Defeating Maxwell's Demon


The wooden stake in the heart of The Demon, the silver bullet is "resetting the computer" or really erasing in a classical irreversible "making of the record" (Wheeler) when the Fat Lady sings and the crystal shatters. This always increases the total entropy volume in phase space in accord with the Second Law for a closed system. In the case of the Demon he has to repeat his choices to open or not open his trap door based on information he has processed using some kind of sensor. The sensor must be reset for the next measurement. The Lochschmidt paradox et-al is solved by retro-causation back to pre-Big Bang inflation cosmic trigger "transactional handshake" (John Cramer) between Alpha and Omega.

On Jul 15, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

We are such dreams that stuff is made from. (My paraphrase twist of Shakespeare)

The recent AAAS USD had a session on the issues surrounding "Maxwell's Demon". Marlan Scully just wrote a new book about it and "the quantum eraser." The Joker in the Deck is retro-causal backwards through time advanced causes - actually needed to set the Arrow of Time, i.e. low entropy of early universe so that Arrow of Time is in same direction as the expansion of the universe. See Roger Penrose "Road to Reality" on "inflation." What is "inside-outside", i.e. light cone barriers & horizons in a multiverse? That assumes signal locality also recently called again into question by John Cramer at AAAS USD and others.

On Jul 15, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Pantheon wrote:



To conclude, endophysics is the study of demons. Maxwell's demons do not
work - they are each blocked by a censor. Further demons and their
corresponding censors will have to be uncovered. Understanding
incompleteness is worth more than completeness - almost.
Anna

