Text Size


Jun 18

Erwin Schrodinger's quote "If all this damned quantum jumping were really here to stay, I should be sorry I ever got involved with quantum theory."

Hello Michele

I am not actively working on that complicated damned PBR problem right now. I know how Schrodinger felt. ;-)

I am trying to get entanglement signaling to work in spite of the no-cloning and other no-go theorems saying it’s not possible.

I am passing your paper on to Fred Alan Wolf who just wrote a paper on your topic and to others who can make informed comments. :-)

In general terms, I prefer Bohm’s objective interpretation of the quantum-bit field (particle quantum potential) interacting with real classical fermion quarks and leptons on definite (possibly fractal) world lines and classical boson gauge field (connections in fiber space) guided by the super-quantum potential as in BohmHiley’s book The Undivided Universe. I never agreed with the epistemological view in which the Born probability rule is taken as Holy Writ. I think the Born probability rule is like the fifth axiom of Euclid’s geometry and that there are general quantum theories that violate the Born probability rule and permit entanglement signal nonlocality.

Begin forwarded message:
From: michele.caponigro
Subject: quantum.epistemology
Date: June 18, 2012 10:24:56 AM PDT
To: adastra1@me.com
Dear Dr. J. Sarfatti,
Please find enclosed as pdf file an article (submitted, under review sorry
for some errors):"Epistemic vs Ontic Classification of quantum entangled
Thank You for possible feedback,
michele caponigro
(Bergamo univ.)
PS In the meantime, also I wish to know your comment about recent article
(May 2012 published on Nature, see also e-print
http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328) on the realism of quantum states.
According the authors quantum states are objective and not
epistemic. This theorem called PBR, says also, that if the state are not
objective we must conclude that all the quantum states (entangled or not)
are correlated. This second interesting implication is similar to the
conclusion of our present paper "Epistemic vs Ontic Classification of
quantum entangled states?"
michele caponigro PhD
web page: www.mcaponigro.info
Ph.D. University of Bergamo (A. Epistemology of Complexity)
Ph. D. (Physics) University of Camerino
 M.A. (Physics) University of Turin
------Research Interests--------------------
Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.
Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics.

Jun 16

Elon Musk's Caltech Commencement Address

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jonathan Post < jvospost3@gmail.com>
Subject: "Magicians of the 21st Century" -- Elon Musk's Caltech Commencement Address
Date: June 16, 2012 9:45:47 AM PDT

2012 Commencement Address
"Magicians of the 21st Century"

Elon Musk's Caltech Commencement Address

Friday, June 15, 2012
Caltech Campus, Pasadena, CA
10:00 a.m.

A complete video recording of the Caltech Commencement can be viewed
at http://www.ustream.tv/caltech

* * * *

ELON MUSK: I'd like to thank you for leaving 'crazy person' out of
your introduction. [Laughter].

I was trying to think what's the most useful thing that I can say to
be useful to you in the future. And I thought, perhaps tell the story
of how I sort of came to be here. How did these things happen? Maybe
there are lessons there. I often find myself wondering, how did this

When I was young, I didn't really know what I was going to do when I
got older. People kept asking me. Eventually, I thought the idea of
inventing things would be really cool. The reason I thought that was
because I read a quote from Arthur C Clark, 'A sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable from magic.' That's really true. If
you go back say, 300 years, the things we take for granted today,
you'd be burned at stake for. Being able to fly. That's crazy. Being
able to see over long distance, being able to communicate, the
Internet as a group mind of sorts, and having access to all the word's
information instantly from anywhere on the earth. This really would be
considered magic in times past.

In fact, I think it goes beyond that, there's many things we take for
granted today that weren't even imagined in times past, so it goes
beyond that. So I thought, If I can do some of those things -- if I
can advance technology, that is like magic and that would be really

I always had an existential crisis, trying to figure out 'what does it
all mean?' I came to the conclusion that if we can advance the
knowledge of the world, if we can expand the scope and scale of
consciousness, then, we're better able to ask the right questions and
become more enlightened. That's the only way to move forward.

So, I studied physics and business, because in order to do these
things you need to know how the universe works and how the economy
works and you also need to be able to bring people together to create
something. It's very difficult to create something as individuals if
it's a significant technology.

