Text Size


Jul 09

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?


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
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>


ExoticPhysics mailing list

Journal of Physics: Conference Series

Volume 361


EmerQuM 11: Emergent Quantum Mechanics 2011 (Heinz von Foerster Congress)
10–13 November 2011, Vienna, Austria

Accepted papers received: 27 April 2012
Published online: 10 May 2012



Plenary Lectures

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)


  • Jack Sarfatti Remember, the actual Higgs field is NOT a collection of real Higgs particles whizzing through space. On the contrary its a vacuum field made from coherent Glauber states of VIRTUAL Higgs particles. This is an important distinction none of the popular science writers understand very well.
    · · · Share
    • Josette-Marie Mieuzet like the Bose Einstein condensate experiment?
      9 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti It's like a Bose-Einstein condensate yes, but not exactly the same of course. Bose-Einstein condensates of atoms are giant local quantum matter waves in which a huge number of real atoms have their centers of mass all in the same single particle "cell in phase space" of volume ~ (Planck's quantum of action)^3. Mathematically that quantum state is a Glauber coherent state in terms of the superposition of sharp number "Fock states" - or some distortion of it (e.g. squeezed states).
      9 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti However, the Higgs particles inside the vacuum that make up the vacuum expectation value that is the Higgs field are virtual particles. This means, that their energies E are not functions of their momentum p according to Einstein's classical special relativity where
      8 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
      7 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti m is the rest mass, which for leptons like electrons and quarks as well as W-bosons are proportional to the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field Glauber type macro-quantum coherent state destruction second-quantized field operator for large numbers of virtual Higgs particles that are off their own mass shells. That is, the virtual Higgs particles that collectively give rest masses m to leptons, quarks & W do not themselves obey the above equation.
    • Jack Sarfatti The larger rest masses M of hadrons like protons require additional physics (QCD) and come from the kinetic motion of confined quarks and the virtual particle plasma they are immersed in.
  • Jack Sarfatti What the LHC shows are real Higgs particles that are incoherent excitations out of the coherent vacuum Higgs field. It is only the coherent vacuum field of these virtual off-mass-shell Higgs particles in huge numbers all in the same single-particle state that gives rest mass to the real W bosons and the real leptons and real quarks.
Russell Clark posted to Jack Sarfatti
about an hour ago
Hi, Dr. Jack. Question: Do you think the LHC detected a fundamental scalar Higgs or just a composite Higgs?
Jack Sarfatti: No way to decide that yet. Still many more years of experimental work needed. Lenny Susskind has a "technicolor" model in which the Higgs is composite. This great accomplishment was only the end of the beginning.
1 · · · Share
    • Russell Clark I wonder if there is a place for a composite Higgs in induced gravity theory. And if the LHC detectors could presently differentiate a fundamental scalar Higgs from a composite Higgs or, if this must remain a question of interpretation until the next LHC upgrade. Oh, and I don't blame you, Doc, if you smack me on the head and send me off to the Sarfatti Physics forums, LOL!
      7 hours ago · "}">
    • Jack Sarfatti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor_(physics)
      Technicolor theories are models of physics beyond the standard model that addres...See More
