Monday, December 13, 2004

NASA Pioneer Anomaly & Cornell History Quantum Phase

On Dec 13, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Dec 12, 2004, at 12:31 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Note for the record to Martin Nieto at Los Alamos.

Turns out that Martin is one of the top guys in the Pioneer Anomaly phenomenon!

Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: December 12, 2004 12:17:51 PM PST
Subject: Pioneer Anomaly Explained

Dear Martin

Another synchronicity I can explain

a_g = cH ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2

back to Sun as an exotic vacuum dark energy hedgehog topological defect in the Higgs vacuum condensate starting out ~ 20AU from Sun. Where it ends I don't know.

Attached to be published in semi-pop book Super Cosmos Spring 2005.

Of course, the idea is to use these phase operators in some kind of Hamiltonian when you consider the time evolution - is it unitary or not?

For example in the Josephson and Bohm-Aharonov effects

The Hamiltonian H ~ C12, i.e. the cosine phase difference operator in Nieto's paper.

Is C12 "self-adjoint"?

If not, then there is signal nonlocality in e^Ht/hbar operating on some initial state.

However C12 is self-adjoint in micro-quantum problem. It is not clear if it remains so in a macro-quantum problem like the Josephson effect because the giant wave function is not a projective ray like the micro-quantum wave function is. Also the Born probability rules do not apply to the giant wave function because of P.W. Anderson's "generalized phase rigidity" in his "More is different" papers on spontaneous broken ground state symmetry e.g. "off-mass-shell" false to true vacuum inflationary phase transition creating the Big Bang with a collapse of phase space volume, therefore the early universe has low "conformal curvature" entropy (Penrose) explaining the Arrow of Time.

So the math in Nieto's paper is concerned with finding the appropriate phase operators to put into some Hamiltonian.

The Glauber macro-quantum coherent states for "condensates", both "real" and "virtual", are eigenstates |z> of destruction operator a, with z a complex number = N^1/2e^itheta. They are displaced circular Gaussians in the N,Phase plane. Squeezed states are ellipses. The |z> are generated from the vacuum |0> with things like e^(za - z*a*) the squeezing has quadratic terms in a & a* with the coefficient ~ eccentricity of the ellipse in phase space - for detection of weak signals (Braginski) like gravity waves with low quantum noise in one quadrature that circumvents the uncertainty principle in that quadrature at the expense of the other one.

That is

|z> = D(z)|0>

D(z) = e^(za* - z*a)

= (z^n/n!^1/2)e^-(1/2)|z|^2

z = ^1/2e^itheta

The z-plane is the (n, theta) "symplectic" phase space where is the MEAN photon number and the phase is theta.

Therefore, this is a kind of Wigner phase space function with ||^2 the marginal Born probability along the n-line. However, one cannot really collapse this macro-quantum CONDENSATE state |z> with a "Stern-Gerlach filter" to make sharp n eigenstate measurements when n >> 1.

Squeezed macro-quantum states

|z,w> = D(z)S(w)|0>

S(w) = e^(1/2)[w*a2 - wa*^2]

w is the complex number "squeeze" ellipse of the Wigner function in the n,theta plane.

We can keep going to a^3, a^4 ... for bosons.

There is a formal connection to "Lorentz" boost transformations!

S*aS = acosh|w| - a*sinh|w|e^-i2phi

S*a*A = -asinh|w|e^^i2phi + a*cosh|w|

phi is the orientation of the squeezed ellipse of the Wigner function in n,theta phase space with eccentricity ~ |w|.

w = |w|e^iphi

When the Wigner function goes negative in some regions of number-phase space you really have NON-CLASSICAL LIGHT. This destroys Marshall Trevor's "SED" used by Haisch in his "EM ZPE origin of electron's inertia" model.

A note on fermions.

For fermions

aa* + a*a = 1

This gives the Pauli exclusion principle.

