CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Post-Quantum Physics of Matter, Mind, Consciousness by Jack Sarfatti
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 20:04 GMT
Essay AbstractNewton's mechanics in the 17th Century increased the lethality of artillery. Thermodynamics in the 19th led to the steam-powered Industrial Revolution in the UK. Maxwell's unification of electricity, magnetism and light gave us electrical power, the telegraph, radio and television. The discovery of quantum mechanics in the 20th century by Planck, Bohr, Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg led to the creation of the atomic and hydrogen bomb as well as computer chips and the world-wide-web and Silicon Valley's multi-billion dollar corporations. The lesson is that breakthroughs in fundamental physics, both theoretical and experimental have always led to profound technological wealth-creating new industries and will continue to do so. There is now a new revolution brewing in quantum mechanics that can be divided into three periods. The first quantum revolution was from 1900 to about 1975. The second quantum information/computer revolution was from about 1975 to 2015. The early part of this story is told by MIT Professor David Kaiser in his award-winning book how a small group of Berkeley/San Francisco physicists triggered that second revolution. The third quantum revolution is how an extension of quantum mechanics has led to the understanding of consciousness as a natural physical phenomenon that can emerge in many material substrates not only in our carbon-based biochemistry. In particular, this new post-quantum mechanics will to naturally conscious artificial intelligence in nano-electronic machines as well as extending human life spans to hundreds of years and more. This development is not far off and is fraught with opportunities and dangers, just like nuclear power and genetic engineering.
Author BioJack Sarfatti is an American theoretical physicist. Working largely outside academia, Sarfatti specializes in the study of quantum physics and consciousness.[n 1] He argues for retrocausality as the explanation of entanglement consistent with relativity. Sarfatti was a leading member of the Fundamental Fysiks Group, an informal group of physicists in California in the 1970s who, according to historian of science David Kaiser, was crucial in triggering interest in Bell's theorem.
Download Essay PDF File
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 22:19 GMT
Dear Jack
Nice essay, interesting, provocative and nicely written, also agreeing my own essay's identification of the importance of QM in neural processes and AI. Unfortunately you don't develop the 'on topic' angles which I was hoping for, and p2 is horribly short of paragraph breaks!
I've liked your work for some time. However I'm now concerned you've abandoned John Bells real...
view entire post
Dear Jack
Nice essay, interesting, provocative and nicely written, also agreeing my own essay's identification of the importance of QM in neural processes and AI. Unfortunately you don't develop the 'on topic' angles which I was hoping for, and p2 is horribly short of paragraph breaks!
I've liked your work for some time. However I'm now concerned you've abandoned John Bells real view, given up logic and 'bought' Bohr's QM hook line and sinker, which I suggest may prove a 'backward step'! As a supporter of Bell I'd hope you know his true conclusions and views, made clear in "Speakable..." (all page No's available)
“The founding fathers of quantum theory decided even that no concepts could possibly be found which could emit direct description of the quantum world. So the theory which they established aimed only to describe systematically the response of the apparatus.”.. .. “ ...in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact wrong on this point. The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds…systems and apparatus.”
“I think that conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better.”
“It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal.”
“in our opinion lead inescapably to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is at the best, incomplete.”
"We fall back then on a second choice – fermion number density.”
“...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded.”Do you not think there may be one tiny iota of a chance that Bell may have been correct and QM's predictions could be reproducable classically in some way? (with no 'hidden' variables of course)
Well shockingly, if we're considering the orthogonal complementarity of inverse cos^2 curves with entanglement, non-integer spin etc. then I've now done so, purely by assigning 'pairs' the simplest dynamic morphologies. Of course you won't believe it. That's how human brains work! but hopefully you can study it and apply rational thought (all experimental results including delayed choice etc. emerge). So far Bell has proved correct;
"Our theorists stride through that (QM)
obscurity unimpeded… sleepwalking?” It seems most still are, but someone need to awaken, open his eyes and look. Can you uniquely do so?
I'd greatly appreciate your views on my essay. Precurser and analysical stuff from other angles was in the last 2 essays (the last one 'community' scored top).
Papers and video's are also available if you really do wish to look.
Very best.
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 21:34 GMT
Perhaps this may help?
I also remember seeing it I think it was by Penrose a whole list of different scenarios for different scales of orch OR but I can't quite remember where I saw it
I think I can say is that when Roger talks about non-computability that is physically realized by post quantum local retro causal entanglement messaging due to action reaction between waves and particles
Indeed I think this also relates to Godel's incompleteness theorem because incompleteness in mathematics depends upon all mathematics being an algorithm and which steps occur in only One Direction in "time"
In terms of graphs Godel only tacitly considered tree graphs without closed loops that correspond to CTCs (Deutsch Lloyd)
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Hameroff, Stuart R - (hameroff) wrote:
I'll try and find a copy. For some reason its not on my website at the moment.
I agree the pathway qubits are topological and resistant to decoherence (or premature OR which replaces decoherence).
We (me, Tuzsynski et al) described that in our 2002 paper 'Conduction pathways in microtubules'. Bandyopadhyay has experimentally shown quantum states in microtubules for as long as 0.1 msec.
s
--
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 19:22 GMT
This paper has just come to my attention
"Quantum theory from rules on information acquisition
Philipp Andres Ho ̈hn
Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology, and Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, 1090 Vienna, Austria
E-mail: p.hoehn@univie.ac.at
Abstract. We summarise a recent reconstruction of the quantum theory of qubits from rules constraining an observer’s acquisition of information about physical systems. This review is accessible and fairly self-contained, focussing on the main ideas and results and not the technical details. The reconstruction offers an informational explanation for the architecture of the theory and specifically for its correlation structure. In particular, it explains entanglement, monogamy and non-locality compellingly from limited accessible information and complementarity. As a by-product, it also unravels new ‘conserved informational charges’ from complementarity relations that characterise the unitary group and the set of pure states.'
My comment: I like this approach. Nonlinear non-unitary non-statistical PQM would also follow from this kind of way of looking by allowing keyless entanglement signaling equivalent to Sutherland's action-reaction weak destiny/history wave-particle Lagrangian and Valentini's "sub-quantum non-equilibrium" ~ CTC non-algorithmic processing NP -> P etc.
On Mar 6, 2017, at 11:04 AM, art wagner wrote:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.06849.pdf
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 6, 2017 @ 11:45 GMT
Hi Peter,hope you are well, Hi Mr Sarfatti,
It seems Mr Sarfatti that you confound a lot of things there, it is a pure nonsense.The problem is that yoy mix a lot of works of people and that implies a lot of confusions about this emergent consciousness.But it is just my opinion of course.See the contests, there there are severzal relevant pappers about this consciousness.But your ideas are just odd.Sorry.
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 22:56 GMT
You have misunderstood my text. Perhaps I was not clear enough. I reject the wave-only interpretations of QM including Bohr. I am using Rod Sutherland's mathematical extension of David Bohm's 1952 pilot wave theory to relativity using local retrocausality entanglement with action-reaction between waves and beablles in a Lagrangian framework. Everything waves and particles etc. are real.
Bell liked Bohm's idea. Bell was mistaken to reject local retrocausality in favor of nonlocality. Bell confused the latter with superdeterminism needing a fatalistic rejection of free will. Huw Price has explained all this in detail.
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 14:09 GMT
Jack
OK, I understand. No, that didn't come across. It makes a little more sense now, though while 'real' waves going both ways is one thing (or even 2!) and fine, going
back in time is quite something else of course. But I have a question on your response;
"Bell was mistaken to reject local retrocausality in favor of nonlocality."Can you direct me to where John Bell 'accepted' non-locality? I agree that's a wide (mis!)understanding of his conclusions, and he certainly used QM's own assumptions in 'testing' it. Having studied him and his work for some time it seems clear to me he REJECTED those assumptions (is the word
"wrong' not a hint?!).
