Quantum Gravity.
Robert Lewy and 2 others like this.
Jack Sarfatti From new states of matter to a unification of light and electrons
Xiao-Gang Wen
(Submitted on 30 Jul 2005 (v1), last revised 13 Feb 2007 (this version, v2))
For a long time, people believe that all possible states of matter are described by Landau symmetry-breaking theory. Recently we find that string-net condensation provide a mechanism to produce states of matter beyond the symmetry-breaking description. The collective excitations of the string-net condensed states turn out to be our old friends, photons and electrons (and other gauge bosons and fermions). This suggests that our vacuum is a string-net condensed state. Light and electrons in our vacuum have a unified origin -- string-net condensation.
Comments: 14 pages, to appear in YKIS2004 proceedings, homepage this http URL
Subjects: Strongly Correlated Electrons (cond-mat.str-el); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Journal reference: Prog.Theor.Phys.Suppl. 160 (2006) 351-360
DOI: 10.1143/PTPS.160.351
Cite as: arXiv:cond-mat/0508020v2 [cond-mat.str-el]
about an hour ago · Like
Julie Fleischer So, are you saying they didn't find the God particle? 'Cause what you wrote sounds a lot like Klingon to me. But then, I am but a lowly human.
39 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti No Julie I have not said that at all. First of all I am quoting from an MIT physics professor's paper. It is not my work. The paper has nothing to do with the current search for the Higgs God Particle(s) that give small rest masses m to real on mass shell spin 1/2 quarks and leptons, and also to the weak radioactive W spin 1 gauge bosons, but not to the photon nor to the 8 gluon gauge bosons of the strong force. The Higgs & their complementary Goldstone particles are spin 0 unlike spin 1/2 quarks and lepton fermions and unlike spin 1 gauge bosons. The Higgs particles are amplitude vibrations of the Mexican Hat effective potential energy of the macro-quantum coherent post-inflation vacuum superconductor Landau-Ginzburg order parameter. Their complementary Goldstone particles are MASSLESS phase oscillations around the rim of the Mexican Hat effective potential. W bosons get their rest mass from eating the massless Goldstone particle not its complementary Higgs particle needed for the rest masses of the spin 1/2 quarks and leptons. Indeed, the photon inside an electrical superconductor near absolute zero temperature gets an effective rest mass from the massless Goldstone phase particles not from the massive Higgs particles.
24 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
Higgs mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
In particle physics, the Higgs mechanism (also called the Brout–Englert–Higgs mechanism, Englert-Brout-Higgs-Guralnik-Hagen-Kibble mechanism,[1] and Anderson–Higgs mechanism) is the process that gives mass to elementary particles. The particles gain mass by interacting with the Higgs field that perm...
23 minutes ago · Like ·
Jack Sarfatti The late Robert Brout was one of my tutors at Cornell as was the late Hans Bethe and the still-living last I heard Wolfgang Rindler who worked with Roger Penrose. I also took Penrose's Twistor Seminar at Birkbeck College University of London where I was a Research Fellow at David Bohm's invitation in 1971.
21 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti "In particle physics, the Higgs mechanism (also called the Brout–Englert–Higgs mechanism, Englert-Brout-Higgs-Guralnik-Hagen-Kibble mechanism,[1] and Anderson–Higgs mechanism) is the process that gives mass to elementary particles. The particles gain mass by interacting with the Higgs field that permeates all space. More precisely, the Higgs mechanism endows gauge bosons in a gauge theory with mass through absorption of Nambu–Goldstone bosons arising in spontaneous symmetry breaking." - quotes from Wickedpedia ;-)
18 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti In the simplest model, there is a single amplitude whose vibrations about the Glauber coherent ground state is the single massive Higgs particle itself with an effective rest mass. Complementary to it, or "canonically conjugate" to it is the massless Goldstone phase quantized vibration.
15 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti Psi = (Higgs Amplitude)exp(i Goldstone Phase) in the ground state of a real many-particle system or else in the virtual many particle "vacuum" of special relativistic quantum field theory.