That is the "Grassmann" number (Feynman path integrals) oscillator only has eigenvalues 0,1. This is in contrast to bosons where

aa* - a*a = 1 gives the oscillator with values n = 0, 1, 2, ... infinity

aa = a*a* = 0

Parastatistics with n limited to N can be done with FINITE GALOIS FIELDS that decompose to products of primes. (roughly speaking)

Quantum Loop Gravity & Holographic Universe

Back to "spin 1/2" fermion i.e. n = 0, 1. This is a qubit with the 2x2 Pauli matrix Clifford Algebra

(1, sx, sy, sz ) = 1 qubit for reversible unitary quantum computers


sxsy = isz

si^2 ~ 1

Since this simplest Clifford alebra describes Penrose's "spin networks" for 3D space, and since obviously only TWO Pauli matrices are nonlinearly independent, we see WHY the entropy of a VOLUME of space is ~ (Bounding Area)/Lp^2

Also in my macro-quantum theory of emergent Einstein GR gravity

Eu = (eu^a,a - &u^a,a) = eu^a,a = Lp^2(Macro-Quantum Vacuum Goldstone Phase),u

eu^a is the Einstein-Cartan tetrad needed for the LOCAL GR equivalence principle

guv = eu^anabev^b

nab is the local SR Minkowski LF metric

guv is the "curved" LNIF GR metric

,u is ordinary partial derivative

Diff (4) GCT's Jacobian matrices Xu^u' are simple canonical transformations from the gauge phase transforms on the Goldstone field. They are the transition functions for overlapping coordinate patches on the manifold.

That is, Einstein's spin 2 tensor theory with Diff(4) has a substratum that is a familiar spin 1 vector theory using the Einstein-Cartan tetrads that emerge from the Goldstone phase gradients of the "BCS" post-inflationary metastable macro-quantum coherent vacuum.

Bosons are EPR pairs of fermions, e.g. BCS superconductor ground state condensate.

Given 2 fermions a, b

Multiply their 2x2 Clifford algebras, i.e. 2-qubit strings give the 4x4 Dirac gamma matrices of the special relativistic electron and "spin foams".

to be continued

On Dec 12, 2004, at 2:05 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Nieto's discussion starts out a bit loosely at the beginning. For example

U = e^i(phase operator)

by itself is not really a time evolution operator.

For example, given

[P,X] = -ih

Treat P as the operator and a as the c-number


e^iPa/hbar generates the displacement a in the quantum wave Psi(x), i.e.

e^iPa/hbarPsi(x) = Psi(x + a)

Similarly in the momentum Fourier transform space

e^-iXkPsi(p) = Psi(p - hbark)

therefore, treating PHASE as the operator and n' as an integer

e^iPHASEn'Psi(n) = Psi(n + n')

Psi(n) is a basis in Fock space.

Nieto considers quantized phase eigenvalues in the conjugate problem which correspond to things like quantized fluxes for phase difference experiments like the Bohm-Aharonov electron interferometer showing the quantum reality of the connection field even in a region where the "curvature" vanishes! Of course the connection field is only defined locally mod a gauge transformation, or a general coordinate transformation if we are doing "quantum gravity".

On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On M.M.Nieto's historical paper on quantum phase and quantum phase and time operators.

Nieto is primarily interested in new low photon number experiments, but he does, at the end of his paper come across outside the light cone EPR nonlocal effects. Since I am primarily here interested in the opposite high N limit where is the connection? Also I am interested in off-mass-shell boson electron-positron pair vacuum condensates not the macro-quantum quantum optical states of real photons in laser radiation.

I am saying that the bottom -> up PW Anderson "More is different" emergence of Einstein's c-number general theory of relativity is in the collapse of vacuum phase space volume in the pre->post-inflationary phase transition that creates the Big Bang. Einstein's tetrad-based local c-number field equations then pop out of the ripples in the macro-quantum coherent "holographic universe" c-number phase from the Off-Diagonal-Long-Range Order (ODLRO) in the virtual boson condensate (center of mass coordinates of the virtual electron-positron pairs in a kind of BCS scenario).