Endophysics - Physics from Within Otto E. Rössler Der Rössler Attraktor A
new science, Endophysics, is introduced. Only if one is outside of a
nontrivial universe is a complete description of the latter possible - as
when you have it in your computer, for example. The laws that apply when you
are an inside part are in general different (endophysics is different from
exophysics). Gödel's proof is the first example, in mathematics. In physics,
it is desirable to have explicit observers included in the model world.
Brain models are a case in point. Macroscopic brain models, however, are
non-explicit in general. Therefore, an explicit microscopic universe is
introduced in terms of a formally one-dimensional Hamiltonian, in which
"formal brains" can arise as explicit dissipative structures in the sense of
Prigogine. The pertinent endophysics is still largely unknown. As a first
step, the implications of having the observer contain indistinguishable
particles (Gibbs symmetry) are considered. Campbell's postulate - a
microvacillation of time's axis - is an implication, with Nelson's postulate
and hence the Schrödinger equation following as corollaries. Thus a
"nonlocal" internal interface is implied by a local theory. Microscopic
observer properties can "percolate up" to affect the macroscopic
spatio-temporal appearance of the model world. Physics becomes dependent on
brain theory. Endophysics has so far been largely confined to science
fiction. The best example to date is probably Simulocron Three by Galouye
[1], which for some reason was not included in Hofstadter and Dennett's
anthology on computer-cognition relevant fiction [2]. Galouye lets a whole
world be simulated in a computer. The operator is able to look at this world
through the eyes of the "ID units" - the poor inhabitants of the world. One
inhabitant, code numbered ZNO (Zeno), unfortunately has to be unprogrammed
because he gets suspicious and is about to infect the rest of the community.
Only later does the evidence accumulate, to his creator, that he, too - but
perhaps you wish to read the story for yourself. (Eventually, the two
lovers, from different levels, come to live happily ever after, since, after
all, there is no basic difference between two subroutines that formally
belong to two different levels of nesting.) Shortly after Gödel [3] had
given his famous proof about the incompleteness (from the inside) of
arithmetic, his close friend von Neumann [4] began to ponder the question of
whether or not quantum mechanics might represent an analogous limitation -
within a physical rather than mathematical context. Fortunately, von Neumann
was able to prove that if quantum mechanics is accepted as the most basic
physical theory, which contains all possible others as special cases, then
there is no need to worry. The structure of quantum mechanics happens to be
such that "the state of information of the observer regarding his own state"
cancels out from the formalism [5]. That such a type of result is
particularly likely to kindle suspicion in certain vulnerable individuals
did not occur to von Neumann, since he could not possibly have read Galouye.
About half a century before, a similar physical nightmare had already
haunted Maxwell [5] (and apparently Lohschmidt before him, according to
Boltzmann [6]). Maxwell conjectured that there might in general exist two
types of physical law. An example of the first kind would be Newton's law
when applied to celestial bodies - it would make no difference whether or
not you sat on one of the bodies. An example of the second kind would be
Newton's (or Hamilton's) law again, but applied to the many microscopic
bodies whose mechanical interactions supposedly underlie thermo-dynamics.
Being confined to the same world here could make a significant difference.
Unexpectedly, this point of Maxwell's, which was made implicitly, went
unnoticed. The two famous proofs [7,8] that the demon cannot work (opening
and shutting a little trapdoor of near-zero mass at the right moments), both
do no more than show that the demon, if it is a sub-system, cannot do its
job with a net gain, in case it has to go about hunting for information. The
fact that a much simpler mechanism suffices (an asymmetric trapdoor of
near-zero mass needs only to be cooled regularly -i.e. an infinitesimal
amount of kinetic energy must be removed - to generate the same effect
automatically [9]) was overlooked. This oversight is nevertheless minor
since operating a near-perfect cooling machine, for a single particle,
presumably requires the same investment of free energy once more, from a
subsystem. But what is the situation for a non-subsystem? Indeed, when
sitting at the keyboard of a higher-level computer in which a Hamiltonian
universe is being simulated, doing either magic trick (adjusting the tenth
digit of a particular particle's position at strategic points in time, or
keeping a particular particle cool automatically) will prove equally
feasible. Thus, the second law is endophysical in nature. Maxwell was right
with his suspicion. So was Smoluchowski [10] some time later with his
debugged version of the demon. He proposed that you try being a demon
yourself: just buy one of those modern infrared-sensitive night glasses. In
addition you need a bowl of water, a dark room, an ordinary spoon, and two
thermos bottles, one red and one blue. Then just wait and sample, with the
spoon. Since your eventual success will be the first anyhow, you need not
worry about the magnitude of the effect. Any consistent effect that you are
able to produce without a fancy lab (10 -10 degree) will be fine.
Smoluchowski realized that if you are sure that this tamed (macroscopic)
version of the demon will be censored too, you as a corollary have to