13 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti Real massive Higgs particles at Tevatron and LHC are quantized vibrations in the above vacuum coherent Higgs Amplitude. Real massless Goldstone particles are quantized phase vibrations. The Higgs Amplitude is ^1/2 with a conjugate phase @ and roughly a Heisenberg Algebra commutator [N,@] =/= 0. is the mean number of Higgs particles. In the vacuum, these Higgs particles are VIRTUAL not REAL, i.e. they are off-mass-shell in terms of quantum field theory - their energies and momenta are independent variable - that is NOT the case for the Tevatron and the LHC that see constrained real Higgs particles. Indeed,
8 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti ^1/2exp(i@) = z a complex number, and the vacuum super conductor is a Glauber coherent state |z> where a|z> = z|z> for the Second Quantized Fock Space Kali destruction operator a conjugate to the Shiva creation operator a* with [a,a*] = 1.
5 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti If you think this is Focked - this is only the beginning.
4 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali
Kali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Kālī (Sanskrit: काली, IPA: [kɑːliː]; Bengali: কালী; Punjabi: ਕਾਲੀ; Tamil: காளி; ...See More
3 minutes ago · Like ·
Jack Sarfatti http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfFnOHVc80A
Indian classical music
www.youtube.com
Indian music encompasses some of the richest most remarkable traditions of the w...See More
2 minutes ago · Like ·
Jack Sarfatti http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Mecanismo_de_Higgs_PH.png/220px-Mecanismo_de_Higgs_PH.png
James unless you face the issues I have raised squarely I predict your book will have no impact with the mainstream and will be dismissed as crank. The statement you make about reducing rest mass density strikes any mainstream physicist as completely crazy and obviously wrong. No one in the know knows where you are coming from. I am not talking about your disciples on the list who do not understand basic physics. You need to do a synopsis in which you clearly state your basic assumptions and how your scalar potential relates to Einstein’s GR for a start. If you do that in beginning of your book, why don’t you attach relevant text in a pdf? Be best you do this BEFORE your book goes to press and it’s too late. Have you gotten John Cramer for example to agree with you?
There are many papers in Physical Review on Star Gates AKA traversable wormholes, and warp drive and even time travel to the past both physically and in quantum information theory - from Kip Thorne & Co, Igor Novikov, Seth Lloyd, David Deutsch and many others.
On Jul 1, 2012, at 3:17 PM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:
Sorry Jack, I do not regard it as my obligation to do what amounts to private tutoring (in public), especially when I know the likely outcome of such an exercise. If you want to know what I have to say about making stargates, it's all there in print. Actually, since some of what I have to say has been out in the peer reviewed literature for a couple of decades or more, and most for upwards of 15 years, I'm sure that mainstreamers who might be interested have already encountered my work. To expect widespread mainstreamer acclaim for any scheme that might make stargates possible, I think, is wishful thinking of the most egregious sort. It should be obvious that no scheme that relies on standard physics is going to work. Someone would have done it already.
Please note: message attached
From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
To: "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com>
On Jul 1, 2012, at 12:40 PM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:
Sorry, I'm not going to spend a lot of time responding in any detail to your comments, repeated now many times.
Not asking for details - only for a plausible qualitative argument. Right now we are not on the same page. What’s wrong with this picture. What am I missing here? I can’t connect your dots strategically. All I remember you saying is that you propose to tweak the chemical binding energies of materials. Even if you could it’s a very small percentage of the total mass - like 1 ev to 1 Gev roughly, i.e. 10^-9 so I don’t see what good that will do you. Also destabilizing matter by changing chemical binding energies significantly seems inevitable.
What I have to say about building starships and stargates, as I said, can be found in the peer reviewed literature, and in the foreseeable future in a book.
I see nothing sensible in any peer-reviewed literature on changing rest mass density of matter for flight.
I will say two things however. Using the standard model to talk about the nature of matter, notwithstanding its spectacular successes, when it comes to serious discussions of exoticity is not reasonable for it (very obviously) doesn't encompass gravity.