So how do the micro-quantum phase operators that Nieto is interested come into this problem? Obviously they describe the exotic vacua "dark energy phases". The 1-sided non-unitarity of the time-evolution U operator generated by quantum phase in the naive attempt to get a self-adjoint phase operator, at the very beginning of Nieto's paper, is here a virtue not a vice. We do not expect unitarity at all here because the macro-quantum vacuum condensate is a reservoir for the outward and inward flow of virtual quanta. That is, the virtual electron and virtual positron bind together inside the vacuum condensate, but they are unbound outside the condensate in a kind of neutral ionized plasma, i.e. usual picture of vacuum polarization zero point fluctuations. Of course, lack of unitarity also implies signal-nonlocality - but you cannot make electromagnetic "clicks" with virtual quanta. So we are saved, as it were, by Bell's theorem, from signal-nonlocality using zero point fluctuations. However, because of the equivalence principle, these same ionized plasma micro-quantum fluctuations do gravitate - and even anti-gravitate as dark energy!

U = e^i(phase operator) = aN^-1/2

N = a*a

a is for the CM degrees of freedom of the virtual electron-positron pair as a boson oscillator

xcm = 2^-1/2[a + a*]

pcm = 2^-1/2[a - a*]

UNU* = N + 1

UU^-1 = 1


U^-1U =/= 1

Which is just what the Doctor ordered in our problem of "More is different" emergent creative complexity from spontaneous symmetry breakdown in the vacuum (or ground state).

This micro-quantum U is only for exotic vacuum "dark energy" part of our "two fluid" model.

Einstein's cosmological constant is small because most of the large-scale zero point fluctuations are swept under the rug of vacuum coherence.

On Dec 12, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:51 AM, wrote:

This pretty much sums up Jack's position: any person who proposes an interpretation of GR that is not fully consistent with the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been -- is "ipso facto off his rocker".

Indeed, Paul your writing "the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been" says it all. It is very revealing. You have not connected the dots properly. You are missing what Michael Polyani calls "tacit knowing" a kind of subconscious heuristic probably connected with "signal nonlocality" - what Bierman measures as "presponse".

GODD (I.J. Good's version of P.K. Dick's VALIS) is subtle but not malicious and moves in strange ways such as my discovery of Martin Nieto's 1993 paper from Los Alamos describing my role with Lenny Susskind and Johnny Glogower (who I brought to Cornell) in the discovery of the C & S operators for micro-quantum phase.
Click NOW on the very important
That's an order soldier! ;-)

I am now able to look on the first really important problem I worked 40 years ago with a new perspective! The issue is what the nonunitarity of the time evolution operator for quantum phase is really telling us - especially in the macro-quantum case of spontaneous broken ground state symmetry with the Goldstone phase and the Higgs field that controls the dark energy of the universe! "Signal nonlocality" is the clue. More on that anon.

BTW Nieto's history is incomplete. I was also working on the quantum phase operator problem BEFORE returning to Cornell in the Autumn of 1963 when, with Phil Morrison's help, I brought Johnny Glogower with me and rightaway "The Three Stooges" Lenny Susskind, Johnny and me became a team. We were all equally dysfunctional megalomaniacs who complimented each other with the whole greater than the sum of its parts. I had been in George Parrent's Jr Tech/Ops group on spy satellites, either NSA or CIA, in a building shared with Mitre on Route 2, Burlington, Mass in early 1963. George was a student of Emil Wolf's and we also spent a lot of time in the Boston University physics department. Roy Glauber was developing quantum coherence theory at Harvard and George assigned me to learn all that stuff to develop the quantum version of Wolf's classical partial coherence theory. Also lasers were still in their infancy right then. George was more a hands on guy and I was his resident boy genius theorist. They did not want me to leave Tech/Ops and go back to Cornell. I was guaranteed a fast PhD at BU if I stayed and high pay in defense work. But then I never would have met Lenny Susskind. Indeed, Carruthers probably posed the problem because of me. I think Nieto put the cart before the horse.