believe in the existence of (from the macroscopic point of view) counter
intuitive nonlocal macroscopic correlations. As he died the same year he
made his proposal, he was not able to tell which outcome he would abhor
more. This story (even if slightly dramatized) is exceedingly hard to tell
since everyone tends to get the punch line wrong. Again, you need Galouye to
point out clearly where you think the answer lies.
Next comes Ehrenfest's demon - Einstein. In a letter [11], Ehrenfest
compared Einstein - in his indefatigable attempts to find a loophole in the
consistency of quantum mechanics (in his exchanges with Bohr in the
Ehrenfests' home) to a little Jack-in-the-box who wants to play Maxwell's
demon against the quantum law. Indeed, in more recent times the quantum
nonlocality [12] has taken on a similar status to Smoluchowski's earlier
proposal. Two further important names in the history of endophysics are
Popper [13] and Finkelstein [14]. Popper talked Einstein into accepting his
proof [13] that complete self-observation is impossible in (continuous)
physics, and into believing with him that one should try to find a
Gödel-type formulation of quantum mechanics [13]. Finkelstein [14] set up a
program for a "holistic physics" in the spirit of the late Bohr, but
discrete. He hypothetically attributed both the quantum limit and the
relativistic limit to the fact that the whole is not available to us. Later,
he gave an explicit example of a finite-state machine (computer) whose
internally evaluated state is different from that existing objectively [15].
Still later he endorsed the two notions "physics from without" and "physics
from within" [16] by coining the technical terms [17] used in this chapter.
The name "endophysics" is his creation. In the same year, Fredkin [18]
described the first explicit, computer calculable model universe as a
reversible-type cellular automation. (Earlier cellular-automata "worlds"
like Conway's game life [119] had all been irreversible.) This universe
consists solely of information. Once you assume it exists, implemented in
whatever kind of hardware you may think of, its properties are fixed. It
starts producing "material" properties of its own inside - like assemblies
of black pixels that mutually attract each other with a definitive force law
like Coulomb's. The hope is that, eventually, all laws of nature as we know
them might come out as an implication. You only have to hit - by
happenstance - upon the right reversible local rule. The number of such laws
to be checked empirically is unknown. Possible counter arguments invoking
the existence of nonlocal phenomena in quantum mechanics are answered with
the argument that nonlocal correlations over large distances have been
abundantly observed in real-time computer runs [18]. The dichotomy between
exophysics and endophysics is hereby invoked. The only major problem with
this explicit model world is that, so far, no dissipative macroscopic
processes can be simulated since even a single "elementary particle" uses up
hundreds of variables. Irreversible "observers" cannot yet be included. This
computer world therefore still belongs to the first or "general" phase of
endophysics. Here, general limitations that invariably show up from the
inside are sought. Gödel provided the paradigm and Maxwell the first
potential physical example. In contrast, the second or "special" phase of
endophysics will be brain theoretical. Assumptions that are not completely
general and that enter into the properties of explicit observers ("brains")
arising in the explicit model world will be admitted into consideration.
This makes the connection to Galouye's (and Lem's [2]) science fiction even
closer. Interestingly, the first potentially conscious computer program was
developed by Kosslyn and Shwartz [20] (cf. also ref. 21 for a related but
more complete blueprint). Like its forerunners - of fiction status
presumably - it is non-reversible. All such models have yet to be embedded
into a more minimal (reversible) universe. On the other hand, a concrete
example of a microscopically specified world that "goes all the way up" to
include macroscopically subsystems such as observers has so far been
lacking. A specific world of this type is considered in the following.
Discussion Endophysics is still in its infancy. A single explicit model
universe that reaches through all levels from the microscopic to the
macroscopic is available so far. A general endophysical question worth
considering in detail is the second law with all its ramifications. Other
questions of the same standing have yet to be identified. In the realm of
special endophysics (including brains), most questions have also yet to be
formulated. There may be other "general" special axioms to consider besides
that of observer-internal particle indistinguishability. Even though
indistinguishability may turn out to be but a minor determinant of an
observer-centered future endophysics, focusing on it at the beginning may
turn out to have been a lucky accident. It helped show that simply putting a
reversible universe into a computer and running it exophysically is not
sufficient to uncover its endophysics. In addition, hints at the possible
existence of endophysical properties even where there are no exophysical
correlates, are needed. The Gibbs symmetry simply does not exist
exophysically. In a similar vein, both quasi periodization and
microvacillation could easily have been overlooked were it not for certain
counter intuitive theoretical proposals already present in the literature.
Particle indistinguishability has the further asset that it is a "maximally
simple" property. Symmetries and reduced representations are staples of any
