Faster-than-Light Communication?


Begin forwarded message:


On Oct 15, 2005, at 12:39 PM, yuzhou@pacbell.net wrote:
To: Jack Sarfatti
From: Richard D.K. Johnson
aka Dick Johnson
aka Richard Baird (pen name)
President, San Francisco Science Fiction Society

Date: Sat. 15 October 2005

In your correction of the article about you,
you state that you came to the conclusion the
FTL Communications Device (Future Machine)
or what is called in Science Fiction a Subspace Radio
or Ansible (the plans for which you gave me
in 1982 and which I have in my file cabinet),
would not work because it operates according
to orthodox quantum theory which includes the
"no-cloning theorem".


1. Wasn't Nick Herbert
instrumental in discovering the "no-cloning theorem"?

Yes, he was. There may not have been a "no-cloning theorem" were it not for Nick's "FLASH" in Foundations of Physics that also failed for same reason as mine. I was smoking a lot of grass at that time at Bohemian North Beach wild parties and I was not thinking clearly and sharply. Nick Herbert was the first to see that one needed a new Quantum Theory to get FTL "signal nonlocality" that would include sending messages without energy propagation backward in time to engineer the inflationary creation of our SAP local Hubble universe (see Martin Gardner's explanation of my 1974 theory on that as well as Robert Anton Wilson's books) in Wheeler's "self-excited circuit."



Nick called for a new "Sarfatti Mechanics" at that time. I now call it "Post-Quantum Theory" or "Macro-Quantum Theory".
Steven Weinberg, Henry Stapp, Brian Josephson and Roger Penrose were all independently thinking along similar lines. What prevents signal nonlocality and enforces the "no-cloning theorem" is the linearity, the probability interpretation, and the unitary time evolution in orthodox quantum theory. Antony Valentini has most clearly explained all this in the context of Bohm's hidden-variable "pilot wave" theory, i.e., "sub-quantum heat death" enforces "signal locality". Another way to say it is that the Bohm quantum potential is "fragile," i.e. the slave of environmental decoherence as Max Tegmark tried to argue against the Hameroff-Penrose "OR" proposal. Of course this all changes in the emergence of macro-quantum off-diagonal-long-range coherence (AKA ODLRO) when the low-order quantum density matrices develop giant "macroscopic eigenvalues" >> 1. The Born probability interpretation requires that these eigenvalues be less than 1 because the sum of all the probabilities must add up to 1. So it's a whole new ball game like General Relativity compared compared to Special Relativity. This is P.W. Anderson's "More is different" bottom -> up" emergence of qualitatively new orders of physical reality, which transcend mechanical reductionism. It is the same idea for the Higgs mechanism origin of inertia, and now with my theory, also gravity and dark energy, called "spontaneous breakdown of ground state symmetry."


2. If living beings can violate the "no-cloning theorem",
how do you think they do it?

ODLRO Bose-Einstein condensates in non-equilibrium pumped open systems.

Does an animal
have to reach a certain level of intelligence
to be able to do it?

No. Life is ODLRO in open systems far from thermal equilibrium in a small set of dynamical variables protected against environmental decoherence by the rigidity of the Goldstone phase of the generalized Higgs field. We are Higgs fields fused into electron SETs inside our microtubules (see pictures by S. Hameroff).

Animal psychologists say
that only those animals that can recoginze themselves
in a mirror are self-aware.

I hear that parakeets can talk intelligently.

These include humans,
chimpanzees, apes, orangutans, elephants, and dolphins.
Would an animal have to reach this level of self awareness
before they could violate the "no-clone theorem"?

No. A single cell violates no-clone. I am not sure about a virus.

3. About what month in 1993 did you realize that your
subspace radio would not work?

I don't remember. It may have been as early as 1991.

4. You realize of course that according to Einstein
if a message traveled faster than light, then it
would go backward in time, don't you!?
In living beings, this would presumably be
the origin of precognition if living beings can
violate "no-clone."

Obviously. That's presponse. However, we are not talking tachyon signals here. It's my information transmission without energy propagation that Martin Gardner describes in "Magic and Paraphysics."