I do agree what I think you really meant, that he didn't consider retrocausality as such seriously so didn't even suggest it was being tested.
But Jack, please focus on this; I know you're deeply embedded in your own solution, but, however unlikely, I assure you what I'm showing you is that
"astonishing" way to derive the WHOLE of QM', predictions, findings, apparent weirdness and all, from the very simplest classical mechanism. Shockingly it produces (and reproduces each time) the orthogonal complementary Cos
2 curves. It's so simple it'd take you minutes to follow it through and reproduce them yourself. It is then simple to falsify - yet nobody has!
Why do so many theoretical physicists dive for the nearest sand pile to put their heads in rather than look!?? (I note you didn't suggest you'd read it!) Is it that once you write something you feel wedded to it forever?
As Bell said,
" Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better.”The question is Jack, can you? or are you just another 'head in the sand' theorist?
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 00:55 GMT
My laptop keyboard is being replaced so this will be short on small iPad.
The references in the essay to Huw Price and Rod Sutherland should answer your questions. I am using the Bohm picture. QM is not adequate. It's incomplete as Einstein thought. PQM is to QM as GR is to SR. Your idea does not pertain to the topic of my essay.
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 04:22 GMT
Got laptop back. I meant to add to the essay
“Suppose there is even something vaguely teleological about the effects of consciousness, so that a future impression might affect a past action.” Roger Penrose, “The Emperor’s New Mind” pp 442-445 (1989)
“It seems to me that biological systems are able in some way to utilize the opposite time-sense in which radiation...
view entire post
Got laptop back. I meant to add to the essay
“Suppose there is even something vaguely teleological about the effects of consciousness, so that a future impression might affect a past action.” Roger Penrose, “The Emperor’s New Mind” pp 442-445 (1989)
“It seems to me that biological systems are able in some way to utilize the opposite time-sense in which radiation propagates from future to past. Bizarre as this may appear, they must somehow be working backwards in time.” Sir Fred Hoyle, “The Intelligent Universe”, p. 213 (1986)
On Mar 1, 2017, at 12:21 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
“Demonstration that such can occur is provided by experiments in so-called ARV (Associational Remote Viewing) in which an object that will be shown to an individual tomorrow (depending on the outcome of the stock market) is described today. The attached is my publication of such an experiment in which our backer made $260,000 in silver futures in 30 days, and we received our cut of 10% ($26,000).”
Hal Puthoff
Director, Inst. for Adv. Studies at Austin
The key paper is by Richard Feynman:
“Space-time approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics”, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 20, p. 267 (1948), Feynman
“The quantity ψ depends only on the region R’ previous to t…It does not depend, in any way, upon what is done to the system after time t. This latter information is contained in χ. Thus with ψ and χ we have separated the past history from the future experiences of the system.”
Feynman’s Lagrangian method is precisely “a journey you need both the start point and the end point”. The key idea I present below is inherent in Feynman’s Section 5 “Definition of the Wave Function” and it is the basis for Yakir Aharonov’s “Destiny” χ and “History” ψ two-state vector “multiple time” version of quantum physics in which teleology (AKA “telos” and “local retrocausality) is implicit. Teleology is explicated when I step beyond Aharonov from quantum to the post-quantum covering theory. This is a violation of “sub-quantum equilibrium” in the sense of Tony Valentini’s papers.
Feynman on the static block universe that the Lagrangian action-principle dynamical sum over histories demands: “Following the charge rather than the particles corresponds to considering the continuous world line as a whole rather than breaking it up into its pieces. It’s as though a bombardier flying low over a road suddenly sees three roads and it is only when two of them come together and disappear again that he realizes that he has simply passed over a long switchback in a single road. This overall spacetime point of view leads to considerable simplification in many problems. One can take into account at the same time processes which ordinarily would have to be considered separately.”
The Theory of Positrons, Phys Rev, 76, 749 (1949)
view post as summary
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 15:34 GMT
Hi Jack,
“Suppose there is even something vaguely teleological about the effects of consciousness, so that a future impression might affect a past action.” Roger Penrose, “The Emperor’s New Mind” pp 442-445 (1989)"
It's trivial that future events affect present events -- Penrose implies an infinity of potential local impressions from one nonlocal set. Those impressions he identifies with consciousness.
Take a Penrose triangle. Drawn in two dimensions or seen at the proper angle from afar, one gets the impression of unitarity. At near scale, we all get impressions of variety differing by degrees. What does this tell us? I think it tells us that the objective part of consciousness lies in our inter-subjective agreement on the unity of varieties of perception -- agreement that we find in mathematics and science.
Einstein said
all physics is local leaving open the question of nonlocality and the boundary between the two domains. That's the subject of
my contribution.You wrote a great essay, Jack. I'll vote now and comment later.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 04:44 GMT
I have no idea of what you are talking about for the most part above. As I recall Wheeler said "Physics is simple when it is local." To which I add "All spooky seemingly nonlocal quantum entanglement is really made out of networks of locally retrocausal Costa de Beauregard zig-zags as explained in papers by Huw Price and also Rod Sutherland. Until you understand those papers you will continue to walk as blind men.
hide replies
Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 16:02 GMT
Dear Jack Sarfatti,
Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.
I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 16:43 GMT
That Einstein quote is one of my favorites and I repeat it many times.
But what is your point and how does it pertain to what I'm trying to explain in my essay, which is the physical nature of our non-algorithmic retrocausal post-quantum consciousness as well as other forms of consciousness that would also include nano/machine consciousness indeed perhaps consciousness of the universe it self once we understand it's universal purely natural physical mechanics. Freeman Dyson in his wonderful essay "time without end" has posed this issue.
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 20:16 GMT
Please excuse some of the typos and missing words because I have been sending these messages on a very small keyboard into my laptop is fixed also I'm talking to Siri
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 18:10 GMT
Dear Jack,
If you would kindly read my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, you would find out that my point am that only Nature could provide simple visible reality. Reality has nothing to do with complex invisible “physical nature of our non-algorithmic retrocausal post-quantum consciousness as well as other forms of consciousness that would also include nano/machine consciousness indeed perhaps consciousness of the universe it self once we understand it's universal purely natural physical mechanics.”
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 18:14 GMT
I have no idea what your point is here? I never use the words "complex invisible" You admit your idea has nothing to do with my essay. Therefore, I have no interest in spending time on your theory. Best of luck.
hide replies
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 12:53 GMT
Nice essay Prof Sarfatti,
Your ideas and thinking are excellent. You gave nice historical background of Cosmology. The image given by you and bootstrap work is nice….
Your words… “Our common sense is a psychological illusion in which time only seems in our consciousness to flow from past to present to future. This irreversible "arrow of time" (aka Second Law of Thermodynamics)...
view entire post
Nice essay Prof Sarfatti,
Your ideas and thinking are excellent. You gave nice historical background of Cosmology. The image given by you and bootstrap work is nice….
Your words… “Our common sense is a psychological illusion in which time only seems in our consciousness to flow from past to present to future. This irreversible "arrow of time" (aka Second Law of Thermodynamics) is seen in the tragic fact that we age and die, eggs do not unscramble themselves, etc. However, quantum entanglement, which is beginning to play the crucial role in practical command-control-communication technology, is becoming increasingly important to Google, Apple, Microsoft et-al in their Artificial Intelligence Big Data business, is telling us that time also flows in reverse from future to present. In fact, all quantum entanglement phenomena in the present come from back-from-the-future "destiny" partial causes in addition to the familiar classical historical past partial causes of those same present effects. In other words what happens to the world now not only depends on our past history, but also on our future destiny!”