Violation of cause and effect backwards in time requires nonunitary time evolution.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: December 12, 2004 9:03:30 AM PST
To: ItalianPhysicsCenter
Cc: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars , SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com
Subject: Re: What gravity force means & Bohm Aharonov Effect 2 & Cornell history

On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:51 AM, wrote:

This pretty much sums up Jack's position: any person who proposes an interpretation of GR that is not fully consistent with the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been -- is "ipso facto off his rocker".

Yes, exactly. The probability of your success is ZERO. Meantime there are many more interesting problems and you are wasting your time completely - other than sharpening my pedagogy in how to write about relativity in my books, which is why I kept at this. No one responded to you because most of them cannot understand what your point is, and those that do think you are off your rocker. This includes Alex who does not agree with you. Puthoff's PV is also inconsistent with the LOCAL equivalence principle Visser et-al agreed. Even Hal's colleague Ibison agrees since he wrote no GCT in PV. But Hal at least has a real theory that can be falsified and has. You have nothing but words with unfullfilled promises of a proof. Who do you think you are? Ed Witten? ;-)

Meantime read that Nieto paper linked below if you want some interesting lessons in publish or perish. Also the physics is important. One can see how my first interest led to what I am doing now on deriving Einstein's GR from the macro-quantum vacuum phase - as well as my paper with Stoneham at Harwell on Goldstone theorem in 1966 on emergent order. Also PW Anderson's role is interesting synchronicity. Nieto's paper is very interesting both in terms of the history (my role) and the physics.

To Martin Nieto
Subject: Re: Discovery of quantum phase operator at Cornell:
Date: December 11, 2004 8:52:33 PM PST

PS You also make the comment that I added an i to my name. That is not true. My family name is "Sarfatti".

My father's name is Hyman Sarfatti. Our Sarfatti cousins were largely responsible for Benito Mussolini coming to power as told in the book by CIA historians P. V. Cannistraro & B.R. Sullivan "Il Duce's Other Woman" (W. Morrow, 1993). Because of that fact my mother left the "i" off my birth certificate on Sept 14, 1939 when war was obviously coming and the association with Mussolini was not wise.. My father officially restored the "i" to my birth certificate in 1974 with the Department of Records in Brooklyn, New York. In any case "Sarfatti" is my birthright. My real identity was hidden as a child of WWII.

On Dec 11, 2004, at 8:33 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

To Martin Nieto
Hi Martin

re: I have just come across this for first time in 2004.

I never received the 1968 letter Peter Carruthers wrote to me mentioned in your historical review of the history of quantum phase operators at Cornell in 1963-4. If it was 1968 I was at both UCSD physics department and also teaching at San Diego State. At least I do not remember it. If Carruthers received a reply from me I would like to see it.


Jack Sarfatti

Also as I was a student at the time it was more important for me to receive my proper share of the credit for a paper that proved to be important than for Carruthers - addressing myself to Carruthers remark that you cited. Note that I also participated as equal co-author in another important paper on spontaneous symmetry breakdown in solid state physics 1966 that is cited in APS Resource Letter on Symmetry in Physics with A.M. Stoneham on the Goldstone Theorem and the Jahn-Teller Effect in Proceedings of the Physical Society of London. Furthermore, Glogower would never have come to Cornell in the first place had I not enlisted Phil Morrison's help to get him in as a special student. Neither Susskind nor Glogower had Bachelor's degrees of any kind when admitted into Cornell as grad students. Glogower was a Westinghouse Finalist and had been a celebrity Quiz Kid. He was also part of the Walter Breen/William Sheldon Columbia Superki Project I was part of funded by friends of Charles Lindburgh like Texas Instruments founder Eugene McDermott, curious given Phil Roth's new book on the "Conspiracy Against America".

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Newton's "gravity force" is replaced by Einstein's "gravity force without force".

On Dec 11, 2004, at 5:12 PM, wrote:

Do you think I ever denied that my model is inconsistent with Einstein equivalence? Of course it is.

I am glad you admit that. Ipso facto you are off your rocker! :-)

No comments: