Jack Sarfatti "Recently (Anderson 1995; Bonnor 1996) there has been a revival of interest in the question as to whether the cosmological expansion also proceeds at smaller scales. There is a tendency to reject such an extrapolation by confusing it with the intrinsically unobservable
”expansion” (let us refer to this as ”pseudo-expansion”) described above.
By contrast, the metric of Friedman–Robertson–Walker (FRW) in general relativity is intrinsically dynamic with the increase (decrease) of proper distances correlated with red–shift (blue–shift). It does so on any scale provided the light travel time is much longer than the wave period. Thus, the cosmological metric alone does not dictate a scale for expansion and in principle, it could be present at the smallest practical scale as real – as opposed to pseudo–expansion, and observable in principle.

However, it is reasonable to pose the question as to whether there is a cut–off at which systems below this scale do not partake of the expansion. It would appear that one would be hard put to justify a particular scale for the onset of expansion. Thus, in this debate, we are in agreement with Anderson (1995) that it is most reasonable to assume that the expansion does indeed proceed at all scales. However, there is a certain ironical quality attached to the debate in the sense that even if the expansion does actually occur at all scales, we will show that the effects of the cosmological expansion on smaller spatial and temporal scales would be undetectable in general in the foreseeable future and hence one could just as comfortably hold the view that the expansion occurs strictly on the cosmological scale."

It's not clear yet if this is fatal for Jim's theory. It may not be if Jim is simply invoking an advanced Wheeler-Feynman radiative reaction effect. In spin 1 electromagnetism the Mach effect back from the future ~ "jerk" d^3x(test particle)/dt^3, however Jim claims that for spin 2 gravity this same retro-causal effect ~ d^2x(test particle)/dt^2

Electromagnetic radiative reaction is dual to local zero point vacuum energy, i.e. random ZPF virtual photons responsible for spontaneous emission. Therefore, MET if it worked would be a ZERO POINT spin 2 graviton reaction-less engine analogous to the random spin 1 virtual photons in Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar theory are a past effect whose future cause are the photon absorbers with our future event horizon as the final absorber of last resort. Jim's device uses spin 2 virtual gravitons not spin 1 virtual photons, but the idea is the same.

That is, if I understand his claim correctly Jim claims a modified off-geodesic Newton 2nd law of motion

F = (D/ds)[(Mach Cosmology Effect)P]

D/ds is the covariant derivative with respect to proper time of the test particle

F is the non-gravity 4-force on the test particle

P is the 4-momentum of the test particle

D/ds = d/ds + Inertial pseudo forces including Newton's gravity "force without force" (Levi Civita terms).

The future horizon, if it's a total absorber, gives

(Mach Cosmology Effect) ~ 1 on the average.

OK Jim's idea of the MET thruster is very simple if you accept the above

If there is a dynamic Machian oscillation then even when F = 0 and even in a local inertial frame where the pseudo forces vanish by the Einstein equivalence principle

0 = Pd(Mach Coefficient)/ds + (Mach Coefficient)dP/ds

However, the fly in Jim's ointment is

"we will show that the effects of the cosmological expansion on smaller spatial and temporal scales would be undetectable in general in the foreseeable future and hence one could just as comfortably hold the view that the expansion occurs strictly on the cosmological scale"

On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:30 PM, JACK SARFATTI <instbio@gmail.com> wrote:

This paper is essential for Jim's MET

the issue is how large scale cosmic structure influences the small-scale of Jim's machine

On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:45 PM, David Mathes wrote:

29. arXiv:astro-ph/9803097 [pdf, ps, other]
The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems
F. I. Cooperstock, V. Faraoni, D. N. Vollick (University of Victoria)
Comments: To appear in the Astrophysical Journal, Latex
Journal-ref: Astrophys.J. 503 (1998) 61
Subjects: Astrophysics (astro-ph); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)

• The Quantum Mechanics of Time Travel http://t.co/zNuT1Ru94e

  

  The Quantum Mechanics of Time Travel

  lnkd.in

  Dr. Seth Lloyd, an MIT professor and self-described "quantum mechanic," describes the quantum mechanics behind time travel during a guest lecture at the Inst...

• 

  Jack Sarfatti Nice intuitive explanation of quantum teleportation in terms of Cramer's transaction explanation of entanglement - due to Charlie Bennett. Post-selected Aharonov weak measurement CTC not same as David Deutsch's. Indeed time traveler to past loses all memory in Deutsch's scheme, though not in Seth Lloyd's. Aephraim Sternberg actually did a real experiment proving that Gerard 't Hooft's claim about Grandfather Paradox is wrong. Some argue that it's only a simulation not the real thing. Hmmnn I have heard that one before.

  13 hours ago · Like

On Jun 27, 2013, at 12:04 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

there are results in A that may be more relevant because it deals with bound states.
None of the S-Matrix papers deal with mundane electrical power engineering
i.e. quasi-static non-radiative near fields of say capacitors, solenoids, electric motors and dynamos, power lines with small radiative leaking.
Of course classical EM provides a practical theory for electrical engineers, but our problem is to see how this very practical world fits in with QED S-Matrix. We are not interested here in scattering input real particles into output real particles. We are interested rather in the quantum description of the near EM fields.