      22 minutes ago · "}"> ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Technicolor is unlikely given the new result.
      19 minutes ago · "}">
    • Jack Sarfatti ‎"Elementary Higgs bosons perform another important task. In the Standard Model, quarks and leptons are necessarily massless because they transform under SU(2) ⊗ U(1) as left-handed doublets and right-handed singlets. The Higgs doublet couples to these fermions. When it develops its vacuum expectation value, it transmits this electroweak breaking to the quarks and leptons, giving them their observed masses. (In general, electroweak-eigenstate fermions are not mass eigenstates, so this process also induces the mixing matrices observed in charged-current weak interactions.)"
      18 minutes ago · "}">
    • Jack Sarfatti Composite Higgs Search at the LHC
      Jose Ramon Espinosa, Christophe Grojean, Margarete Mühlleitner
      (Submitted on 16 Mar 2010)
      The Higgs boson production cross-sections and decay rates depend, within the Standard Model (SM), on a single unknown parameter, the Higgs mass. In composite Higgs models where the Higgs boson emerges as a pseudo-Goldstone boson from a strongly-interacting sector, additional parameters control the Higgs properties which then deviate from the SM ones. These deviations modify the LEP and Tevatron exclusion bounds and significantly affect the searches for the Higgs boson at the LHC. In some cases, all the Higgs couplings are reduced, which results in deterioration of the Higgs searches but the deviations of the Higgs couplings can also allow for an enhancement of the gluon-fusion production channel, leading to higher statistical significances. The search in the H to gamma gamma channel can also be substantially improved due to an enhancement of the branching fraction for the decay of the Higgs boson into a pair of photons. Comments: 32 pages, 16 figures
      Subjects: High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex)
      Journal reference: JHEP 1005:065,2010
      DOI: 10.1007/JHEP05(2010)065
      Report number: CERN-PH-TH/2010-020, KA-TP-08-2010
      Cite as: arXiv:1003.3251v1 [hep-ph]
      17 minutes ago · "}">
    • Jack Sarfatti The new measurements seem to fit the Standard Model which argues against Higgs being composite. But it's much to early to jump to conclusions for sure. My bet is that Higgs is not composite.
      16 minutes ago · "}">
    • Jack Sarfatti Russell, first define what you mean by induced gravity theory. Give a precise reference. There are several different theories that fall under that general term.
      10 minutes ago · "}">
    • Jack Sarfatti ‎"We stated last year that in 2012 we would either find a new Higgs-like particle or exclude the existence of the Standard Model Higgs. With all the necessary caution, it looks to me that we are at a branching point: the observation of this new particle indicates the path for the future towards a more detailed understanding of what we're seeing in the data."
      7 minutes ago · "}">
    • Jack Sarfatti The weight of evidence is that the Higgs is elementary not composite as in technicolour theory, i.e. Standard Model is looking good. Of course, this could change, but at the moment that's the best estimate.
      4 minutes ago · "}">
      Real free (zero rest mass) particle quantum states excited out of the vacuum have spherical wave modes ~ (1/r)e^if(t +- n.r/c) where n is the unit propagation vector, r is the radial vector from the point source to the point of position measurement. - sign for retarded waves propagating from present to future, - sign propagating from present back to the past - in the Dirac-Stueckleberg-Wheeler-Feynman theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Stueckelberg  ). In contrast, the corresponding spherical mode wave functions for virtual particles inside the vacuum have the form (1/r)e^i(ft +- k.r) where there is no relationship between frequency f and wave vector k. When there is rest mass, the "mass shell" relationship is more complicated for real particles