No, I do not agree with what you say here and I am sure that all the top physicists in particle theory like Frank Wilczek at MIT and Lenny Susskind at Stanford and everyone at LHC will agree with you. Mainstream opinion is that gravity and cosmology have nothing at all to do with the rest energies of matter in any kind of configuration you contemplate. In other words, what you are proposing is not at all mainstream - at the very best it’s fringe and I bet to most top-gun physicists it is beyond the fringe. Yes? No? I mean you must be clear to your readers that what you propose is extremely controversial. Also you are not addressing my objection. Even if you are correct that you need gravity, it’s obvious that any attempt to reduce the rest energy of a sample of matter will result in an uncontrollable explosion even if it could be done - I am confident that it can’t of course.
So if you are serious about making stargates, you're not going to use the standard model to try to produce the exotic matter required to make them.
I already gave my current idea on that at DARPA-NASA meeting.
Absent some other explicit theory of matter, the best you can say about restmass is that it is the sum of the nongravitational energies of all of the stuff confined in some region of spacetime divided by the square of the speed of light -- as measured by some specified observer. If you don't believe me, go reread Frank Wilczek's book. That's what he has to say about restmass. He calls it "Einstein's second law”.
I have read his book and I fail to see your logic here. Indeed, my above opinion is based on his book. So we draw opposite conclusions from the same evidence. Suppose you reduce the rest energy of 1 gram of matter to zero - where does the 10^21 ergs of energy go? Photons? In what time period will you do it? How many watts of radiation will you produce? How will you contain it and use it? How do you get exotic matter for warp anti-gravity by doing that?
The other thing is that your comment about warp drives is misleading at best. You suggest that a ship in a warp bubble can somehow avoid all of the messiness of exoticity. That is just plain wrong.
Red Herring. I never wrote anything of the kind. Please copy and paste my text that you think claims that? In my scheme the exoticity is from near field EM virtual photon Glauber coherent state energy densities being negative i.e.
E.D + H.B < 0 in Tuv for Guv + (n^4G/c^4)Tuv = 0
with the material speed of light c/n << c in the relevant frequency-wave vector domains.
A Jupiter mass of exotic restmass matter -- in the frame of the ship -- is REQUIRED to produce the bubble that enables the warp speed behavior. If your arguments are right, then warp drives will never be built. And they haven't ever been built by others either.
Wrong. In my theory the exotic rest mass required is ~ 10^-40 (Jupiter Mass).
I look forward to you reading the book and understanding it, irrespective of whether you agree with what I've said or not.
I think if you do not relevantly address these issues the book will not succeed. You should squarely confront them before you write the final draft of your book because all the mainstream physicists will say what I am saying here in their reviews. I guarantee it.
From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Woodward's Machian Star Ship Propulsion Strategy
Date: July 1, 2012 11:45:25 AM PDT
To: "Woodward, James" <jwoodward@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU>
On Jul 1, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Woodward, James wrote:
It's in the book (and here and there in the peer reviewed literature over the years). The book may be out before the end of the year.
Not very helpful because I think I have made a fatal objection to any scheme at all that proposes to “reduce rest mass density” on very fundamental matters of principle. I cannot even conceive of any sensible argument to the contrary. Therefore, you should at least give the list a short qualitative plausibility argument here and now as to how I am, in your view, mistaken. Many wrong arguments are published in books and even in peer-reviewed prestige journal - normal science proceeds by recursive corrections of errors both theoretical and experimental.
From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 10:21 AM
To: Woodward, James
Subject: Re: Woodward's Machian Star Ship Propulsion Strategy
Again I do not understand Jim's words
“driving the rest density to zero”.
The rest density of matter is determined by
1) the Higgs vacuum field for the rest masses of isolated quarks and leptons
LHC has now found the Higgs at 125 Gev - not much doubt of that. It’s only a mop up from this time on getting better statistical analysis - a matter of time.
2) the confined kinetic motion of trapped real quarks in the virtual gluon/quark-antiquark plasma of quantum chromodynamics.
And if you could reduce rest density of matter to zero you would have an uncontrolled super-fusion explosion!
3) In warp drive, the ship is on a self-created timelike geodesic - changing the effective mass of the ship as a whole, even if you could do it without destroying the ship, is completely irrelevant because of the equivalence principle.