Also, ordinary S-Matrix never deals with coherent Glauber states only with Fock states.

Of course a classical current Ju makes Glauber coherent states - but for near fields the photons are virtual not real.

The Gorkov method for BCS superconductor is more to the point - there the Glauber coherent states of Cooper pairs is an emergent non-perturbative effect from summing I think and infinity of tree Feynman diagrams? So that is one way to think of spontaneous breakdown of symmetry in many particle systems.

Note that the key LNIF metric representations for Schwarzschild, de Sitter, Kerr are all Glauber coherent states of virtual gravitons.

Ordinary space crystal lattice ground states are Glauber coherent states of virtual phonons f = 0 & ki ~ n/ai, ai lattice spacings of unit cell.

Ferromagnetic ground states are Glauber coherent states of virtual spin wave quanta

In contrast, superconductor ground states are Glauber coherent states of real Cooper pairs?

Superfluid helium 4 ground state is a Glauber coherent state of virtual phonons as well f = 0 with a continuum of ki.

Except for the Cooper pairs - the we have above ground states whose Landau-Ginzburg order parameters are Glauber coherent states of the massless Goldstone boson in virtual off-mass-shell form.

In the post-inflation vacuum we also have Glauber coherent states of virtual massive Higgs bosons.

Actually to be more precise the order parameter is in simplest case e.g. center of mass of Cooper pair

<0|Psi|0> = R(x)e^iS(x)

Psi is a second quantized annihilation operator in ordinary spacetime

|0> is the broken symmetry ground state

x = ordinary 3D + 1 event

R(x) is a condensate of massive Higgs bosons

S(x) the coherent state is a condensate of massless Goldstone particles.

|R(x)e^IS(x)> is the Glauber coherent state


On Jun 26, 2013, at 11:26 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

I had it at one time but can't seem to find it. But as I recall it is superseded by the two that I sent you, which give a more comprehensive and general treatment.

R

> From: adastra1@me.com
> Subject: Davies paper A
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:20:36 -0700
> To: rekastner@hotmail.com
> > Do u have it? Apparently it's a prequel to the two you sent.

On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:33 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:

I agree with Brian. And as far as M-theory is concerned, it is offered as the complete theory of everything, in my view to avoid the problem of consciousness.

I have yet to watch all the Stanford Susskind videos on string and M-theory to see if there is any "there" there?

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Josephson [mailto:bdj10@cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:33 PM
To: Ruth Kastner

Subject: Re: Reality of Possibility


On 25 Jun 2013, at 15:45, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Brian, I will look at this, but first let me clarify something.

By 'complete' in the book, what I'm really getting at is that the theory doesn't need either

(1) the addition of beables a la Bohm

Bohm's idea which is very natural actually starts with Bohr, but goes beyond it.

In my own formulation for the masses:

The EM 2-form F = dA is the REAL IT beable. It has a BIT super-Q as described by Basil Hiley. All pointer reading of all experiment on all matter fields in the final analysis ends up with F. I think Geoffrey Chew first emphasized this at the Berkeley meetings described by David Kaiser in "How the Hippies Saved Physics."

The classical world corresponds to Q negligible - with the exception of spontaneous broken ground state symmetries giving emergent  over-complete distinguishably non-orthogonal Glauber coherent states of both real and virtual quanta. That's a lot of exceptions including crystals (both space and time), superfluids, lasers, ferromagnets, ferroelectrics, nematics, superconductors, and finally life and consciousness itself. See P.W. Anderson's "More is different."

(2) ad hoc modifications such as 'spontaneous collapse' theories


The point has to be made though that unless there is a theory of everything QM cannot be considered complete.  QM is no use unless it has a Hamiltonian to work with, and all we have at present is approximations that work only in a limited domain, or theories such as M-theory that are a kind of 'vapourware', having no existence in the form of written text.  This is independent of any considerations relating to life.


Brian

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge Director, Mind-Matter Unification Project
WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
Tel. +44(0)1223 337260/337254

On Jun 26, 2013, at 1:32 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

On Jun 26, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:


 Jack, it's really not correct to say that Bohmian beables are 'obviously required'.

JS: I think it is correct. It's a matter of opinion.

RK:  I give an alternative account in my book
that allows for the emergence of the 'classical macroscopic world'.

JS: I think that you have replaced one mystery with another. This word "possibility" is "real". I see no essential physical difference between how you use "possibility" and how Bohmians use "Q". Also the Bohmian beable is Wheeler's IT and Bohm's Q is Wheeler's BIT in

IT FROM BIT.

RK:Others give different interpretations that I don't agree
with for various reason (e.g. MWI because it doesn't provide a good physical reason for Born Rule, and splitting of worlds via decoherence is ultimately observer-dependent), but those don't rely on beables either.
JS: Valentini has explained the origin of the Born rule as a contingency in terms of the statistical mechanics of beables. Now Valentini may have erred in his recent stability claims. But even if we fall back on what he calls de Broglie dynamics instead of Bohm dynamics we still have the Born rule as a contingency and not an absolute truth.
 