physical theory. Trajectorial multiuniqueness, nevertheless, is fairly
nontrivial conceptually. To the present author, for example, it is still not
clear to what extent one may trust a symmetry argument. For more on the
history of this problem, one can go right back to Leibniz. A more general
endophysical problem worth discussing is the consistency question. Can any
endophysics be consistent? To what extent is "internal consistency" assured
for its inhabitants? Specifically, can internal interfaces be consistent?
How far can their consistency go, maximally? Are only single measurements
covered (direct consistency), or are derived general laws included (indirect
consistency)? What about "metaconsistency": a meta-consistent world would be
one in which it is impossible even to embark on an endophysical program.
These questions may all be studied explicitly using the present model
universe (with the r.t plane forming the main tool). It is also possible to
study the question of "consistent interaction" between two observers -with a
single observer who relies on his own earlier notes forming the simplest
case. The nontrivial nature of the latter problem was first seen, in real
physics, by Bell. The central endophysical idea of metaunmaskability goes
back to Descartes. He introduced the fairness question (in French). Can a
"mauvaise plaisanterie" (a bad joke) be excluded, from the inside? Both
Einstein and Bohr concurred with him that a physics whose consistency was
not great enough to permit at least a glimpse at the reasons for our own
limitations would be a "bad dream". In the present context, Cartesian
fairness assumes a different ring. Simulating a Hamiltonian world in a
computer having finite precision is bound to destroy many "subtle"
conservation laws. Subtle conservation laws would be those that preserve the
consistency of internal interfaces. The second law, for example, is subtle
since it can be violated by "late digits" (cf. ref. 9). Even more subtle
would be a macroscopically consistent world that nevertheless is nonlocal
microscopically. Two mutally incompatible macroscopic worlds could then
coexist, in harmony, in the same microscopic world (exophysics). Only if
such a level of accuracy is guaranteed can the inhabitants embark on an
endophysical path. Therefore, a reversible integration routine will be
required in the long run. Its use will amount to putting a discrete
"lowest-level universe" underneath the present one. Like Fredkin's universe
[18], the latter ought to be "embeddable" again into a continuous
Hamiltonian.
To conclude, endophysics is the study of demons. Maxwell's demons do not
work - they are each blocked by a censor. Further demons and their
corresponding censors will have to be uncovered. Understanding
incompleteness is worth more than completeness - almost. Literatur: 1. D.F.
Galouye, "Simulacron Drei". Heyne Verlag, München 1965. (Englisches Original
1964.) 2. D.R. Hofstadter und D.C. Dennett, The Mind's I", BasicBooks, New
York l 981. (Deutsch "Einsicht ins Ich", Klett-Cotta, München 1992.) 3. K.
Gödel, Über formal ununterscheidbare Sätze der Principia mathematica und
verwandter Systeme 1, Monatshefte f. Math. u. Physik 38, 173-198 (1932). 4.
J. von Neumann, "Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik".
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1932, 1981, S. 233. 5. J.C. Maxwell, "Theory of
Heat", Appleton, New York 1872, S. 308. (Nachdruck: AMS Press, New York 19
72.) 6. L. Boltzmann, In Memoriam Josef Loschmidt. In: "Populäre Schriften",
Johann Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig 1905, S. 150-159. 7. L. Szilard, Über die
Entropieverminderung in einem thermodynamischen System bei Eingriffen
intelligenter Wesen, Z. f. Physik 53,840-856 (1929). 8. L. Brioullin,
Maxwell's demon cannot operate: Information and entropy 1, J. Appl. Phys.
22, 334-337(1951). 9. O.E. Rössler, Macroscopic behavior in a simple chaotic
Hamiltonian system, Lecture Notes in Physics, 179, 67-77 (1983). 10. M. von
Smoluchowski, Experimentell nachweisbare, der üblichen Thermodynamik
widersprechende Molekularphänomene, Physik. Z. 13, 1068-1080 (1912); siehe
auch: Physik. Z. 17, 557, 585 (1916). 11. P. Ehrenfest, Brief an Samuel
Goudsmit, George Uhlenbeck und Gerhard Dieke, November 1927. In: "Niels
Bohr" (K. von Meyenn, K. Stolzenberg und R.U. Sexl, Hrsg.), S. 152-155,
Vieweg, Braunschweig 1985, S. 152. 12. J.S. Bell, On the
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Physics 1, 195-200 (1964). 13. K.R. Popper,
Indeterminism in classical physics and quantum physics 1, Brit. J. Philos.
Sci. 1, 117-133 (1951), S. 129. Siehe auch: Autobiography of Karl Popper.
In: "The Philosophy of Karl Popper" (P: A: Schilpp, Hrsg.), Bd. 1, S. 3-181.
Open Court, La Salle, Ill., 1974, S.1021. 14. D. Finkelstein, Holistic
methods in quantum logic. In: Quantum Theory and the Structures of Time and
Space", Bd. 3 (L. Castell, M. Drieschner und C.F. von Weizsäcker, Hrsg.), S.
37-60. Carl Hanser, München 1979. 15. D. Finkelstein und S.R. Finkelstein,
Computer interactivity simulates quantum complementarity, Int. J. Theor.
Phys. 22, 753-779 (1983). 16. O.E. Rössler, Chaos and chemistry. In:
"Nonlinear Phenomena in Chemical Dynamics" (C. Vidal und A. Pacault, Hrsq.),
S. 79-87. Springer Verlag, New York 1981. 17. D. Finkelstein, Brief vom 23.
Juni 1983. (Kapitel "Namensgebung" dieses Buches.) 18. E. Fredkin, Digital
information mechanics, Preprint 1983; Digital mechanics, Physica D 45,
254-270 (1990).
19. M. Gardner, "Wheels, Life and Other Mathematical Amusements". Freeman,
San Francisco 1983. 20. S.M. Kosslyn und S.P. Schwarz, A simulation of
visual imagery, Cognitive Sci. 1, 267-295 (1977). 21. O.E. Rössler, An
artificial cognitive map system, BioSystems 13, 203-209 (1981).