So, I came out to California to figure out how to improve the density
of electric vehicles, if there's an advanced capacitor, to serve as an
alternative to batteries. That was in 1995. That's when the Internet
started to happen. I thought I could either pursue this technology,
where success may not be one of the possible outcomes, which is always
tricky, or participate in the Internet and be part of it. So, I
decided to drop out. Fortunately, we're past graduation, so, cannot be
accused of recommending that to you. [Laughter]. I did some Internet
stuff, [Laughter] you know. I've done a few things here and there. One
of which is PayPal.

Maybe it's helpful to say, one of the things important in the creation
of PayPal was how it started. Initially, the goal with PayPal was
create a conglomeration for financial services, so all financial
services could be seamlessly integrated to work smoothly. And we had a
little feature, e-mail payments. Whenever we'd show the system off,
we'd show the hard part, the conglomeration of financial services,
which is difficult to put together. Nobody was interested. Then we
showed people e-mail payments, which was easy to put together, and
everyone was interested. So, it's important to take feedback from your
environment. You want to be as closed-loop as possible.

So, we focused on e-mail payments and tried to make that work. That's
when really good things started to take off. But, if we hadn't
responded to what people said, we probably would not have been
successful. So, it's important to look for things like that and focus
on that, and correct your prior assumptions.

Going from PayPal, I thought well, what are some of the other problems
that are likely to most affect the future of humanity? Not from the
perspective, 'what's the best way to make money,' which is okay, but,
it was really 'what do I think is going to most affect the future of
humanity.' The biggest terrestrial problem is sustainable energy.
Production and consumption of energy in a sustainable manner. If we
don't solve that in this century, we're in deep trouble. And the other
thing I thought might affect humanity is the idea of making life

The latter is the basis for SpaceX and the former is the basis for
Tesla and SolarCity. When I started SpaceX, initially, I thought that
well, there's no way one could start a rocket company. I wasn't that
crazy. But, then, I thought, well, what is a way to increase NASA's
budget? That was actually my initial goal. If we could do a low cost
mission to Mars, Oasis, which would land with seeds in dehydrated
nutrient gel, then hydrate them upon landing. We'd have a great photo
of green plants with a red background [Laughter]. The public tends to
respond to precedence and superlatives. This would be the first life
on Mars and the furthest life had ever traveled.

That would get people excited and increase NASA's budget. But the
financial outcome would be zero. Anything better would on the upside.
So, I went to Russia three times to look at buying a refurbished
ICBM... [Laughter] ...because that was the best deal. [Laughter] And I
can tell you it was very weird going late 2001-2002 to Russia and
saying 'I want to buy two of your biggest rockets, but you can keep
the nukes.' [Laughter] The nukes are a lot more. That was 10 years

They thought I was crazy, but, I did have money. [Laughter] So, that
was okay. [Laughter] After making several trips to Russia, I came to
the conclusion that, my initial impression was wrong about not enough
will to explore and expand beyond earth and have a Mars base. That was
wrong. There's plenty of will, particularly in the United States.
Because United States is the nation of explorers, people came here
from other parts of the world. The United States is a distillation of
the spirit of human exploration. If people think it's impossible and
it's going to break the budget, they're not going to do it.

So, after my third trip, I said, okay, what we need to do already is
try to solve the space transport problem and started SpaceX. This was
against the advice of pretty much everyone I talked to. [Laughter].
One friend made me watch videos of rockets blowing up. [Laughter] He
wasn't far wrong. It was tough going there in the beginning. I never
built anything physical. I never had a company that built something
physical. So, I had to bring together the right team of people. We did
all that, then, failed three times. It was tough, tough going.

Think about a rocket, the passing grade is 100%. And you don't get to
test the real environment that the rocket is going to be in. So, I
think the best analogy for rocket engineers, if you want to create
complicated software, you can't run as an integrate whole, or run on
the computer it's intended to run on, but, first time you run it, it
has to run with no bugs. That's the essence of it. So, we missed the
mark there.

The first launch, I was picking up bits of rocket at the launch site.
And we learned with each successive flight. And were able to,
eventually in 2008, reach orbit. Also that was with the last bit of
money we had. Thank goodness that happened. Fourth time is the charm?

So, we got the Falcon 1 to orbit. Then, began to scale it up to Falcon
9, with an order of magnitude more thrust, around a million pounds of
thrust. We managed to get that to orbit, then developed the Dragon
spacecraft, which recently docked to the space station and returned to

[Applause] That was a white knuckle event. [Laughter]. It was a huge
relief. I still can't believe it actually happened. Yet, there's more
to happen for humanity to become a multi-planet species. It's vitally
important. And I hope that some you have will participate in that at
SpaceX or other companies. It's really one of the most important
things for the preservation and extension of consciousness. It's worth
noting that Earth has been around for 4 billion years, but
civilization in terms of having writing is only about 10,000 years,
and that's being generous.

So, it's really somewhat of a tenuous existence that civilization and
consciousness has been on earth. I'm actually fairly optimistic about
the future earth. I don't want to give the wrong impression like we're
all about to die. [Laughter] I think things will be okay for a long
time on earth. Not for sure, but, most likely. But even if it's 99%
likely, a 1% chance is still worth the effort to back up the
biosphere, and achieved planetary redundancy. [Laughter]. And I think
it's really quite important.

And in order to do that, there's great things that is need to occur.
Create a rapidly reusable transport system to Mars. It's something
right on the borderline of impossible. But, that's the sort of the
thing that we're going to try to achieve with SpaceX.

And then, on the Tesla front, the goal was to show what electric cars
can do. We had to change people's perceptions. They used to think
electric cars were slow and ugly, with low range, like a golf cart.
So, we created Tesla Roadster, a vehicle to show that it's fast,
attractive and long range. Even though you can show something on
paper, and the calculations are clear, until you have physical object,
it doesn't really sink in.

If you're going to create a company, you need to create a working
prototype. Everything works great on PowerPoint. You can make anything
work on PowerPoint. If you have a demonstration model, even in
primitive form, that's much more effective in convincing people. So we
made the Roadster, and now we're coming out with model S, a 4-door
sedan. Some people said, 'sure you can make an expensive small volume
car, but can you make a real car?' Okay, fine, we're going to make
that, too. [Laughter] So, that's coming out.

And so that's where things are and hopefully, there are lessons to be
drawn there.

I think the overreaching point I want to make is you guys are the
magicians of the 20th century, don't let anything hold you back.
Imagination is the limit. Go out there and create some magic.

Thank you.



DISCLAIMER: This transcript is not guaranteed nor intended to be
strictly verbatim. This is not a certified document and is not
acceptable for use in any legal matter. This is a rough-edited

My idea has now taken off and is a meme spreading across cyberspace hopefully to PANDEMIC proportions like a constructive Stuxnet & Flame among the younger physicists who are not as brainwashed as the older ones. Of course, maybe I’m wrong, but maybe I’m not. Time will tell. ;-)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Quantum Computing and Quantum Information Subject: New comment on "I've posted a thought experiment for superluminal communication using delayed-choice entanglement--would like to get feedback on why it would or would not work."
Date: June 10, 2012 2:40:01 PM PDT
To: Jack Sarfatti Reply-To: LinkedIn Messages < 73984987_9c3c6e35-419f-42cc-b59d-cea9d6eb7a0c@reply.linkedin.com>
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Quantum Computing and Quantum Information
Discussion: I've posted a thought experiment for superluminal communication using delayed-choice entanglement--would like to get feedback on why it would or would not work.
Hi Marco,
yes, that helps--I should've finished the last step :) I get:
P(|B>) = Tr{ |B> |B> + |B> =
||^2 + ||^2 + 2 Re { }
with normalization:
P(|B>) = 1/2 ( 1 + ^2 + 2 Re{ } )
so, yes if ||^2 > 0 then the Alice-controlled modulation term
2 Re { } has an effect on P(|B>).
So, according to this derivation, we would require B and B' to be Glauber states as well to give us the non-orthogonality that allows the modulation to have an effect.
Also--there is something funny with normalization, isn't there? if = 1
and = 1, then P(|B>) = 1/2( 1+1+2) = 2 ?!? which doesn't make sense but I think this is what Jack was talking about earlier that these states break the normal Born probability rule.
Do you think that Glauber states require some sort of re-normalization or are we implicitly violating some assumption used by the mathematical formalism or is there just an error in the math?
Posted by Keith Kenemer
Like this comment » Comment » Stop Following Discussion »
Now you can comment by replying to this email.
LinkedIn values your privacy. At no time has LinkedIn made your email address available to any other LinkedIn user without your permission. ©2012, LinkedIn Corporation.
Quantum Computing and Quantum Information
Discussion | Poll
Now there's another great way to start a conversation with your group!
Click on "Poll" to get started.
Your comment has been posted successfully.
Follow Keith
I've posted a thought experiment for superluminal communication using delayed-choice entanglement--would like to get feedback on why it would or would not work.
I came up with this idea a couple of years ago when I was reading about quantum computing and have been thinking about it ever since. I don't necessarily see what principle in quantum mechanics or relativity it would violate.
27 days ago
Show previous comments
Follow Henning
Henning Dekant • @Marco, if you follow Jack's advice and ask Joy Christian, I fear you still won't be able to make much sense of it. Given what went down recently at Scott Aaronson's blog: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=993
13 days ago • Like
Jack Sarfatti • I never said I agreed with Joy Christian on Bell's theorem. In fact I don't. Henning took that out of context I also suggested Roger Penrose and David Deutsch.
13 days ago
Follow Henning
Henning Dekant • @Jack, didn't mean to imply that you endorsed Joy's ideas about the Bell theorem. Just seems to me, that Joy shouldn't be the first go-to person if you want somebody who can get a complicated point across in the clearest possible way. On your list David Deutsch would be my first choice.
13 days ago • Like
Marco Barbieri • @Henning: Roger Penrose'd be my first call, but David Deutsch would be a top class choice (presents excluded). However, chances that I get to talk to them are pretty much the same that I can arrange a cricket match with Her Majesty...
13 days ago • Like
Follow Henning
Henning Dekant • @Marco, well I am sure there'd be no hurt in asking Joy if he wants to join you for some cricket if Her Majesty is that hard to come by :-)
13 days ago • Like
Follow Keith
Keith Kenemer • I've tried to work out Jack's idea and get something a little different but I think it may still have the normalization anomaly and a similar Alice modulation effect (let me know of any errors):
X(x)Y indicates tensor product of matrix/vectors X and Y
XY indicates normal matrix multiplcation of matrix/vectors X and Y
X* indicates Hermitian conjugate of matrix/vector X
|X> Dirac notation for ket/state/vector X
Initial state:
|Alice,Bob> = |A>(x)|B> + |A'>(x)|B'>
Where A,A' are two qubits corresponding to Glauber(non-othogonal) states owned by Alice and B, B' are normal (orthogonal) eigenstates of another qubit owned by Bob. Note: I'm not sure you could actually create a state like this. If Bob's qubit collapses to B, Alice's state becomes A, otherwise if Bob's qubit collapses to B' then Alice's state becomes A'. I assume the normalized version would have a 1/sqrt(2) factor also. Assuming this makes sense...
Using properties:
(|X>+|Y>)* = |X>* + |Y>*
(|X>(x)|Y>)* = |X>* (x) |Y>* [Note: NOT the same as matrix identity (XY)* = Y* X ]
we get:
* = ( |A>(x)|B> )* + ( |A'>(x)|B'> )*
= The Alice/Bob system would have the density matrix:
rho(AliceBob) = |Alice,Bob> ( |A>(x)|B> ) ( (x)|B> ) ( + ( |A'>(x)|B'> ) ( (x)|B'> ) ( Using property:
(|W>(x)|X>) ( |Y>(x)|Z> ) = WX(x)YZ
we get:
rho(AliceBob) = ( |A> + ( |A'> To get the reduced density matrix for Bob, we need the partial trace over A, A'.
Using a property of the partial trace:
Trace(A) { |a1> |b1> rho(B,B')= rho(Bob) = |B>|B>|B'>|B'> since = 1 and =1 and =/= 0 (for Glauber states) we have:
rho(Bob) = |B>|B>|B'> which should have a normalization factor of 1/2. It looks like there may be a normalization anomaly due to the terms that are present. I think this is interesting but I'm not sure I understand the Glauber states well enough to know if this makes sense physically and if I've interpreted the idea correctly.
4 days ago • Like
Marco Barbieri • Hi Keith,
this is Bob's reduced state. It does make sense, as for A=A', you find a pure superposition of |B> and |B'>, if =0, the state is a incoherent mixture of |B> and |B'>.
In order to get the probability of measuring |B>, you need to calculate Tr(rho|B>, which is 1+||^2+Re(). If =0, this probability is simply 1/2. If you allow for ||^2>0, you do get a modulation, but the measurement will be imperfect: you'll have either some errors or some inconclusive results.
Hope this might help.
4 days ago • Like
Follow Keith
Keith Kenemer • Hi Marco,
yes, that helps--I should've finished the last step :) I get:
P(|B>) = Tr{ |B> |B> + |B> =
||^2 + ||^2 + 2 Re { }
with normalization:
P(|B>) = 1/2 ( 1 + ^2 + 2 Re{ } )
so, yes if ||^2 > 0 then the Alice-controlled modulation term
2 Re { } has an effect on P(|B>).
So, according to this derivation, we would require B and B' to be Glauber states as well to give us the non-orthogonality that allows the modulation to have an effect.
Also--there is something funny with normalization, isn't there? if = 1
and = 1, then P(|B>) = 1/2( 1+1+2) = 2 ?!? which doesn't make sense but I think this is what Jack was talking about earlier that these states break the normal Born probability rule.
Do you think that Glauber states require some sort of re-normalization or are we implicitly violating some assumption used by the mathematical formalism or is there just an error in the math?
26 minutes ago • Unlike
Jack Sarfatti • Yes, Keith gets my point. Marco the signal is sent by Alice the sender changing the overlap what changes the response seen by Bob. Now there are several ways of doing that. I'm sure experimentalists will come up with actual designs once they see the theoretical idea - the new possibility. First one has to know that entanglement signaling is a theoretical possibility within known physics. Right now everyone is brainwashed it is not. See, for example, David Kaiser's article in June 2012 Scientific American on the right way to get it wrong. On violation of Born probability see Antony Valentini's many papers on it that are online.
The normalization anomaly simply means that the Born probability interpretation breaks down. There is also a lot of noise about something called the PBR theorem that seems to say that in some way the Born probability interpretation is inconsistent even in orthodox quantum theory, but I have not studied it yet and do not understand it.
Matthew Pusey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_PuseyThis preliminary result has been referred to as Pusey's theorem or thePBR theorem, and has been cited by theoretical physicist Antony Valentini as "the most ...
Quantum Times Article on the PBR Theorem | Matt Leifer
by Matthew Leifer - in 1,016 Google+ circles - More by Matthew Leifer
Feb 26, 2012 – I recently wrote an article (pdf) for The Quantum Times (Newsletter of the APS Topical Group on Quantum Information) about the PBR theorem.
PBR Theorem | Taking up Spacetime
takingupspacetime.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/pbr-theorem/Nov 21, 2011 – A few days ago, there appeared an interesting result by Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph concerning the foundations of quantum mechanics. A nice ...
Quantum Measurement (4): PBR Theorem (again) | Taking up ...
takingupspacetime.wordpress.com/.../quantum-measurement-4-pbr-t...Nov 22, 2011 – Quantum Measurement (4): PBR Theorem (again). Sorry to be repetitive, but I was just preparing this entry as JohnManchak uploaded the ...
Alternative Experimental Protocol for a PBR-Like Result
arxiv.org › quant-phby DJ Miller - 2012 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
Feb 29, 2012 – Abstract: Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (PBR) have recently proven an important new theorem in the foundations of quantum mechanics.
www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PBRCOM.docFile Format: Microsoft Word - Quick View
Assessing the significance of the theorem of Pusey. Barrett ... The logical structure of the PBR argument, as explained by M. Leifer [2], rests upon a formula of the ...
About PBR theorem - Google+
https://plus.google.com/104569184257973656413Feb 1, 2012 – About PBR theorem - discussions aroundarXiv:1201.6554v1.
Newsletter of the Topical Group on Quantum Information American ...
www.aps.org/units/gqi/newsletters/upload/vol6num4.pdfby N Argaman
Apr 16, 2012 – explore the whole space of possible interpretations, and to rule out possibilities via rigorous theorems, such as the. PBR theorem, rather than ...
Quantum mechanics: Get real : Nature Physics : Nature Publishing ...
www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys2325.htmlby S Aaronson - 2012
May 6, 2012 – At one extreme, Antony Valentini told Nature News that he thought the word ' seismic' seemed apt, and called the PBR theorem the most ...
1. - Why I Am Not a Psi-ontologist - PIRSA - Perimeter ...
pirsa.org/12050021May 8, 2012 – This talk will address the question of whether the PBR theorem ... I will argue that the PBR theorem provides additional clues for "what has to ...                    

indian porn sexnxxx.cc xvideos Amateur Porn video porno amatoriali filmeporno.top lupoporno film porno gratuit porno mature xnxx film porno gratuit
bisexuel gay porno gay porno देसी सेक्स एचडी पॉर्न ऊपर ऊपर से चुदाई Големи цици