RK:You may prefer the Bohmian account, but that's certainly not a basis for saying that it's 'obviously required'.
JS: Show me how you get the basic beable which is Maxwell-Cartan 2-form F for the electromagnetic field.

F = dA

dF = 0

d*F = *J

d*J = 0

1. • Status
   • Photo
   • Place
   • Life Event

   What's on your mind?
2. 

   Jack Sarfatti shared a link.

   a few seconds ago near San Francisco

   It seems to me that Bohmian beables are obviously required.
   1) fact is that we live in a classical macroscopic world where the fundamental observable is Maxwell's local classical electromagnetic field tensor F
   obeying in Cartan form notation
   F = dA
   dF = 0
   d*F = *J
   * = Hodge dual
   All our information about other fermion matter fields comes indirectly via F and also A if you include the Bohm-Aharonov quantum effect.
   Therefore, the basic classical observable is the F electromagnetic field.
   As Basil Hiley explains this beable F is an infinite-dimensional field configuration on a spacelike or lightlike surface in which each spacetime event is a "dimension". It has a super Q and photons are not localized like massive fermions are. If, instead of the continuum, we use a voxelated 3D + 1 world crystal lattice (Kleinert) then the hologram principle tells us that the lattice spacing is not the Planck length Lp, but rather it is L where
   L^3 = Lp^2A^1/2
   A = area - entropy of the horizon screen Seth pixelated computer
   The number of BITs in J. A. Wheeler's
   IT FROM BIT
   is N = A/4Lp^2 = A^3/2/L^3 ~ 10^52/10^-70 ~ 10^122 in our actual causal diamond pictured here
   Showing Apast and A future with 3D volumes of both retarded history and advanced destiny influence on the 3D lightlike slices. I think Susskind's student Raphael Buosso at UC Berkeley has worked this all out mathematically though perhaps not with the advanced Wheeler-Feynman -Cramer-Aharonov effect?
   Note the change in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which according to Susskind et-al is
   &x ~ h/&p + Lp^2&p/h
   However, I think it may really be
   &x ~ h/&p + L^2&p/h
   Note that
   Lp = 10^-35 meters
   A^1/2 = 10^26 meters
   L^3 ~ 10^-7010^26 = 10^-44 meters^3
   L ~ 10^-15 meter ~ 1 fermi ~ 1 Gev
   for the voxel unit cell of the hologram image world crystal lattice
   Hawking's black body radiation is a horizon surface effect
   T ~ A^-1/2
   I predict a second high temperature horizon thickness Hawking radiation of temperature
   T' ~ (LcA^1/2)^-1/2
   (LcA^1/2) is the proper length quantum thickness of the Horizon as a "stretched membrane" (Kip Thorne)
   Therefore, the stretched membrane is a very efficient Carnot limited heat engine with
   (Work outpu/Heat input ) < 1 - (Lc/A^1'2)^1/2 ---> 0 as A^1/2 ---> Lp (Planck black hole)
   Lc is the formal UV cutoff
   Now there may be a spectrum of such cutoff's. Sinziana Paduroiu's astrophysicist colleagues in Paris suggest that Susskind's cut off of Lp corresponds to Hawking gravity wave black body radiation.
   Note that for precision cosmology (LpA^1/2)^1/2 ~ (10^-3510^26)^1/2 ~ (10^-9)^1/2 ~ 10^-3 meters ~ 10^11 Hz corresponding to the observed dark energy density. However, it is easily shown that this must come from our future horizon as a retro-causal back-from-the-future "destiny" (Aharonov) effect.
   Search Results
   Back From the Future | DiscoverMagazine.com
   discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future
   Aug 26, 2010 – A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has ...
   On Jun 26, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
   Thanks Jack, I'll look at these. But to the extent that you have to adduce a Bohmian picture to support your claim, I can't buy it, because I don't think the 'beable' approach is correct. I don't agree that there are 'beables'. RK

   

   Back From the Future | DiscoverMagazine.com

   discovermagazine.com

   A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?

On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Thanks Basil for this clarification. It is true that Bohm's original motivation was a realist (as opposed to instrumentalist, Bohrian interpretation). I should have been more clear about that. But it rather quickly became a path to resolving the measurement problem -- if not for its original author(s), certainly for those who have championed it since then.
Also, regarding the quote ["What I felt to be particularly unsatisfactory was the fact that the quantum theory had no place in it for an adequate notion of an independent actuality-i.e. of an actual movement or activity by which one physical state could pass over into another".] This is a key component of the measurement problem.  Also, let me take the opportunity to note that it is not necessary to  identify a 'realist' view of qm with the existence of  'hidden variables'.  I have been proposing a realist view that does not involve hidden variables -- but it does involve an expansion of what we normally like to think of as 'real'. The usual tacit assumption is that
'real' = 'existing within spacetime'  (and that of course requires 'hidden variables' that tell us 'where' the entity lives in spacetime, or at least identifies some property compatible with spacetime existence)" (end-quote)

Me: We all seem to agree that the idea that "real" must be "local in spacetime" is false. Q is real, but it is generally not a local BIT field in 3D + 1 spacetime when there is entanglement. Oddly enough the macro-quantum coherent signal Q in spontaneous breakdown of ground state symmetry is local in 3D+1 but it is generally coupled to nonlocal micro-quantum "noise."