This ‘Back from future’ of quantum mechanics is a surprise for me. Is it possible to bring it to the level of every day human experience say like cars or trains etc. Can we succeed in making a “Time machine” ?
I am requesting you to have a look at Dynamic Universe Model also…. For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Be
st wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please…………….
=snp. gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:36 GMT
If it ain't broke don't fix it it's not a good idea to try to reinvent the wheel
What I'm trying to say is that I will not waste any of my time on new theories when Einstein's theory works perfectly well if it is properly applied, the same for quantum theory
what I am doing is radically conservative in John Wheeler sense
I am building upon battle tested well-established theories
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
PS I am only interested in this particular form in discussing the details of Roderick Sutherland's important new extension of quantum theory
I will not spend any time on people's original ideas for fundamental new theories of physics
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 17:49 GMT
Just as sweet the second time around.
One nit to pick:
" ... we now know how to make observed quantum entanglement connecting widely separated particles consistent with Einstein's relativity."
Though I know this is the majority view, no one has ever observed quantum entanglement without first assuming that which was to be proved.
Relativity suffers no such disadvantage. Better to make quantum theory a subdiscipline of information theory.
A thought on the matter continuum: What if higher orders of consciousness are just higher orders of differentiation? Then Gell-Mann is right—the continuum of consciousness is bounded by an infinitesimal decay rate and an infinite growth rate. That is, from the least constituents of matter to the most rarefied forms of matter, the matter continuum (Einstein & Mach) is a consciousness continuum.
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 19:31 GMT
"One nit to pick:
' ... we now know how to make observed quantum entanglement connecting widely separated particles consistent with Einstein's relativity.'
Though I know this is the majority view,"
In fact it's not. Majority view is that there is some kind of "faster than light" nonlocalty and that does contradict Einstein's CLASSICAL assumption that no action at a distance outside the light cone. The advantage of local retrocausality as recently convincingly argued by Huw Price, Rod Sutherland and others is that it explains the completely metric independent nature of quantum entanglement. That is, with the old idea of Costa de Beauregard's "zig-zag" (also found in Aharonov's and Cramer's models) the spacetime separations between the future strong measurements of the parts of the entangled whole are irrelevant - they can be timelike, light like or spacelike.
"no one has ever observed quantum entanglement without first assuming that which was to be proved."
Your remark is unintelligible to me.
"Relativity suffers no such disadvantage. Better to make quantum theory a subdiscipline of information theory."
Very vague, what's your point?
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 19:43 GMT
"no one has ever observed quantum entanglement without first assuming that which was to be proved."
Your remark is unintelligible to me."
Quantum entanglement is an illusion, with no physical basis.
"Relativity suffers no such disadvantage. Better to make quantum theory a subdiscipline of information theory."
Very vague, what's your point?"
Relativity is mathematically complete; quantum theory is not.
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 21:10 GMT
You do not understand what I am saying. Quantum theory is not complete as a physical theory in the same way that special relativity is not complete physically. General relativity is to special relativity as post-quantum mechanics is to quantum mechanics. Special relativity and quantum mechanics both fail to obey the action-reaction organizing meta-principle. There is no back reaction of matter on spacetime in special relativity. Similarly, there is no back reaction of matter and spacetime on their respective quantum information pilot waves in quantum theory in the Bohmian picture. The Copenhagen et-al pictures are seriously incomplete because they only have quantum information waves without any matter and any spacetime as classically independent "beables" in the sense of the Bohmian picture.
As far as formal completeness, Godel "proved" that any formal system of sufficient complexity is incomplete if it is to be consistent.
Anonymous replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 14:02 GMT
I understand that, Jack.
Special relativity is internally consistent, however. Try tinkering with one of these postulates:
-- the laws of nature are uniform in all inertial frames.
-- the speed of light is constant
in vacuo.Is there not reversibility built into these statements? One can define a superluminal particle from these principles as one which changes trajectory without changing velocity. This is purely physical, and from repeated action of this sort one derives Einstein's (and Descartes') philosophy that no space is empty of field.
That seem to be your action-reaction organizing meta-principle, and it is all local; i.e., superluminal particles can't be distinguished from their counterparts that we count as real.
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 22:35 GMT
I understand that, Jack.
"Special relativity is internally consistent, however. Try tinkering with one of these postulates:
-- the laws of nature are uniform in all inertial frames.
-- the speed of light is constant in vacuo.
Is there not reversibility built into these statements? One can define a superluminal particle from these principles as one which changes trajectory without changing velocity. This is purely physical, and from repeated action of this sort one derives Einstein's (and Descartes') philosophy that no space is empty of field."
False. One can have tachyons in SR. In QFT the appearance of a tachyon is an instability trigger of a spontaneous symmetry breaking of the ground state e.g. Higgs mechanism, superconductivity, ferromagnetism, crystal formation etc. see P.W. Anderson "More Is Different."
"That seem to be your action-reaction organizing meta-principle, and it is all local; i.e., superluminal particles can't be distinguished from their counterparts that we count as real."
You are very confused here. There is no connection between superluminal particles and PQM action-reaction. As a matter of fact in weak measurement sense superluminal motions of the particles do happen between the strong measurements in the QM limit with zero PQM action-reaction. However the anomalous effects are washed out by quantum noise if you only look at strong measurement data. Sutherland explains all this in detail.
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 15:00 GMT
"There is no connection between superluminal particles and PQM action-reaction."
If there weren't, there would be no momentum decay. The tachyon limit prescribes the moment of reversal.
"As a matter of fact in weak measurement sense superluminal motions of the particles do happen between the strong measurements in the QM limit with zero PQM action-reaction."
Proves the case. Superluminal particles are not differentiable from a zero action-reaction.
"However the anomalous effects are washed out by quantum noise if you only look at strong measurement data. Sutherland explains all this in detail."
This discounts the role of noise in the system. As Einstein said, "I think of a quantum as a singularity surrounded by a large vector field."
I'll have a look at Sutherland's argument.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 17:56 GMT
Having reviewed Sutherland, I am curious as to where you find that our conclusions differ. I agree that apparent non-locality in 3D is local in 4D -- and
said as much.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 03:05 GMT
Antony Valentini has argued that the Born-Feynman probability rule (i.e, to take the modulus square of complex number path amplitudes ~ exp[i(classical action)/hbar] and to add the amplitudes coherently before squaring when the outcomes cannot be distinguished, but to square first before adding when they can, is not a fundamental law of nature, but is an accident corresponding to what he calls...
view entire post
Antony Valentini has argued that the Born-Feynman probability rule (i.e, to take the modulus square of complex number path amplitudes ~ exp[i(classical action)/hbar] and to add the amplitudes coherently before squaring when the outcomes cannot be distinguished, but to square first before adding when they can, is not a fundamental law of nature, but is an accident corresponding to what he calls “sub-quantum equilibrium.” What I am calling “Post-Quantum Mechanics” (PQM) corresponds to Valentini’s “sub-quantum non-equilibrium” in which what he calls entanglement “nonlocal signaling” happens.
Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini
“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)”
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049
Valentini wrote the above in 2002 before Huw Price, Ken Wharton, Rod Sutherland convincingly explained, in my opinion, that spacelike nonlocality is not a good way to think of quantum entanglement. The alternative “Costa de Beauregard zig-zag” used implicitly at least by Yakir Aharonov and John Cramer in their respective interpretations of quantum theory, is preferable because it is consistent with the symmetries of Einstein’s classical theories of relativity if we allow “weak measurement” future causes of present effects as well as the usual past causes of present effects of orthodox von-Neumann “strong measurement” interpretations. Indeed, the observed violation of Bell’s inequality can be most simply and elegantly understood as the effects of future causes (strong measurements) of past effects (at the moment of emission of a pair). From this point of view it is obvious why the space-time separations between strong measurements of the localized parts of the entangled whole do not matter. Those separations can be spacelike, timelike or lightlike even in curved classical spacetime where one can try to connect them with corresponding geodesics. Huw Price has also pointed out that John Bell was confused on the difference between “super-determinism” and “local retrocausality.” This confusion caused him to erroneously think that local retro-causality conflicted with “free will.” All of this presupposes that we live in a “block universe” one physicist in particular thinks that this means there is no dynamics. This not the place to argue this, although, I mention it in passing, since it was discussed in this workshop. Suffice it to say, that the Lagrangian form of dynamics only makes sense in the block universe picture in which we take the global 4D spacetime view. The “dynamical” view is that of the Hamiltonian formulation (3D + 1). One beautiful result of Sutherland’s fully relativistic Lagrangian for Bohm’s pilot-wave particle theory is that because of the Costa de Beauregard “zig-zag” and the use of Yakir Aharonov’s advanced “destiny” and retarded “history” waves in the “weak measurements” of the particle motions between strong measurements, is that we no longer need higher-dimensional configuration space in the description of many-particle entanglement. Indeed, Sutherland has applied this notion to the problem of quantum gravity.
From the structure of Sutherland’s Lagrangian, which has classical particle parts independent of h as well as quantum parts dependent on h, it became clear to me that Valentini need not use the word “sub-quantum.” The “beables” are not at some hidden level at all. They are at the classical physics level. Furthermore, Valentini thinks that “non-equilibrium matter” is only found around the time of the Big Bang. On the contrary, I propose that all living matter is “non-equilibrium matter” in the sense of locally-decodable key-less entanglement signaling that is strictly forbidden in the limit of orthodox quantum theory. Indeed, I propose that Sutherland’s weak measurement action-reaction piece of his Lagrangian corresponds to what Valentini called “sub-quantum non-equilibrium.” Furthermore, when one reads Roger Penrose’s books, e.g. Emperor’s New Mind, Shadows of the Mind, Fashion, Faith and Fantasy etc. one sees mention of the possible importance of Herbert Frohlich’s macro-quantum coherence in pumped open non-equilibrium dissipative structures. This leads me to further conjecture that any such open macro-quantum coherent pilot wave, but classically thermodynamically non-equilibrium system will be post-quantum with Sutherland’s action-reaction not equal to zero. Indeed, I conjecture that the PQM action-reaction term will be proportional to the amount of external pump stress-energy current densities above Frohlich’s critical threshold. The mathematical model here is formally similar to that of a coherent laser beam above threshold rather than in the thermodynamic equilibrium of a conventional Bose-Einstein condensate. Now it turns out that Sutherland’s PQM action-reaction is proportional to a factor, which when set equal to zero in the limiting case PQM → QM is exactly de Broglie’s guidance equation that the particle world lines coincide with pilot wave “fluid” stream lines (gradients of the phase of the pilot waves). This explains why, in a beautiful way, we can dispense with the particles entirely in the orthodox quantum limit and pretend they are not there. Of course, doing that leads to bending over backwards with contortions like “wave function collapse”, “problem of the classical limit” etc. – all non-problems in the Bohmian 1952 picture not to be confused with his later less intuitive “implicate/explicate order” speculations. I have no need of that hypothesis here. Finally, it needs to be pointed out that the basic Sutherland Lagrangian theory is non-statistical “God does not play dice” (Einstein) it is nonlinear and non-unitary. The statistical linear unitary QM limit comes from doing several things:
1) setting the wave action-particle reaction term to zero
2) integrating over the future destiny causes of past effects with the ad_hoc Born rule weighting factor ||^2.
As an example the Aharonov weak measurements at x are of the form for a local operator J
< J(x)>w = J/
Therefore, the integral over all possible = J
And it appears as if time only flows one-way from past to future in accord with the Arrow of Time of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as in Henry Stapp’s talk at this conference for example.
view post as summary
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 03:09 GMT
That w equation did not come through OK I need to change the < to (
w = (destiny|x)J(x|history)/(destiny|history)
integrating over all (destiny| as a complete set with the Born weights |(destiny|history)|^2 gives
= (history|x)J(x|history)
Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 21:34 GMT
Comments on David Kaiser's How the Hippies Saved Physics relevant to the essay,
“Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry. … To Stapp, Bell’s theorem and the landmark experiment by group member John Clauser led to the...
view entire post
Comments on David Kaiser's How the Hippies Saved Physics relevant to the essay,
“Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry. … To Stapp, Bell’s theorem and the landmark experiment by group member John Clauser led to the “conclusion that superluminal transfer of information is necessary.”6 And so the agenda was set. The question of superluminal information transfer, and whether it could be controlled to send signals faster than light, would occupy Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others for the better part of a decade.
Their efforts instigated major work on Bell’s theorem and the foundations of
quantum theory. Most important became known as the “no-cloning theorem,” at the heart of today’s quantum encryption technology”
[Sarfatti Comment of March 8, 2017
I now realize, though many of my colleagues are still stuck in the “faster than light” explanation of quantum entanglement, that “local retrocausality” i.e. future dynamical causes of past effects explain all of quantum entanglement weirdness.
What John Bell really proved is that the common sense idea that there are only past causes of future effects is wrong. There is no need to invoke faster-than-light action-at-a-distance that is in violation of the ‘spirit’ if not the “letter’ of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. The local retrocausal explanation of quantum entanglement is more general than the faster-than-light explanation because the former neatly explains why the space-time separations among the future strong measurements of the localized parts of the entangled network make no difference in the absence of intervening noise decoherence from the environment. The idea of future causes of past effects in a block universe was already introduced by Wheeler and Feynman for classical electrodynamics and then for quantum theory by Feynman. It was taken up by I.J. Good, Fred Hoyle, Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer, but most importantly by Oliver Costa de Beauregard in his “zig-zag” back in the 1950s. We were all aware of it in the 1970s, but because of Bohr’s ghost in the hypnotic rhetoric of the Wizard Wheeler, we were in a spell and did not properly realize its importance until recent work by Huw Price at Trinity College, Cambridge and Roderick Sutherland at the University in Sydney. Therefore, all the references to “faster-than-light” in Kaiser’s book do not reflect my current view on the meaning of quantum theory. Of course my efforts and Nick Herbert’s efforts in the 1970s to make a faster-than-light quantum entanglement communicator using only quantum mechanics were doomed to failure because no one then really understood its limitations. It was only through our failures that others like Stapp, Eberhard, Wheeler’s students Zurek and Wooter’s et-al were prodded into inventing the no-cloning and other no-signaling theorems. However, this does not mean that Nature does not allow locally decodable keyless entanglement signaling. In fact Nature does allow it in living matter as seen in brain presponse and the SRI CIA precognition data et-al. It just means, as Einstein thought, that quantum mechanics is incomplete and that God does not play dice with the universe.