5. If violation of "no-clone" involves attaining
a certain level of consciousness, then intelligent
robots and computers would be able to do it.

That's the conscious AI nano-computer of 1952-53
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html
The ET Grays are that I suspect.


6. Most important of all, WHAT PHYSICAL
MECHANISM do you think allows living
beings to violate "no-clone"?

ODLRO as explained above i.e. ground state instability

Looking forward to your reply,
Your friend always, Richard


He also filed a patent disclosure on a device to transmit coded information faster than light. Martin Gardner said of this invention, "I know of no other physicist who thinks it will work. If it does Sarfatti will become one of the greatest physicists of all time." (in "Magic and Paraphysics" reprinted as Chapter Eight of Science, Good, Bad and Bogus, Avon, 1981. This chapter has a good deal about Sarfatti's activities at about this time 30 years ago.). Sarfatti subsequently retracted his particular design when he realized it would not work because it assumed orthodox quantum theory that has the "no-cloning theorem. Sarfatti does think that FTL communication, precisely 'signal nonlocality' does happen as the essential signature of all living matter. "Signal nonlocality" demands an extension of quantum theory that he calls "post-quantum theory" that is to orthodox quantum theory as general relativity is to special relativity. Antony Valentini of the Perimeter Institute has formalized this sort of claim by Sarfatti and, independently by others, most notably Steven Weinberg, Henry Stapp, Brian Josephson and Roger Penrose, in a series of important papers. Sarfatti cites experiments by Libet, Radin and Bierman as evidence. Roger Penrose discusses the Libet evidence in his several books. Stuart Hameroff has published several papers on this 'presponse' phenomenon as has Fred Alan Wolf.
E-mail you sent to me 24 January 2002:

1. What made you decide that your machine wouldn't work? Was the > problem technical or theoretical?
Theoretical. like Nick Herbert after his FLASH gedankenexperiment that led to the useful no cloning theorem of modern quantum computing, I finally gave up the vain attempt to trick orthodox quantum theory into signal nonlocality. I saw why this was not possible, indeed why it was a very stupid idea, when I read p. 30 of Bohm and Hiley's "The Undivided Universe" in 1993 at a Clean Well Lighted Place for Books at Opera Plaza. Basically uncontrollable local quantum randomness prevents local decoding of the nonlocally encoded message. This is because the qubit pilot wave moves the particle without the particle directly back-reacting on its very own pilot wave. If you can get that direct back-reaction to happen then you are in business. Our living bodies seem to be able to do it as we see in the retro-PK data of Radin and Bierman for example. Indeed the signature of all life may be post-quantum signal nonlocality which is a violation of orthodox quantum physics that may only apply to "dead matter", i.e. signal nonlocality as the "elan vital". There also may be a direct cosmological connection to the generation of our conscious moments - a long story. Post-quantum theory is another issue.
What year did you decide this? 1993.




On Oct 15, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

OK Richard has cosmic triggered a definition of UT in me that is good.

On Oct 15, 2005, at 11:52 AM, yuzhou@pacbell.net wrote:
To: Jack Sarfatti
From: Richard D.K. Johnson
aka Dick Johnson
aka Richard Baird (pen name)
President, San Francisco Science Fiction Society

Date: Sat. 15 October 2005

So, a UT would be an extra-cosmic being,
who would not have not have a physical body
like an intra-cosmic being like an
ET (a body composed of the atoms of
the periodic table of elements) but would have an
immaterial body of pure energy like an angel or like Q
(but might be capable, like Q or some angels that
have been reportedly seen by mystics and prophets,
of materializing temporarily a physical form)?

Yours, Richard

Yes. It's not "material" - it's an intelligence inside the vacuum, i.e. the IT <-> BIT Higgs field is conscious. That is the conscious Mind of God.

P.S. Mortimer J. Adler, in his book
The Angels and Us called angels
"extra-cosmic beings" and
defended the possibility
of their existence.

My question:
What is a "UT"?
Your reply:
Ultra-Terrestrial like Q in Star Trek.