Ruth "In contrast, I think PTI provides us with a realist concept of an independent actuality -- a "movement or activity by which one physical state could pass over into another". "

Me: So does Bohm's ontological interpretation.

Ruth: "But that 'actuality' is rooted in potentiality, which is a natural view given the mathematical properties of quantum objects."

Me: Seems to me you are playing with nouns replacing one vague metaphysical notion with another. What is "potentiality"? Mathematically it's Bohm's Q - perhaps extended to Yakir Aharonov's weak measurements with advanced Wheeler-Feynman back from the future post selection in a post quantum theory with Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality". Some think that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, since it only obtains in open systems that is not so. Furthermore our actual universe, the causal diamond bounded by both the past and future horizons is an open system out of thermal equilibrium.

Ruth: "So one can give a  realist, physical account, but it is indeterministic -- involving a kind of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Given that we already have spontaneous symmetry breaking elsewhere in physics, I think we should allow for it in QM.

Thanks again for the clarification --"

Best
Ruth

Jack Sarfatti

31 minutes ago

David Bohm, Albert Einstein, Louis De Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli, Richard Feynman

• 

  Jack Sarfatti On Jun 26, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Basil Hiley wrote:
  
  Ruth, may I make a correction to what you wrote below. Bohm '52 work was not 'originally undertaken to solve the measurement problem.' He had a different motive. I asked him to clarify, in writing, w...See More

  LIMITS TO THE UNIVERSALITY OF QM

  www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk

  This paper is dedicated to three great thinkers who have insisted that the world is not quite the straightforward affair that our successes in describing it mathematically may have seemed to suggest: Niels Bohr, whose analyses of the problem of explaining life play a central role in the following di...

  30 minutes ago · "}">Like · 1 · Remove Preview
• 

  Jack Sarfatti On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:08 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
  
  Ruth wrote:
  
  "I don't rule out that some deeper theory might eventually be found, that could help answer ultimate questions in more specific terms. But it hasn't been demonstrated, to my knowledge, that one has to have violations of Born Rule in order to explain life." (end quote)
  
  To the contrary, it has been demonstrated in my opinion. First start with Brian's paper "On the biological utilization of nonlocality" with the Greek physicist whose name escapes me for the moment.
  
  Second: Lecture 8 of http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html
  
  Specifically, how the Born rule depends on violation of the generalized action-reaction (relativity) principle that Q has no sources. Q pilots matter without direct back-reaction of matter on Q.
  
  In other words, orthodox quantum theory treats matter beables as test particles! - clearly an approximation.
  
  Obviously signal nonlocality violating no-signaling theorems has a Darwinian advantage. Indeed, without it, entanglement appears as static noise locally. Imagine that Alice and Bob's minds are represented each by a giant macroscopic coherent entangled quantum potential Q(A,B). It would obviously be a survival advantage for Alice and Bob to directly send messages to each other at a distance like the Austraiian aborigines do in the Outback. Now use scale invariance. It's obviously an advantage for separate nerve cells in our brains to do so. Also in terms of morphological development of the organisim - signal nonlocality is an obvious plus, which I think is part of Brian Josephson's message in that paper.
  
  Third:
  
  Subquantum Information and Computation
  Antony Valentini
  (Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
  It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
  Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
  Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
  Journal reference: Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
  DOI: 10.1007/s12043-002-0117-1
  Report number: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
  Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
  (or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)

  De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory and the foundations of quantum mechanics - A graduate lecture...

  www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk

Jack Sarfatti

Yesterday near San Francisco

Our two 2D cosmic horizons past and future are the pixelated hologram screens
the 3D interior of the causal diamond is voxelated at scale
L^3 = Lp^2A^1/2
A = area-entropy scale of the cosmological horizons
Seth Lloyd argues that horizons are computers.
The software is some kind of topological conformal anyonic quantum field theory.
i.e. a de Sitter / > 0 version of AdS/CFT
the interior bulk gravity & matter fields inside the causal diamond are hologram images of the stuff running on the horizon hologram computing screens.
In terms of what the yearning masses will understand - Hawking's Mind of God is alive and well on our past and future cosmological horizons.

• David Fernando López Torres, Todd DeMartinis and Theodore Silva like this.
• 

  Theodore Silva From what I can understand, that makes sense to me...

  Yesterday at 10:13am · Like
• 

  Jack Sarfatti Your darn toot'n it does. This is my Destiny Matrix Theory of Reality.

  Yesterday at 10:15am · Like
• 

  Jack Sarfatti So, now can we hack the Mind of God since its software on the cosmic horizon computing screens and we are its sub-programs like in the movies MATRIX et-al?