“Suppose there is even something vaguely teleological about the effects of consciousness, so that a future impression might affect a past action.” Roger Penrose, “The Emperor’s New Mind” pp 442-445 (1989)
“It seems to me that biological systems are able in some way to utilize the opposite time-sense in which radiation propagates from future to past. Bizarre as this may appear, they must somehow be working backwards in time.” Sir Fred Hoyle, “The Intelligent Universe”, p. 213 (1986)
The issue of using entanglement as a command-control-communication network is a separate issue the realm PQM (Post-Quantum-Mechanics) that contains QM (Quantum Mechanics) as a limiting case in the same way that Einstein SR (Special Relativity) is a limiting case of GR (General Relativity). Eugener Wigner’s “action-reaction” organizing meta-theoretic principle for construction of theoretical physics models is the common thread connection PQM to GR. QM and SR both violate Wigner’s action-reaction principle restored by Rod Sutherland in his fully relativistic weak measurement Bohm pilot-wave/particle Lagrangian able to handle many-particle entanglement in a completely local retrocausal “zig-zag” manner that dispenses with the need for higher-dimensional configuration space. Sutherland has also applied this idea to field theory in his paper “Naïve Quantum Gravity.”]
Wheeler sent Sarfatti a preprint of his 1974 Oxford talk, for example, complete with its “participator” stick figure and self-actualizing universe cartoons, and it made a deep impression on Sarfatti. He began to cite it and build on its ideas even before Wheeler’s essay had appeared in print.29 Sarfatti aimed to stitch these diverse ideas together. … Sarfatti took the point that everyone’s consciousness participates in shaping quantum processes, both by deciding which observations to make and by collapsing the multiplying possibilities into definite outcomes. Sarfatti recast Wigner’s main argument in terms of action and reaction. Surely matter can affect consciousness—LSD and other psychedelic drugs had made that lesson clear enough—so why not posit an equal and opposite reaction of consciousness on matter? To Sarfatti, such a move paid double dividends: it opened up a possible avenue for understanding psychokinesis, and it offered hope that Age of Aquarius students might come back to physics classrooms, finding new relevance in the subject.30 Most mental contributions to the behavior of quantum particles, Sarfatti continued, would be “uncoordinated and incoherent”—that is, they would each push in different directions and, on average, wash out. But, as Uri Geller seemed to demonstrate, certain talented individuals might possess “volitional control” such that they could impose some order on the usually random quantum motions. Some “participators” seemed to be more effective than others. Moreover, thanks to Bell’s theorem, these individuals could exercise their control at some distance from the particles in question. In short: perhaps Geller could detect signals from far away or affect metal from across a room because the quanta in his head and the quanta far away were deeply, ineluctably entangled via quantum nonlocality. Bizarre? No doubt. But was it really any more outlandish than Wheeler’s giddy flights?31 Sarfatti’s first effort to bring Geller and psi into the rubric of quantum physics appeared as the lead article in the inaugural issue of a brand-new journal entitled Psychoenergetic Systems. Brendan O’Regan, whom Sarfatti first met at the Stanford Research Institute psi lab before departing for Europe, helped launch the journal to feature just this kind of reasoned—and, granted, speculative—investigation into effects beyond the usual boundaries of science. ...
In September 1975, Jack Sarfatti gave a presentation to the group on “Bell’s theorem and the necessity of superluminal quantum information transfer.” A month later, Herbert followed up with his own presentation on “Bell’s theorem and superluminal signals.”5 That December, Berkeley physicist and Fundamental Fysiks Group member Henry Stapp also weighed in. As he put it, “the central mystery of quantum theory is ‘how does information get around so quick?’” To Stapp, Bell’s theorem and the landmark experiment by group member John Clauser led to the “conclusion that superluminal transfer of information is necessary.”6 And so the agenda was set. The question of superluminal information transfer, and whether it could be controlled to send signals faster than light, would occupy Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others for the better part of a decade. Their efforts instigated major work on Bell’s theorem and the foundations of quantum theory. Most important became known as the “no-cloning theorem,” at the heart of today’s quantum encryption technology. The no-cloning theorem supplies the oomph behind quantum encryption, the reason for the technology’s supreme, in-principle security. The all-important no-cloning theorem was discovered at least three times, by physicists working independently of each other. But each discovery shared a common cause: one of Nick Herbert’s remarkable schemes for a superluminal telegraph. Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry. Like Nick Herbert, Jack Sarfatti was quick to appreciate some of the practical payoffs that a faster-than-light communication device would bring. In early May 1978, Sarfatti prepared a patent disclosure document on a “Faster-than-light quantum communication system.” The document was the first step in a formal patent application. In addition to filing his disclosure with the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks in Washington, DC, he sent a copy to Ira Einhorn, scrawling across the top: “Ira—please circulate widely!” (This was a year before Einhorn would be arrested for murder; his “Unicorn preprint service” was still in full swing.) [Sarfatti’s talk] began by citing Clauser’s experimental tests of Bell’s theorem, before citing a preprint of Henry Stapp’s paper on superluminal connections, which Sarfatti most likely received directly from Stapp at one of the group’s weekly meetings.7 Sarfatti began to pull out of his downward spiral in the early 1980s. Perched at his regular location (Caffe Trieste, North Beach, San Francisco), he had fallen in with a curious crowd: politically conservative thinkers who were drawn to certain New Age ideas. Chief among them was A. Lawrence (“Lawry”) Chickering. A graduate of Yale Law School, Chickering worked for the conservative magazine National Review before returning to his native California in the early 1970s to direct the statewide Office of Economic Opportunity under Governor Ronald Reagan. Near the end of Reagan’s term, Chickering founded a new political think tank in San Francisco, the Institute for Contemporary Studies, and convinced such leading conservatives as Edwin Meese and Caspar Weinberger to join the Institute’s board. Chickering quickly became known as the intellectual leader of the “New Age Right.” Where others had seen only left-leaning collectivist ideas on display at Esalen or in the Eastern mysticism craze, Chickering discerned a strong element of “personal responsibility.” Borrowing from est and the human potential movement, Chickering tried to hone anew “therapeutic vocabulary,” as he explained to a journalist: some new means of discussing contentious political issues in a way that emphasized each faction’s common ground. When Reagan was elected president in 1980, and Meese and Weinberger joined the new cabinet, Chickering suddenly had the ear of the White House. Sarfatti, in turn, had the ear of Chickering.7 Chickering sent memos to highly placed bureaucrats in Reagan’s Defense Department touting Sarfatti’s work and lobbying for funds to support further research. At a March 1982 dinner in Washington, DC, hosted by Secretary of Defense Weinberger—until recently a board member of Chickering’s think tank—Chickering struck up a conversation with the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering. He followed up with a long letter a week later, to describe in more detail “the work of a physicist friend of mine which just might have profound implications for certain aspects of the technology of warfare.”8 Chickering mentioned the CIA memorandum from 1979 that had expressed some interest in Sarfatti’s ideas, and then made his pitch. “Jack says that if in fact we can control the faster-than-light nonlocal effect,” then one could make “an untappable and unjammable command-control-communication system at very high bit-rates for use in the submarine fleet. The important point here is that since there is no ordinary electromagnetic or acoustic signal linking the encoder with the decoder in such a hypothetical system, there is nothing for the enemy to tap or jam.” “I know this sounds like science fiction” or even “occult ‘sympathetic magic,’” Chickering admitted, “but no one honestly knows for sure at this point.” Wouldn’t it be in the nation’s interest to invest a little of the Pentagon’s discretionary funding to test Sarfatti’s hypothesis, rather than ignoring the idea until some rival country ran with it instead?9 … Chickering introduced Sarfatti to a whole new network of people. Around the time of his memo to the Pentagon, for example, Chickering and a friend (the wife of the Reagan administration’s new ambassador to France) met in Paris with physicist Alain Aspect, right in the midst of Aspect’s groundbreaking experiments on Bell’s theorem, to convey messages from Sarfatti.13 When an editor of the journal Foundations of Physics compared Sarfatti’s unusual position to that of another “rogue” physicist who also sought to challenge physics orthodoxy without a stable institutional position, Sarfatti was quick to draw a distinction. “The difference is that I am now getting a sympathetic hearing at the highest levels of President Reagan’s Administration …" … Newly immersed in Chickering’s circle, Sarfatti’s political leanings swung solidly to the right. He began to write with characteristic ire about the leftist excesses of people and groups with whom he had enjoyed close relations only a few years earlier. A typical rant dismissed “charlatans and ‘New Age’ anti-rationalists of the drug-crazed and meditation-glazed ‘counter-culture,’” with their “pop-Eastern mysticism.”15
[Sarfatti Comment March 8, 2017 Here Kaiser makes a mistake confounding cause with effect. He did not realize that my earlier memo of 1981 that got to Reagan via Paul Nitze and also Cap Weinberger Jr contained the words “rendering nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”]
His ideas harnessing quantum entanglement likewise began to reflect the latest political hues. For example, Sarfatti imagined fulfilling Reagan’s famous call to render nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete”—the phrase Reagan used in March 1983 when announcing his new Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars program—by shooting entangled quantum particles at enemy missiles from space-based battle stations. The particles would induce harmless nuclear reactions inside the warheads, rendering the fissionable material inert. Unlike many of his other brainstorms about Bell’s theorem, this one made it into print, appearing in the journal Defense Analysis in the mid-1980s.16
“The application to deep space communications is obvious,” Sarfatti concluded: messages could be relayed instantly across vast, cosmic distances. Benefits would accrue closer to home as well, such as “giving instant communication between an intelligence agent and his headquarters”—that is, espionage. Clearly his prior experiences with Harold Puthoff, Russell Targ, and their remote-viewing experiments at the Stanford Research Institute had left their mark. “In this case,” Sarfatti clarified, “we would not use the above system but would use the same principle using e.g. correlated psycho-active molecules, such as LSD, affecting the neurotransmitter chemistry.” Presumably the image of CIA agents doped up on LSD, communicating instantly with operatives half a world away via correlated brain impulses, seemed no more far-fetched than the parapsychological effects in which Sarfatti had been immersed for years.9"
[Sarfatti Comment - indeed they are not as shown by Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ.]