      Ernst Stueckelberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Ernst Carl Gerlach Stueckelberg (February 1, 1905, Basel - September 4, 1984, Geneva) was a Swiss mathematician and physicist.[1]
      7 minutes ago · Like ·
       i.e. f^2 = (mc^2/h)^2 +c^2 k^2 where c is the vacuum speed of light and m is the rest mass, which for leptons, quarks and W-bosons is determined by the mean number of virtual Higgs particles frozen into the same single particle mode inside the vacuum.

      phase speed of matter wave is f/k, group speed of matter wave is df/dk
  1. Jack became friends with Eli Atanas.
    Jack liked Trinity House.
    Group of Applied Physics, University of Geneva, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland.
    Quantum communication is the art of transferring a quantum state from one place to another. Traditionally, the sender is named Alice and the receiver Bob. The basic motivation is that quantum states code quantum information — called qubits in the case of two-dimensional Hilbert spaces — and that quantum information allows tasks to be performed that could only be achieved far less efficiently, if at all, using classical information. The best known example is quantum key distribution (QKD)1–3. In fact, there is another motivation, at least equally important to most physicists, namely the close connection
    between quantum communication and quantum non-locality 4,5, as illustrated by the fascinating process of quantum teleportation 6.
    The basic procedure is as follows. Alice encodes the state she wants to communicate into a quantum system and sends it to Bob.
    Entanglement is exploited to prepare the desired quantum state at a distance. The quantum state is then teleported from Alice to Bob
    and the entanglement is also teleported — entanglement swapping ... "The correlations P(a,b|x,y) carry a lot of structure. Apart
    from being non-negative and normalized, the local marginals are independent of the
    experiment performed by independent observers: ΣaP(a,b|x,y) = P(b|y), is independent
    of the experiment x performed by Alice."
    It is this last statement that is violated using the distinguishable non-orthogonal
    Alice coherent Glauber sender states.
      • Jack Sarfatti If Alice uses over-complete conjugate Glauber coherent states |z) and |z*) where z = ^1/2exp[i@] and Bob uses a simple 2D qubit with base states |1) & |0) & if we can make the entangled state
      •  ‎|z)|1) + |z*)|0) then the signal strength for Bob to see |1) output is
      • Bob(1) ~ 1 + |(z|z*)|^2
      • the nonlocal entanglement signal message is encoded in the time dependence (modulation) of (z|z*) =/= 0
      • Note that if Alice's sender states are orthogonal there is no entanglement signal. Glauber coherent states are distinguishably non-orthogonal and can be modulated in time to encode a message that is locally decodable without a classical signal key as in the quantum teleportation protocol. This casts doubt on the no-entanglement signal arguments. See David Kaiser's June 2012 Scientific American article on Nick Herbert's FLASH.


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

Jul 04

My Higgs Lecture on Facebook July 3, 2012

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Jack Sarfatti http://sivasakti.net/articles/tantra/shiva-shakti-art37.html

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

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
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
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
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

Jul 03
  1. 1· · Share
      • Jack Sarfatti
        ‎"A group of scientists in California, claim that a quantum state is now observable with the human eye, and that time-travel could be possible. This discovery occurred in the UCSB, by Professor of Physics, Andrew Cleland, and his team. They believe that an object which can be seen in front of you can also exist simultaneously in a parallel Universe, or in a multi-state condition, and some scientists theorize, this can permit time travel.
        Dr. Cleland’s team took a small metal paddle, which is about the width of a human hair, and cooled it in a refrigerator, to reach its quantum mechanical ground state, which is the lowest-energy state permitted by quantum mechanics. The lights were dimmed, and a special bell jar was also used to draw out all of the air, which eliminates vibrations. Then a vibrating device was made, that looks like a tiny drum, and used a very high oscillation speed, of over 6 billion oscillations per second. This experiment signifies that the researchers achieved “quantum control” over the apparatus.
        Therefore, Dr. Cleland’s experiment heralded making something previously invisible to the human eye, visible. “When you observe something in one state, one theory is, that it splits the universe into two parts,” said Dr. Cleland, when trying to explain how there can be Multiple Universes, and we can see only one of them.
        The Multi-Universe Theory is that the entire Universe freezes during observation and that is why we only see one reality."
        8 minutes ago · "}">
      • Jack Sarfatti The above is not clear enough.
        8 minutes ago · "}">
      • Jack Sarfatti
        ‎" Craig Hogan, a particle astrophysicist of Fermilab, says, “Being in the [holographic] universe is like being in a 3D movie.” “On a large-scale, it looks smooth and three-dimensional, but if you get close to the screen, you can tell that it is flat and pixilated.”
        The readings from a sensitive motion-detector in Hanover, Germany which detects ripples in the fabric of space-time called the GEO6000 experiment in 2008 were found to look grainy. This supported the evidence that the Universe is really a “hologram.” Dr. Hogan’s wide-ranging contributions to the field include the co-discovery of ‘dark energy.'"
        6 minutes ago · "}">
      • Jack Sarfatti ‎"Physicist Sean Carroll, from the California Institute of Technology, accepts the scientific theory of the Multi Universe, even though it has not yet been proven. “Unless you can imagine some super-advanced alien civilization that has figured this out, we aren’t affected by the possible existence of other universes,” Dr. Carroll said. However, he does think, “someone could devise a machine that lets one Universe communicate with another.” - indeed that's what happens with "entanglement signal nonlocality" that violates the no-signaling and no-cloning a quantum "theorems" of orthodox quantum theory. Orthodox micro-quantum theory is like Special Relativity. Special Relativity was superseded by General Relativity. There are no real gravity fields in Special Relativity, i.e. no 4th rank Riemann-Christoffel non-zero tensor fields induced by matter field stress-energy tensor fields. Similarly entanglement signal nonlocality is analogous to curvature. Some physicists like Asher Peres profess that entanglement signal nonlocality violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, other physicists dispute that.
        a few seconds ago · "}">
Jul 03