  Yesterday at 10:17am · Like · 1
• 

  Nick Albertini Seth Lloyd is right. The scaling factor had me for a loop. But, if it is correct; and if dark matter is external to the cosmic horizon (as infalling matter into our cosmic black hole - universe), then that ratio would help to calculate the energies and masses of dark matter cluster originating cosmic ray particles generated by impact of such infalling matter with our cosmic horizon.

  Yesterday at 10:19am · Edited · Like
• 

  Larry Lowe If you could hack the Mind of God, what kind of programming change would you induce?
  
  Win the lottery?
  
  World Peace?
  
  World Dominance?
  
  Should be be thinking about issuing GodMind Hacker's licenses?

  Yesterday at 10:30am · Edited · Like
• 

  Nicole Tedesco OUCH! I think I just came across a bug in that computer...

  Yesterday at 11:03am · Like
• 

  Nicole Tedesco As with Hawking Radiation in general, I would assume the evaporation rate of the Universe to be proportional to the total mass of the Universe, which of course evaporates with time. I don't recall this being enough, however, to account for the "expansion" acceleration (e.g., dark energy).

  Yesterday at 11:17am · Like
• 

  Theodore Silva Speaking of bugs this question has been bugging me: I know this is, in all probability, a dumb idea, but is it possible to have many time lines in your view of physics reality without multiple Universes – all moving toward the Omega point and merging together – or is there only one time line toward your Destiny Matrix?

  22 hours ago · Like
• 

  Nick Albertini Dark energy is required by metrics that might not be the right metrics (Einstein Field Equation metrics). For example, what does a Poplawski Metric (with sp-t torsion) require? Which, if describing a black hole universe, is probably a better approximation metric to use to deduce any need for dark energy. So, it might not be required at all by the true quantized metric, or whatever description comes out of TOE; even if it is required by approximate metrics.

  19 hours ago · Like · 1
• 

  Jack Sarfatti Yes, Larry u got it.

  7 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Jack Sarfatti Nicole - yes the future cosmic horizon evaporates that's what advanced Hawking radiation dark energy is, but also matter from our causal diamond is falling through. Yes, this is a good point.

  5 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Jack Sarfatti Nick - good question about torsion. However, the standard model with dark energy and dark matter is working well and there is no evidence yet for torsion. However, I would be surprised if torsion is not there because it's a natural extension of GR as a local gauge theory.

  3 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Jack Sarfatti Larry - yes win the lottery for sure. A Hitler-type who can hack the Mind of God would enslave us all - like the Beast 666 etc in the Evangelical Mythos. Think Q on Star Trek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)

  

  Q (Star Trek) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  en.wikipedia.org

  Q is a fictional character who appears in the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager, as well as in related products. In all of these programs, he is played by John de Lancie. The name "Q" also applies to all other individuals of the Q Con...

1. • Status
   • Photo
   • Place
   • Life Event

    

   What's on your mind?
2. 

   Jack Sarfatti

   19 hours ago near San Francisco

   Phys. Rev. D » Volume 87 » Issue 4
   < Previous Article | Next Article >
   Phys. Rev. D 87, 041301(R) (2013) [6 pages]
   Observing the multiverse with cosmic wakes
   Abstract
   References
   No Citing Articles
   Download: PDF (724 kB) Buy this article Export: BibTeX or EndNote (RIS)
   Matthew Kleban1,*, Thomas S. Levi2,†, and Kris Sigurdson2,‡ 1Department of Physics, CCPP, New York University, New York, New York 10003, USA
   2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z1, Canada
   Received 28 January 2012; revised 26 May 2012; published 21 February 2013
   Current theories of the origin of the Universe, including string theory, predict the existence of a multiverse with many bubble universes. These bubble universes may collide, and collisions with ours produce cosmic wakes that enter our Hubble volume, appear as unusually symmetric disks in the cosmic microwave background, and disturb large scale structure. There is preliminary evidence consistent with one or more of these disturbances on our sky. However, other sources can produce similar features in the cosmic microwave background, and so additional signals are needed to verify their extra-universal origin. Here we find, for the first time, the detailed three-dimensional shape, temperature, and polarization signals of the cosmic wake of a bubble collision consistent with current observations. The polarization pattern has distinct features that when correlated with the corresponding temperature pattern are a unique and striking signal of a bubble collision. These features represent a verifiable prediction of the multiverse paradigm and might be detected by current or future experiments. A detection of a bubble collision would confirm the existence of the multiverse, provide compelling evidence for the string theory landscape, and sharpen our picture of the Universe and its origins.

   Like · · Share

   • Ram Ayana and Miriam Strauss like this.
   •  

     View 10 more comments
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti Kuch, you are not communicating intelligibly in many of your sentences.

     2 hours ago · Like · 1
   • 

     William Kuch My apologies for that it's a habit Ive been trying to break.

     2 hours ago · Like
   • 

     Theodore Silva I like the Multiverse idea, it leaves open the concept of a kind of "natural selection" for evolving Universes -- even a kind of sexual selection, like the exchange of genes between bacteria. Universes exchanging Constants?

     20 minutes ago · Like
   • 

     Paul Zielinski "No Z you are confused. Tegmark's Levels 1 and 2 are a simple consequence of Einstein's GR + INFLATION." No Jack I am not confused. The mainstream view is that as things stand the existence of a Tegmark Level II multiverse is a *hypothesis*, and I agree with that view.
     
     The anthropic conundrum is solved in the Tegmark Level II multiverse model by random generation of new universes, in a kind of cosmic Darwinian lottery -- as discussed for example by Penrose. I see nothing in contemporary physics that *requires* the existence of such a multiverse, and the observational support at this point is rather weak. All kinds of things can be derived in theory that may or may not be realized in nature.
     
     Of course a Tegmark Level III multiverse (a la Everett) is another issue, and is even more conjectural than Level II, since it is based on an alternate interpretation of QM, and is thus not subject to direct empirical confirmation. So I agree with you on that.

     13 minutes ago · Edited · Like · 1
   • 

     William Kuch The term "Multiverse" is an oxymoron, resolvable IFF all of these alternate universes are trivial. BAM.

     11 minutes ago · Like
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti Kuch U r babbling like a loon and do not at all understand this subject. You are way out of your depth and do not know that you do not know.

     8 minutes ago · Like · 1
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti Z yes multiverse Level II is a hypothesis that is a "theorem" if you accept the mainstream theory of "chaotic inflation" for which actual evidence is accumulating and more decisive tests are coming. Level 1 is much more certain as it only requires Einstein's GR - this is explained in Tamara Davis's PhD. There are many "causal diamonds" we are inside one of them and they are observer-dependent.

     5 minutes ago · Like
   • 

     William Kuch Indeed I am, with one caveat. I do not babble like a loon. I babble as one.

     5 minutes ago · Like
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti A moment of lucid self-awareness - good for you.

     4 minutes ago · Like
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti OK Z I think we agree Level I very probable - effectively a fact given Tamara Davis's PhD Level II less certain e.g. Penrose's qualms about chaotic inflation, Level III even less certain, I actually reject it. Level IV seems to be of no scientific value. BTW string theory is getting more testable it seems from Lenny Susskind's Stanford online videos.

     about a minute ago · Like
   • 

     Paul Zielinski OK Jack let's agree that GR + cosmic inflation strongly suggests the possibility of a Level II multiverse being realized in nature. But let's also acknowledge that the inflation model is still itself hypothetical in character. So yes if you are committed to the inflation model then it is reasonable to take the existence of a Level II multiverse seriously.

     a few seconds ago · Like
   • 

     Write a comment...
3. 

   Jack Sarfatti

   19 hours ago near San Francisco

   Time Crystal

   Like · · Share

   • Michael Andreas, Steve Vegas and Maureen A. Rafferty like this.
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti On Jun 24, 2013, at 5:27 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
     
     problem is that it does no work so we cannot apply it to fly an airplane or a space ship there always seems to be a Catch 22 preventing a useful application :
     
     "perpetual motion"? first thought "crackpot"
     
     second thought: "Wilczek's time crystal"
     
     Rotating Casimir systems: magnetic field-enhanced perpetual motion, possible realization in doped nanotubes, and laws of thermodynamics
     M. N. Chernodub
     CNRS, Laboratoire de Mathematiques et Physique Theorique, Universite Francois-Rabelais Tours,
     Federation Denis Poisson, Parc de Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France and
     Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Gent, Krijgslaan 281, S9, B-9000 Gent, Belgium
     (Dated: August 24, 2012)
     
     Recently, we have demonstrated that for a certain class of Casimir-type systems ("devices") the energy of zero-point vacuum fluctuations reaches its global minimum when the device rotates about a certain axis rather than remains static. This rotational vacuum effect may lead to the emergence of permanently rotating objects provided the negative rotational energy of zero-point fluctuations cancels the positive rotational energy of the device itself. In this paper, we show that for massless electrically charged particles the rotational vacuum effect should be drastically (astronomically) enhanced in the presence of a magnetic field. As an illustration, we show that in a background of experimentally available magnetic fields the zero-point energy of massless excitations in rotating torus-shaped doped carbon nanotubes may indeed overwhelm the classical energy of rotation for certain angular frequencies so that the permanently rotating state is energetically favored. The suggested "zero-point driven" devices, which have no internally moving parts, correspond to a perpetuum mobile of a new, fourth kind: They do not produce any work despite the fact that their equilibrium (ground) state corresponds to a permanent rotation even in the presence of an external environment. We show that our proposal is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.
     PACS numbers: 03.70.+k, 42.50.Lc, 42.50.Pq
     
     Sent from my iPhone
     
     On Jun 24, 2013, at 2:05 PM, art wagner wrote:
     
     http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1207.3052.pdf

     19 hours ago · Edited · Like
   • 

     Write a comment...
4. 

