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 In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded.”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

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

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

show all replies (4 not shown)

hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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