http://www.aec.at/en/archiv_files/19921/E1992_049.pdf#search='endophysics'


Subject: Re: [4DWorldx] Re: We are The Dream ...


At the end of the 80s I translated some of the Winnebago Hero Cycles into
German, namely the Redhorn- and the Twin-cycle (where Poland seems to got
stuck now *hehe*). Those cycles - also the preceding Trickster- and
Hare-Cycle - deal with the transformation of the earth, and the according
types of shamans (or vice verse?). At the end of the Redhorn-Cycle all those
big shamans, shape-shifters or transformers, like Turtle and Wolf, among
many others, could not keep their human forms any longer and cutted down
into their animal forms. First the classical logic of the Twin-Cycle allowed
scientific questioning, and thus medicine and technolgy - but ideology as
well. This was the price we had to pay for scientific knowledge.... But now
we are entering the 5th Cycle...

Ciao,
Rabea



dr.rabea.uchtmann@semiotik.net schrieb:

Pantheon schrieb:

Hi grandma... who knows if this was just a typing error and not
SOMETHING MORE! Actually, you look very noble now. I would only
suggest more lipstick. Love,
Anna

*Hehe*,

I felt more like Little Red Riding Hood, but with the exception that I
would have turned into the wolf myself at last...:-) I just started to
ask myself: grandma, why those big ears etc.? Where does this
unimaginable smell come from? Etc.pp.

Some modifications and some lipstick will cure all that I think...

I just learned that not Roessler coined the term "endophysics", but it
was David Ritz Finkelstein in a letter to him, to give Roessler*s
matter a name then.

Meanwhile I know both of them personally since the Lucerne conference
in 2003. I based a lot of my work on Roessler*s findings, and also
support Finkelstein*s narrative approach that is also close to what I
tried to do with "semiotics".

I think that consciousness/sign process is a certain type of local
macro quantum vacuum, that I call "sign locality". There is no means
to measure that from a signal local perspective that only can declare
"signal nonlocality" here.

Ciao,
Rabea


*Subject:* Re: [4DWorldx] Re: We are The Dream ...

Pantheon schrieb:

Don't ask me, ask a physicist. However endPPhysics sound like a piss
physics for kids .(;- Anna


Hi stupid :-),

typing error, or? May happen...

"Endophysics", you know? As far as I know the term was coined by
Otto Roessler.

Ciao,
Rabea


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_R%C3%B6ssler

-----Original Message-----
From: dr.rabea.uchtmann@semiotik.net
[mailto:dr.rabea.uchtmann@semiotik.net]

Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 3:52 AM
To: 4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [4DWorldx] Re: We are The Dream ...


Pantheon schrieb:



I think if we propose that Vacuum Plenum is the same as the Void, it
would be easier to understand the concept. However, we also need
negative dimension for Consciousness, and this requires seeing Mind as
a hole ( negative dimensionality) filled with virtual memories.
Perhaps it is time for paraphysics? Anna









Why not "endophysics" (or: physics of consciousness) after all? We
don*t need new backworlds. Self-Consciousness = Sign Process, ergo
"sign locality". Perhaps the the recognition of 2-D-Flat-Spaces as
virtual 3-D-Realities could be a "measuring instrument" for sign
processes (="consciousness"). Which "animals" have the potential to
move in such "spaces"? At what stage of evolution do "sign processes"
start? I my scientific work I was as never so much interested in that
subject-object-thing, but in "mediality". Now I would interpret
mediality as the degree of sign locality.

Ciao,
Rabea




It is altogether useless to introduce void to a physicist.
Theoretically one requires the theory of mathematical and topological
dimensionality to see that negative dimensionality is an
unavoidable consequence.
Next, what seems cranky, one has to consider that some
empty sets should be 'emptier' than other empty sets.
Also here, poets and artists had this idea.
Now if one agrees on degrees of emptiness, physicists should, as
Mandelbrot
proposed already in the 1980ties,
think how empty is their empty space in which 'oscillating particles'
just
happen to be not 'there' .
In terms of dimensionality, the quantum vacuum oscillates between the
empty
dimensionality -1 and the particle ( as a point )
dimensionality 0. With no values in between.
The idea of structure continuously 'smears' over the forbidden zone.
Insofar

Mandelbrot is perfectly correct
terming the negative dimensionality of void as a window to a
generating process. But to physicists, the notion of structure is
very suspicious as it is just not moving not matter. None of their
concepts matches this.

Hans Dieter

-----Original Message-----
From: 4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com
]
On Behalf
Of Hans Dieter Franke
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:09 AM
To: 4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [4DWorldx] Re: We are The Dream ...


Then the waves are only memory. Memory does not require
consciousness,
although re-cognition does. Anna


In special relativity quantum field theory the "particles" are not
localized in space. They are "plane waves" i.e. momentum eigenstates
- at least in free space ignoring boundaries. In Bohm's theory one can
think
of localized particles surfing these pilot plane quantum information
waves.
When gravity is included things get hard - no one knows how to really do
that problem as yet beyond what's called a "semi-classical
approximation" in
which the gravity curved space-time field is not quantized beyond first
order perturbation theory - which is not good enough.

On Jul 13, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Pantheon wrote:



Correct. Yet, there is space ( space does not mean ' empty ' )
between the particles separating them from each other. Thus
philosophically speaking, space is a borderline, or consciousness.

Anna


Sounds much better, Jack.


I like a bit better

We are such dreams that stuff is made from.

SUNDAY INTERVIEW -- The Universe, As Seen From North Beach
With infectious enthusiasm for his subject, Jack Sarfatti explains how physics has replaced philosophy as an over-arching discipline that spans the once discontinuous worlds of science and the humanities.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/08/17/SC46892.DTL

re: Phil Coppins http://www.philipcoppens.com/starcon.pdf

The 2nd edition of Super Cosmos has more of this straight physics.
On Jul 15, 2006, at 8:54 AM, RON STAHL wrote:

I have all three of your books Jack but as you have said, they are more bios than pop physics books. In order to really disperse understanding of your physics broadly, I think what is needed is a primer, not a bio. Of course, as you have said; you don't need to create understanding at this level since you already have funding. I was just saying that I enjoyed the little primer you had written.

"Gauge" is a technical term. Almost all of those first three paragraphs had avoided all use of jargon. it is writing sans use of these very highly information laden terms that makes the difference between writing pop and specialized literature. Except for the use of "gauge" you were writing at a pop level which is unusual for you--takes more work.

Actually I wrote in in a few minutes spontaneously in real time stream of consciousness WYSIWYG. There is math symbols in it - but perhaps symbol-oriented people can see the similarities of shape in the EM and gravity models below? Math symbols properly ordered syntactically are how theoretical physicists actually think most of the time - it's the lingua-franca. Perhaps we should compare it to Chinese and Egyptian hieroglyphics? Of course formalist quibblers in math departments will want to add extraneous details that completely obfuscate with inappropriate "rigor mortis" (Feynman's term). Roger Penrose, in his books, strikes the proper balance in the creative tension between rigorous math and heuristic intuitive "physical thinking" in pictures - gedankenexperiments. The key formal idea below is that the space-time "spin connection" W in Einstein's gravity plays the same role that the "internal extra dimensional fiber" gauge connection A plays for electromagnetic, weak beta radioactivity and strong subnuclear forces respectively.

F = dA in Maxwell's electromagnetism compared to R = DW in Einstein's gravity

F = Electromagnetic Field 2-form compared to R = Curvature Field 2-form

With however the SELF-INTERACTING BOOTSTRAP SELF-ORGANIZING

D = d + W/
e.g. "geons"

The same thing occurs in the weak and strong forces where

F'= D'A'

D' = d + A'/
e.g. "glue-balls" in high energy hadron collisions

d^2 = 0

means integrability or "holonomy" i.e. path independence

e.g. take a function

f(x,y)

d^2 = 0 there means

f,x,y = f,y,x

i.e. mixed second order partial derivatives equal each other - this happens in thermodynamic reversible processes e.g. Cauchy heat engines and in conservative force fields of Newtonian particle mechanics without velocity-dependent potentials.

Look at Penrose "The Road to Reality" on Cauchy-Riemann "analyticity" in "complex number magic".

d^2 = 0 generalizes that idea to spaces of any integer dimension as much as it can be.

D^2 = 0 pushes that to path-dependent anholonomic situations and it permits local conservation laws in warped spaces.