   Jack Sarfatti

   19 hours ago via Twitter

   • Dean Radin rebuts the failure to replicate Bem's "Feeling the Future" done on line without proper controls Radin says - bogus rebuttal

   Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

   • 

     Jack Sarfatti From: Dean Radin
     Subject: Re: Possible nuclear detonation detected by anomalous mental phenomena
     Date: June 24, 2013 5:02:48 PM PDT
     To: JACK SARFATTI
     ...See More

     19 hours ago · Like
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>
     Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Reality of Possibility
     Date: June 25, 2013 11:08:05 AM PDT
     To: Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
     Reply-To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics <exoticphysics@mai...See More

     LIMITS TO THE UNIVERSALITY OF QM

     www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk

     This paper is dedicated to three great thinkers who have insisted that the world is not quite the straightforward affair that our successes in describing it mathematically may have seemed to suggest: Niels Bohr, whose analyses of the problem of explaining life play a central role in the following di...

     2 hours ago · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:27 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
     
     On Jun 24, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
     
     See Chapter 7 of my book. One can see the usual subject/object dichotomy as the absorption/emission dichotomy in TI, and can think of 'qualia' as the subjective aspects of any absorption event.
     
     This is strange. You seem to say that in the simplest Feynman diagram ---< --- = photon < = scattered electron
     
     there is a conscious experience?
     
     I think you go too far. First of all quantum electrodynamics is built upon linear unitary Born probability rule orthodox quantum theory with signal locality "passion at a distance" (A. Shimony), no perfect cloning of an unknown quantum state etc. built in. David Deutsch has correctly argued that consciousness is not possible in orthodox quantum theory.
     
     Basically your distinction is equivalent to Bohm's simply a change of nouns in my opinion.
     
     Your "possibility" = Bohm's "quantum potential" Q = Wheeler's BIT = Stapp's "thought like" field = David Chalmers "intrinsic mental field"
     
     Your "actuality" = Bohm's not so "hidden variables" i.e. material particles/classical EM-gravity field configurations that are piloted by Q i.e. "beables."
     
     Valentini's recent claim that Q is unstable leading to deviations from Born probability rule where it shouldn't of course needs to be addressed. Basil Hiley did so.
     
     As you will see in Lecture 8 of Michael Towler's http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html
     
     The no-signal theorems of Adrian Kent et-al only apply in the approximate limit where the generalized action-reaction principle of Einstein's relativity is violated.
     
     In other words, no stand-alone entanglement signaling (without a classical signal key to decrypt the coded message) depends upon lack of a direct back-reaction of Q on the beables it pilots. This is equivalent to Antony Valentini's "sub-quantal thermal equilibrium" of the beables.
     Indeed, orthodox quantum theory is not background independent to make an analogy of Q with space-time geometry. Q is not itself a dynamical field (in configuration space) it has no sources! This violates Einstein's relativity principle in a very deep sense of no absolute fields in physics. Any field that acts on another field must have back-reaction. Now of course we have test particles in the gravity & EM fields that are not sources. But we all understand that is an approximation. Orthodox quantum theory depends upon beables being test particles, i.e. not sources of the Q BIT field in configuration space. Therefore, orthodox quantum theory is an approximation of a more general theory, e.g. something like Valentini's, and is not complete. The most obvious breakdown of orthodox quantum theory is living matter.
     
     Orthodox Quantum Theory is simply John Archibald Wheeler's
     
     IT FROM BIT
     
     It is incomplete because it does NOT have direct back-reaction
     
     BIT FROM IT.

     De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory and the foundations of quantum mechanics - A graduate lecture...

     www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk

     11 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti Consciousness is, in my view, an emergent property of very complex highly entangled many-particle pumped open-systems which are Prigogine's "dissipative structures" corresponding to Tony Valentini's "sub-quantal non-equilibrium". The big defect in Valentini's theory is that he does not properly address pumping of the system. He only really includes closed systems relaxing to thermal equilibrium.
     
     Consciousness is imprinting of information directly from the classical IT material degrees of freedom, e.g. CLASSICAL Fuv = Au,v - Av,u on their (super) pilot field Q, which is intrinsically mental.
     
     <ureye.gif>
     
     CONSCIOUS QUALIA = IT FROM BIT + BIT FROM IT
     
     in a creative self-organizing loop of a nonlinear non-unitary post-quantum theory.
     
     We need the "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) Higgs-Goldstone spontaneous breakdown of ground state symmetry to get the Glauber coherent states that obey a nonlinear nonunitary Landau-Ginzburg equation in ordinary space - not configuration space - that replaces the linear unitary Schrodinger-Dirac equations. This is why 't Hooft's S-Matrix for black hole horizons may fail. This is why Tegmark's Level 3 may fail as well.
     
     <multiverse.jpg>
     
     In particular, as I note in the book, the 'Now' (with its attendant qualia) is a primal, irreduceably local phenomenon, defined relative to an absorption resulting in an actualized transaction. Biological organisms are very sophisticated absorption systems. Note that my model does not presume that the physical entities are mind-free Cartesian matter, so allows for a subjective component within the interacting systems, although the model is not observer-dependent.
     