Kaiser, David (2012-07-16). How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival . Norton. Kindle Edition.
view post as summary
Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 23:51 GMT
Dear Jack Sarfatti
I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.
How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.
1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.
2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.
3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.
4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?
5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..
6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.
7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.
8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.
9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.
11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.
12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.
I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.
Héctor
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 04:38 GMT
Your comments on time are off-topic to my essay. Again, I am only interested in comments and queries related to the content of my essay in which I claim to have solved the "hard problem" (David Chalmers). Please, those of you with other theories, this is not the proper forum.
Saibal Mitra wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 22:59 GMT
Suppose that we build a large classical computer that simulates a brain and we use that to control a robot. This robot would claim to be a conscious person just like you and me, but I guess you would then argue that this cannot be true?
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 04:35 GMT
Yea, it cannot be true if PQM is true. Classical computers do not have giant quantum coherent pilot waves that receive impressions directly from their classical electomagetic fields and charges. Qualia are those impressions. Therefore, no classical computer can be conscious as a matter of fundamental law IF PQM is a good map of that territory that we call physical reality.
Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 04:54 GMT
"Anonymous" does not understand special relativity when IT writes
"Special relativity is internally consistent, however. Try tinkering with one of these postulates:
-- the laws of nature are uniform in all inertial frames.
-- the speed of light is constant in vacuo."
The correct statement is that the speed of light in classical vacuum is the same invariant number for all inertial observers in uniform (non-accelerated) proper motion relative to each other. To which we should add "in the absence of spacetime curvature" although even in that case special relativity holds locally to good approximation when the weightless inertial observes (zero local proper accelerations) are separated from each other by distances small compared to the local radii of 4D spacetime curvature.
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 05:47 GMT
Hello Jack,
This essay gave me a lot of food for thought. I was not familiar with Sutherland's work prior to encountering this, but I did download some of your references and additional materials cited in comments here on the forum. Frankly; I was a little disappointed about the essay itself, after reading some of your lucid comments here, because I thought your angle well fit the topic but was not so well articulated that you deserved full credit for clarity.
I see it it as highly likely that you are correct about how including retrocausal terms solves a lot of standing problems. H.D. Zeh was quite emphatic, both in his Direction of Time book and in correspondence, that it is crucial to include both the retarded and advanced solutions, if we want to see how the local is mapped to the global picture. And I also think such things enter our perceptual schema.
I have given a fair amount of thought to the idea that our brains our constructed hemispherically (or with lateral specialization), but have mostly identical structure on either side, because they are operating on information in reverse directions of time or process. Where one hemisphere takes reality apart the other searches for unifying context, but this is the same process in two directions. Likewise with mathematical differentiation and integration - they are the same operation in opposite directions.
This paper has details.
Does Lateral Specialization in the Brain Arise from the Directionality of Processes and Time?All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 01:37 GMT
I don't think your idea is plausible, but I could be wrong.
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 21:08 GMT
Thanks for the feedback Jack..
I'll keep reading your sources, and offer a query if something curious pops out.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 01:24 GMT
Jack Sarfatti:
I've seen your page, back-action, and retrocausality pages on Wikipedia. I'm seeking references on retrocausality that may assist me in my research on the STOE model. The prime focus is "can the math or the approach of retrocausality be combined or interpreted as the van Flanders faster-than-light gravity waves?". The STOE model also suggests the gravity wave emits from...
view entire post
Jack Sarfatti:
I've seen your page, back-action, and retrocausality pages on Wikipedia. I'm seeking references on retrocausality that may assist me in my research on the STOE model. The prime focus is "can the math or the approach of retrocausality be combined or interpreted as the van Flanders faster-than-light gravity waves?". The STOE model also suggests the gravity wave emits from photons in all directions, returns from the forward direction and influences the path of the photon in a diffraction experiment. A toy model predicted (yes, before the experiment was done) the type of experiment and the result that rejected wave models of light. Diffraction experiment and its STOE photon simulation program rejects wave models of light (http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603 and http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719 ).
The problem is the simulation is a toy model that doesn't scale-up. The bouncing-drop (walking-drop) diffraction actual experiment [Fig. 5(c)} {Bush 2015, Physics Today, 68,8} { https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282806859_The_new_w
ave_of_pilot_wave_theory } suggests a similarity between the bouncing-drop and the STOE model. Both show a change of direction just BEFORE reaching the slit. This looks a lot like the retrocausality (not backward in time but from the drop (photon) out then returned much faster than the drop (photon) is moving and influence the drop(photon).
Richardson, et al, 2014, arXiv: 1410.1373 suggested an analogy between wave-particle duality and bouncing drops. Their calculation does NOT agree with the STOE actual experiment or the drop experiment and doesn't cover the period just before encountering the mask. They ignored any back-action. I think this is why his model disagrees with both light and drop experiments. However, Leifer & Pusey {arXiv: 1607.0787} and Narasimhan & Kafatos {arXiv: 1608.0622} suggest retrocasality may be the link I seek.
I've also thought the zero-point energy oscillation may be behaving like a drop in it up & down oscillation. But this has some pitfalls that may not agree with experiment.
Do you have an insight or references?
Hodge
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 01:35 GMT
Why not read the essay? The references are there. STOE is silly a waste of time. We don't need any bouncing drops also. Sutherland's theory does what's needed.
John C Hodge replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 03:34 GMT
I did read the essay. It doesn't work. Experiments reject your
model. But thanks for telling me you cannot help. NowI can ignore you.