Gauge Gravity and the Higgs-Goldstone Field

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
I combine local gauge gravitation theory with spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry at the moment of inflation that creates our observable universe inside the "causal diamond" of past and future hologram horizon cosmic computers. The Local Inertial Frame (LIFs) tetrad Cartan 1-forms that form Einstein's gravity field are themselves derived from singular Goldstone phases of the post-inflation vacuum order parameters. The massive Higgs particles are complementary to the massless Goldstone particles. Both kinds of particles only occur in virtual form as condensates inside the quantum vacuum in their creation of the Einstein gravitational tetrad fields. In terms the local gauge principle the universal symmetry group of all non-gravity matter fields (leptons, quarks, EM-weak-strong gauge bosons) is the dark energy deS itter group possibly extended to the conformal de Sitter group.
Jul 03

Why the Higgs must be there

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
Mainstream physics rests on several battle-tested laws of nature:
1) The local gauge principle from Einstein's principle of locality. All the boson force fields are induced by restricting the speed of light signals to a finite value.
2) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
3) Emergence of New Order, i.e. P.W. Anderson's "More is different", AKA Higgs-Goldstone mechanism, spontaneous breakdown of ground state symmetry in complex systems, ODLRO (Off-Diagonal-Long-Range-Order) in low lying quantum correlation functions (reduced density matrices - Lars Onsager and Oliver Penrose 1950's) giving the "Mexican Hat Potential" for the coherent condensate ground state local order parameters (GIANT quantum wave functions).
Jul 03

Update on Star Ship Research July 2, 2012

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

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 sizeage, 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.


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:

  • The relative strengths of gravity and the other fundamental forces. If gravity were too strong, then stars wouldn't live long enough for the likes of us to evolve. (No very awful consequences seem to ensue if gravity is too weak; so perhaps this one isn't really so very finely tuned.)
  • The ratio of the binding energy of a helium nucleus to the rest mass of its constituents. This is determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force, and it determines the amount of energy released by nuclear fusion of hydrogen to form helium. If this were much smaller than it is, stars wouldn't burn and elements heavier than hydrogen wouldn't form. If it were much greater, there'd be no hydrogen left and (for instance) water couldn't form.
  • The density of the universe, relative to the "critical" density at which it just barely escapes a Big Crunch. Supposedly, if this wasn't incredibly close to 1 when the universe was very young, it would now have to be either very close to 0 or terribly large, and neither option produces a universe hospitable to life.
  • The cosmological constant. This seems to be very small but not 0; if it weren't very small, then the early universe would have expanded too fast for the formation of galaxies.
  • The nonuniformity of the distribution of matter in the universe. If this were much smoother, galaxies and stars and the like wouldn't form; if it were much rougher, the universe would be all black holes and very tightly grouped clusters of stars.
  • The number of macroscopic dimensions. Too few dimensions and connecting up brains is too hard; too many and there are no stable orbits.

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 constantSteven 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


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.