     RK
     
     From: adastra1@me.com
     Subject: Re: Reality of Possibility
     Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:26:50 -0700
     To:
     
     It's much more than that. I have a clear picture of qualia. What's yours?
     
     Sent from my iPhone
     
     On Jun 24, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
     
     You're depending on the Bohmian model here. I'm working with a different model, so these arguments don't apply.
     
     RK
     Subject: Re: Reality of Possibility
     Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:34:05 -0700
     To: rekastner@hotmail.com
     
     I don't think u can have consciousness qualia without signal nonlocality violating quantum theory.
     
     Sure free will is simply the piloting of matter by Bohm's Q. However, you cannot have qualia imprinted on Q from the matter Q pilots. Quantum theory violates the generalized action-reaction principle.
     
     Sent from my iPhone
     
     On Jun 24, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Ruth Kastner wrote:
     
     Jack,
     
     Thanks for the feedback.
     My interpretation of the quantum realm as physical possibility certainly leaves room for the theory to apply to consciousness and biological systems. For example, I don't go into this in detail in my book, but 'offer waves' (i.e. the entities described by quantum states) are excitations of the relevant fields. The creation of these entities (involving 'creation operators' in QFT) is inherently unpredictable. This leaves room for things like volition and creativity within the standard theory.
     So I disagree that one needs a Valentini-type model i.e., going beyond standard QM, for these things.
     
     I welcome thoughts on my guest post on George Musser's Sci Am blog (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/06/21/can-we-resolve-quantum-paradoxes-by-stepping-out-of-space-and-time-guest-post/)
     
     Ruth
     
     From: adastra1@me.com
     Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:07:52 -0700
     Subject: Reality of Possibility
     
     To: rek
     
     Ruth, I disagree with your basic thesis that orthodox quantum theory is complete.
     This would deny Antony Valentini's sub-quantal non-equilibrium with signal nonlocality for example.
     My basic thesis is that orthodox quantum theory is incomplete. That it cannot explain biology and consciousness.
     Both the latter depend upon signal nonlocality in strong violation of orthodox quantum theory.
     
     1) linear Hermitian operators for all observables
     
     2) orthogonal eigenfunctions for all observables
     
     3) unitary time evolution
     
     4) linear superposition of quantum states
     
     5) Born probability interpretation
     
     6) consciousness
     
     are incompatible
     
     I also accept retro-causation in mind/brain data as a working hypothesis, i.e. Libet, Radin, Bierman, Bem.

     

     Can We Resolve Quantum Paradoxes by Stepping Out of Space and Time? [Guest Post] | Critical...

     blogs.scientificamerican.com

     Next month will be the 100th anniversary of Bohr's model of the atom, one of the foundations of the theory of quantum mechanics. And look where ...

     10 minutes ago

The thin sheet of reality of the hologram universe is the brane of Hawking's Mind of God. ;-)
Destiny

1) S-Matrix?


S-Matrix is an input-output black box model for scattering of simple beams of non-interacting particles (ensembles) on similar ensembles of targets (true each target can be a complex system like a crystal or fluid with quasiparticles and collective mode excited states of the ground state).

The inputs and outputs are external lines corresponding to poles of the Feynman propagators in the complex energy plane. In other words they are real particles on-mass-shell. If massless bosons in the classical limit they are radiative far fields of only two transverse polarization if spin 1 (EM) or spin 2 (gravity).

Virtual particles are inside the black box (internal lines of the Feynman diagrams).

However, for cosmology and the hologram universe - for horizons the S-Matrix is incomplete. Sure you can use it for collapsing matter increasing the area-entropy of the horizon (black hole) or matter flowing out of the causal diamond in the case of our observer-dependent future cosmological event horizon.

However, the stable state is completely off-mass-shell, i.e. coherent Glauber states of off-mass-shell virtual bosons like the EM near fields of electrical power engineering of our grid and our every day electrical machines and home appliances. PG & E mainly deals with near fields. High energy physicists seem to draw a blank on near fields. The most important parts of the universe are near fields.

Thus the two most important toy model SSS metrics in Einstein's GR are

g00 = 1 - rs/r  etc. black hole


g0'0' = 1 - r'^2/A

with horizons g00 = 0 and g0'0' = 0

Quantum mechanically speaking these metrics are made out of Glauber coherent states of off-mass-shell gravitons of zero frequency and a continuous spectrum of wave vectors.

GRAVITY WAVES PLAY NO ROLE in this static limit.

Yes, they do when excited states of the pixeled stretched membrane (Kip Thorne) with scrambled BITs for distant observers is included, i.e. Hawking radiation. But that is treated in perturbation theory around the above static solutions.

Now I do remember that the S-Matrix can be extended to treat bound states so maybe that is the way out of the dilemma?

2) 't Hooft's naive rejection of Aharonov's destiny post-selection &Wheeler-Feynman Cramer's transactions, CTCs in quantum computing, and invoking the Red Herring of the Grandfather paradox - see the World Science Festival 2011 video with 't Hooft, Susskind, Verlinde, Buosso - moderated by Hockenberry of PBS.