Hodge
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 03:36 GMT
Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 03:38 GMT
Annie Jacobson's new book Phenomenon (advance copy sent to me by the author)
Sarfatti Commentary 1 of a series
Annie's book complements David Kaiser's "How the Hippies Saved Physics." It has lots of interesting details on Puharich's early work on psi for the military and of course a lot interesting history on Uri Geller, Russ Targ, Hal Puthoff, Kit Green, Dale Graf, Edgar Mitchell...
view entire post
Annie Jacobson's new book Phenomenon (advance copy sent to me by the author)
Sarfatti Commentary 1 of a series
Annie's book complements David Kaiser's "How the Hippies Saved Physics." It has lots of interesting details on Puharich's early work on psi for the military and of course a lot interesting history on Uri Geller, Russ Targ, Hal Puthoff, Kit Green, Dale Graf, Edgar Mitchell et-al. The end of the book points out that CIA, DOD et-al lack a scientific understanding of the psi phenomenon. Unfortunately, there is no mention of Dean Radin's important experiments nor of the post-quantum physics that explains it adequately in my opinion.
" ' A large body of reliable experimental evidence points to the inescapable conclusion that extrasensory perception does exist as a real phenomenon." the CIA concluded in 1975 … 'There exists no satisfactory theoretical understanding of these phenomena … ' Without a theory, the CIA was left with hypotheses, or conjecture." pp 377-78
Yes, that was the situation back then when CIA and Werner Erhard, Andrija Puharich and others contacted me to work on this problem. See my book Destiny Matrix and Kaiser's book "How the Hippies Saved Physics" for more details. It has taken a long time to solve this problem. I now claim, with Roderick Sutherland's serendipitous mathematical breakthrough
1. arXiv:1509.07380 [pdf]
Interpretation of the Klein-Gordon Probability Density
Roderick Sutherland
Comments: 6 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
2. arXiv:1509.02442 [pdf]
Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics -- Entangled Many-Particle Case
Roderick Sutherland
Comments: 34 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
3. arXiv:1509.00001 [pdf]
Energy-momentum tensor for a field and particle in interaction
Roderick Sutherland
Comments: 9 pages
Subjects: Classical Physics (physics.class-ph)
4. arXiv:1502.02058 [pdf]
Naive Quantum Gravity
Roderick I. Sutherland
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
5. arXiv:1411.3762 [pdf]
Lagrangian Formulation for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: Single-Particle Case
Roderick I. Sutherland
Comments: 12 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
6. arXiv:quant-ph/0601095 [pdf]
Causally Symmetric Bohm Model
Rod Sutherland
Comments: 35 pages, 5 figures, new sections 12 and 13 added
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
That what CIA, Werner Erhard et-al were looking for has finally now been essentially found - not only an explanation for anomalous ESP, but the explanation for ordinary consciousness and the beginning of a technology for conscious AI and the ability to upload human memories (qualia) to The Cloud in the sense of The Singularity of Kurzweil.
Precognition is an example of post-quantum locally retrocausal entanglement keyless signaling caused by action-reaction between Bohm's quantum information mental pilot waves and the classical level matter beables they interact with.
Dean Radin, today as the Destiny Matrix would have it, said this at the same time an advance copy of Annie's book arrived at my door
On Mar 22, 2017, at 5:47 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Thanks Dean
Exactly my point! :-)
Do you understand Stan Klein's $70K experiment?
On Mar 22, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Dean Radin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:55 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
[JS] Does Dean Radin agree that his work was not done properly?
Of course not. The relevant experiments have been conducted for decades, by dozens of independent researchers around the world, often under harsh scrutiny. With the current evidence in hand, consider that Jessica Utts, who was President of the American Statistical Association last year, said the following as part of her Presidential address to 6,000 professional statisticians from around the world:
For many years I have worked with researchers doing very careful work in [parapsychology], including a year that I spent full-time working on a classified project for the United States government to see if we could use these abilities for intelligence gathering during the cold war.
At the end of that project I wrote a report for Congress stating what I still think is true. The data in support of precognition and possibly other related phenomena is quite strong statistically and would be widely accepted if it pertained to something more mundane.
Yet, most scientists reject the possible reality of these abilities without ever looking at data. And on the other extreme, there are true believers who base their beliefs solely on anecdotes and personal experience. I have asked the debunkers if there is any amount of data that would convince them, and they generally responded by saying “probably not.” I ask them what original research they have read, and they mostly admit that they haven’t read any. Now there is a definition of a pseudoscientist: Basing conclusions on belief rather than data.
When I’ve given talks on this topic to audiences of statisticians I show lots of data. Then I ask the audience, which would be more convincing to you? Lots more data or one strong personal experience? And guess what, almost without fail the response is one strong personal experience.
… I think people are justifiably skeptical because most people think these abilities contradict what we know about science. They don’t, but that’s the topic of another talk.
I would add to what Jessica said that it's a mistake to think that yet another experiment, however impeccably it's designed and regardless of who publishes it, is going to convince anyone of anything they presently think is impossible.
Jack and others are offering theoretical models that view retrocausal effects not as unexplainable anomalies, but as phenomena that make sense. A viable theory is the only thing that will convince staunch skeptics. Even a money-making application won't work because hardcore skeptics can (and regularly do) explain away anything they don't like as flaws or fraud.
best wishes,
Dean
www.noetic.org
----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
- Chief Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences deanradin.com
- Distinguished Professor, California Institute of Integral Studies ciis.edu
- Co-Editor-in-Chief, Explore, an Elsevier journal explorejournal.com
view post as summary
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 17:43 GMT
Interesting note..
Thanks for sharing Jack. I agree with your assessment and I hope others including Annie J will come around. I think some of the statements made were a smoke screen to blur how effective the precogs really were. I know some of the people once involved, and the results of experiments were far more encouraging than the public was led to believe. Mechanism or no; you can't simply deny it when something works, and say because you can't explain it that there is no explanation.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 21:46 GMT
PCTC is a variation on Yakir Aharonov's "weak measurement" connected with Rod Sutherland's locally retrocausal post-Bohmian Lagrangian.
"Closed timelike curves (CTCs) are trajectories in spacetime that effectively travel backwards in
time: a test particle following a CTC can in principle interact with its former self in the past.
CTCs appear in many solutions of Einstein’s...
view entire post
PCTC is a variation on Yakir Aharonov's "weak measurement" connected with Rod Sutherland's locally retrocausal post-Bohmian Lagrangian.
"Closed timelike curves (CTCs) are trajectories in spacetime that effectively travel backwards in
time: a test particle following a CTC can in principle interact with its former self in the past.
CTCs appear in many solutions of Einstein’s field equations and any future quantum version of
general relativity will have to reconcile them with the requirements of quantum mechanics and of
quantum field theory. A widely accepted quantum theory of CTCs was proposed by Deutsch. Here
we explore an alternative quantum formulation of CTCs and show that it is physically inequivalent
to Deutsch’s. Because it is based on combining quantum teleportation with post-selection, the
predictions/retrodictions of our theory are experimentally testable: we report the results of an
experiment demonstrating our theory’s resolution of the well-known ‘grandfather paradox.’"
This is for traversable ER wormholes/PQM EPR entanglement signaling in violation of the conditions used by Lenny Susskind et-al.
"Although time travel is usually taken to be the stuff of science fiction, it is not ruled out by scientific fact. Einstein’s theory of general relativity admits the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs) [1], paths through spacetime which, if followed, allow a time traveller to go back in time and interact with her own past. The logical paradoxes inherent in time travel make it hard to formulate self-consistent physical theories of time travel [2–6]. This paper proposes an empirical self-consistency condition for closed timelike curves: we demand that a generalized measurement made before a quantum system enters a closed timelike curve yield the same statistics – including correlations with other measurements – as would result if the same measurement were made after the system exits from the curve. That is, the closed time- like curve behaves like an ideal, noiseless quantum channel that displaces systems in time without affecting the correlations with external systems. To satisfy this criterion without introducing contradictions, we construct a theory of closed timelike curves via quantum post- selection (P-CTCs). The theory is based on Bennett and Schumacher’s suggestion [7] to describe time travel in terms of quantum teleportation, and on the Horowitz-Maldacena model for black hole evaporation [8]. We show that P-CTCs are consistent with path integral approaches [9, 10], but physically inequivalent to the prevailing theory of closed timelike curves due to Deutsch [2]. Moreover, because they are based on post-selection [11], closed timelike curves can be simulated experimentally. We present an experimental realization of the grandfa- ther paradox: the experiment tests what happens when a photon is sent a few billionths of a second back in time to try to ‘kill’ its former self. …
Causality is not violated because Bob cannot foresee Alice’s measurement result, which is completely random. However, if we could pick out only the proper result with probability one, the resulting ‘projective’ teleportation would allow information to propagate along spacelike intervals, to escape from black holes [8], or to travel backwards in time along a closed timelike curve. We call this mechanism a projective or post-selected CTC, or P-CTC."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2219.pdf
to be continued.
view post as summary
Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 05:16 GMT
On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
The point is that it must be physically possible (on the assumption that the PQM guide wave is the seat of human sentience)
for information to get from the constituent particles to the PQM guide wave in order for there to be awareness of the configurations
of matter.
No back action, no sensory awareness of the material world.
EXACTLY!
PS some details is the distinction between advanced destiny wave for intuition, creativity
& retarded history waves for memories in the weak measurement picture in which retrocausality signaling is essential.
Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 15:52 GMT
On Mar 24, 2017, at 3:57 AM, Alex Hankey wrote:
Jack, No mechanism of reduction of wave packets has any hope
per se of yielding an understanding of the taste of blue cheese,
or the quality of perception of the colours saffron, emerald or indigo.
I disagree. Any physics of consciousness including Stapp's, Penrose, mine that explains qualia explains all those...
view entire post
On Mar 24, 2017, at 3:57 AM, Alex Hankey wrote:
Jack, No mechanism of reduction of wave packets has any hope
per se of yielding an understanding of the taste of blue cheese,
or the quality of perception of the colours saffron, emerald or indigo.
I disagree. Any physics of consciousness including Stapp's, Penrose, mine that explains qualia explains all those distinctions as different patterns of the entanglement of qubits in the macro-quantum coherent pilot wave that image the different electromagnetic beable patterns whose reactions cause them.
The articles here measure the classical beable dynamics (independent of Planck's constant h) in the Sutherland PQM Lagrangian whose reactions on their Frohlich coherent advanced destiny and retarded history qubit pilot fields induce the qualia in our streams of consciousness.
Our imaginings of things future are dancing impressions in our destiny fields. Our memories are dancing impressions in our history fields (remembrances of things past)
Reading Thoughts with Brain Imaging - MIT Technology Review
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/412084/reading-thou
ghts-with-brain-imaging/
Feb 18, 2009 - Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) looks more and more like a window into the mind. In a study published online today in Nature, ...
Scientists use brain imaging to reveal the movies in our mind ...
news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/
Sep 22, 2011 - BERKELEY — Imagine tapping into the mind of a coma patient, ... Mind-readingthrough brain imaging technology is a common sci-fi theme.
Scientists Can't Read Your Mind With Brain Scans (Yet) | WIRED
https://www.wired.com/2014/04/brain-scan-mind-reading/
A
pr 29, 2014 - Scientists Can't Read Your Mind With Brain Scans (Yet) ... to reconstruct pictures of faces that the subjects had been looking at during the scan.
Brain decoding: Reading minds : Nature News & Comment
www.nature.com/news/brain-decoding-reading-minds-1.13
989
Oct 23, 2013 - On the left-hand side of the screen is a reel of film clips that Gallant showed to a study participant during a brain scan. And on the right side of ...
Scan a brain, read a mind? - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2014/04/12/health/brain-mind-reading/
Apr 12, 2014 - Scientists have made significant strides in being able to decode thoughts based on brain activity.
You are simply stuck in primitive thinking.
Indeed, your mode of thinking, your metaphysical brain-washing is the same as Deepak's and many others.
You are like the pre-Copernican Scholastics who thought that Earth was the center of the universe.
You have elevated qualia Q to an ineffable supernatural phenomenon.
BTW PQM does not have reduction in the same sense that Penrose does - but that is a technical difference - the basic ideas are similar only the means are different. The basic idea is that qualia are excitations in the quantum bit mental field directly induced by classical electromagnetic sensory input signals. Penrose invokes tiny changes in the curvature of spacetime for the same tiny mass in a quantum superposition, my adaptation of Sutherland's PQM math relies simply on his new action-reaction Lagrangian prior to taking the PQM —> QM limit.
PQM = Q/ = very complex entanglement pattern of a large number of qubits
PS note that in Bohm picture Penrose's mass m is not in two places at once at all - it is only in one place, but the empty branch of the quantum potential overlaps with the occupied branch and that overlap has the mirage of spooky action-a-distance. See Bohm and Hiley "Undivided Universe" for details on how this works. There is never any literal collapse - empty branches of Q continue to exist and they can be re-awakened (resurrected) i.e. "quantum erasure" in principle if not in practice if the entanglement is to a huge number of environmental systems (environmental decoherence).
Nor the feelings conveyed by the Brandenberg Concertos,
or a good joke. And where do bliss and pain fit in all that.
The endorphin system does not explain what it feels like when
you use a good natural form of stimulation like creative activity.
How can the reduction of wave packets cover such wide possibilities,
and I am not even half way through the whole list!
Do please think about this. It is a problem that is worth a couple of
decades of thought to solve. At the moment most of us don't even
begin to know where to look, though my opinion is that Omega
Structures in Grottendieck's Topos theory may provide a good
starting point.
Does anyone have any thoughts on that one. Or any expertise to share?
All best wishes to everyone,
as ever,
Alex
On 24 March 2017 at 04:15, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
In order for Orch OR to explain qualia Penrose tacitly assumes that the change in the wave function is the quale. This is very similar to PQM.
In Penrose's theory it is the back-reaction of the classical gravity field beable on the electron beables inside the protein dimers etc. that in turn causes a change in the wave function of those electrons et-al that is the quale. Therefore, the wave function is an intrinsic mental field in order for Penrose's scheme to make any sense at all. Same for Henry Stapp's and Wigner's consciousness as collapse - the thing that collapses must be intrinsically thought like.
On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:09 PM, wrote:
It offers a physical mechanism for the von Neumann reduction of the QM wave function by conscious observation.
Presumably any such mechanism, if artificially constructed, would have similar effects.
On 3/23/2017 4:37 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:
Ok, so Hameroff and Penrose's theory is sort of in the middle - proto consciousness is everywhere, but treats the local consciousness of an individual person or animal as happening actively in the brain.
Still, most of these theories differ from "materialist" theories that seek to explain consciousness in the brain from electrical impulses and related well documented phenomena alone.
view post as summary
james r. akerlund wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 04:40 GMT
Hi Jack,
It is good to see another person who pursues retrocausality in physics. I want to thank you for pointing out to me the papers of Rod Sutherland. I will read them when I have time. Thanks also for the lecture on Vimeo. Your paper has all sorts on info that I am interested in. Thanks.
Good luck in the contest.
Jim Akerlund
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.