Martin Rees's Six Numbers
Martin Rees, in his book Just Six Numbers, mulls over the following six dimensionless constants, whose values he deems fundamental to present-day physical theory and the known structure of the universe:
N and ε govern the fundamental interactions of physics. The other constants (D excepted) govern the size, age, and expansion of the universe. These five constants must be estimated empirically.D, on the other hand, is necessarily a nonzero natural number and cannot be measured. Hence most physicists would not deem it a dimensionless physical constant of the sort discussed in this entry. There are also compelling physical and mathematical reasons why D = 3.
Any plausible fundamental physical theory must be consistent with these six constants, and must either derive their values from the mathematics of the theory, or accept their values as empirical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant
Just Six Numbers: the deep forces that shape the universe, by Martin Rees. ISBN 0-75381-022-0.
The laws of nature seem to have too many arbitrary constants in them; numbers for whose values we can see no explanation; numbers that, for all we can tell, were chosen at random by whatever gods there may be. One interesting thing about these numbers (which has led some people to think that those gods shouldn't be taken too metaphorically) is that it seems that some of them couldn't be very different from what they are without making life as we know it impossible. In other words, we seem to have been very lucky that there was a universe fit for us to live in.
In this book, Martin Rees discusses six of them:
See also
Anthropic coincidences
Main article: Fine-tuned Universe
In 1961, Robert Dicke noted that the age of the universe, as seen by living observers, cannot be random.[9] Instead, biological factors constrain the universe to be more or less in a "golden age," neither too young nor too old.[10] If the universe were one tenth as old as its present age, there would not have been sufficient time to build up appreciable levels of metallicity (levels of elements besides hydrogen and helium) especially carbon, by nucleosynthesis. Small rocky planets did not yet exist. If the universe were 10 times older than it actually is, most stars would be too old to remain on the main sequence and would have turned into white dwarfs, aside from the dimmest red dwarfs, and stable planetary systems would have already come to an end. Thus Dicke explained away the rough coincidence between large dimensionless numbers constructed from the constants of physics and the age of the universe, a coincidence which had inspired Dirac's varying-G theory.
Dicke later reasoned that the density of matter in the universe must be almost exactly the critical density needed to prevent the Big Crunch (the "Dicke coincidences" argument). The most recent measurements may suggest that the observed density of baryonic matter, and some theoretical predictions of the amount of dark matter account for about 30% of this critical density, with the rest contributed by a cosmological constant. Steven Weinberg[11] gave an anthropic explanation for this fact: he noted that the cosmological constant has a remarkably low value, some 120 orders of magnitude smaller than the value particle physics predicts (this has been described as the "worst prediction in physics").[12] However, if the cosmological constant were more than about 10 times its observed value, the universe would suffer catastrophic inflation, which would preclude the formation of stars, and hence life.
The observed values of the dimensionless physical constants (such as the fine-structure constant) governing the four fundamental interactions are balanced as if fine-tuned to permit the formation of commonly found matter and subsequently the emergence of life. [13] A slight increase in the strong nuclear force would bind the dineutron and the diproton, and nuclear fusion would have converted all hydrogen in the early universe to helium. Water and the long-lived stable stars essential for the emergence of life as we know it would not exist. More generally, small changes in the relative strengths of the four fundamental interactions can greatly affect the universe's age, structure, and capacity for life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
On Jul 1, 2012, at 5:59 AM, Woodward, James wrote:
Yes Jack, you are right. The effect here produces propulsion, but it doesn't necessarity produce the sort of spacetime distortions needed for warp/wormhole effects. So if it is simply scaled up for thrust, g forces would be felt in the spacecraft.
To get to warp/wormhole effects, further steps are required. The effect has to be made large enough to (transiently) produce exotic effects (by driving the rest density to zero) which triggers non-linear behavior that makes possible the generation of sufficient exotic matter to do the starship/stargate thing. Actually, a bootstrap process may make this possible with the leading term only. But it's easier if you use the second (wormhole) term. It's all in the book. . . .
The main point at this juncture is that theory (when done correctly) and observation are sufficiently close to have confidence that this will actually work. If the first term is really there -- and that's what the experimental result say -- then the second term is necessarily present.
Jim