However, the energy problem in Einstein's gravity is that a local gravity energy density for the vacuum does not exist even though a locally conserved stress-energy density for not-gravity sources does exist.

Energy conservation is not fundamental. The expanding accelerating universe does not conserve total energy. For example, in the first approximation the dark energy density ~ /\ is constant. As the universe expands the total dark energy density is increasing much more than the other forms of energy are decreasing.



http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/kolb1new_Page_05_jpg.htm

Conservation of "energy" is a much more limited concept having to do with timelike Killing vector fields that are not present in all solutions of Einstein's field equations.

Note that on the large cosmological scale that only total energy of COLD "matter" w = 0 is conserved, but total energy of radiation is not conserved. Radiation red shifts down to zero! Total dark vacuum energy increases at rate a(t)^3. This is because the universe is not time-translation invariant so that Noether's theorem does not apply.

D^2 = 0 outside of "topological defect" Goldstone phase singularities when there is ODLRO spontaneous breakdown of some continuous symmetry in the vacuum or ground state landscape.

"Vacuum" means no real particles on-mass-shell. "Ground state" means stable real particles on-mass-shell as, e.g. in liquid helium or our own bodies.


From: Jack Sarfatti
To: RON STAHL
Subject: Re: Byron Weeks's claims are bogus
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:37:42 -0700

I have already written 3 of them. All of this is in Super Cosmos. "Gauge" is the standard term. Have you seen Super Cosmos?

On Jul 15, 2006, at 6:34 AM, RON STAHL wrote:

Now see, you actually CAN explain physics in English when properly motivated. Except for the use of the term "gauge" you did quite well in the first three paragraphs.

You could write a pop physics book on this if you really wanted to.


From: Jack Sarfatti
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
CC: "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com"
Subject: Byron Weeks's claims are bogus
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:09:16 -0700

Hello Phillip


<< starcon.pdf >>


I just noticed this section about Byron Weeks. Weeks is an MD and his claims that you accurately describe are bogus. I don't have time right now to explain why. However, Roger Penrose's book "The Road to Reality" explains why - it is not a fast read of course. The Week's claims may be deliberate disinformation for debunking PW or Psy Ops purposes. That's a guess.

Basically Maxwell's field theory is the most elementary local gauge theory, the more complex ones include the weak and strong forces among the elementary spin 1/2 quarks and lepton fermion spinor sources. These forces are virtual spin 1 zero point boson vector exchange particles between the spinor sources. In addition the weak and strong bosons self-interact. Gravity can also be understood this way in terms of tensor spin 2 bosons - though the problem is more complicated, i.e. "unrenormalizable" in the naive approach to "quantum gravity."

The electromagnetic, weak and strong forces come from locally gauging internal symmetry groups of frame transformations in extra dimensions of hyperspace - roughly speaking. Gravity comes from locally gauging the space-time symmetry group of special relativity morphing it into general relativity. You also need a macro-quantum "vacuum ODLRO" cohering or ordering of the random zero point false vacuum fluctuations to do the latter and indeed this is, in a nutshell, the inflation field whose incoherent remnant we see as the anti-gravity repulsive dark energy at large- scales causing our universe's expansion to speed up rather than slow down. That's what my book Super Cosmos is about and it is roughly consistent with Lenny Susskind's Cosmic Landscape. Note qualification "roughly".

The basic free gauge field equations are affine having to do with parallel transport of basic field structures called "connection fields" A that are "Cartan 1-forms".

In the case of Maxwell's EM field the field tensor is

F = dA

d = Cartan's exterior derivative

d^2 = 0

dF = 0 are the first half of Maxwell's field equations

i.e. Faraday's law of induction and the absence of magnetic monopoles.

The second half Ampere's law and Gauss's law come from using a * operator

d*F = *J

*J is the source electric charge-current density

d*J = 0

is local conservation of charge current density

One then uses a gauge-covariant derivative D = d + eA on electron quantum waves to get a consistent renormalizable quantum electrodynamics.

Nothing that Weeks says has any real meaning in physics today.

One can generalize the above model to the weak and strong forces and even to gravity, though the latter is more indirect as it uses a symmetric tensor metric field and the "A" connection field here is at the "subspace" Cartan tetrad level out of which the metric connection of Levi-Civita in Einstein's 1915 theory can be derived.

The Cartan tetrads have the 1-forms

e = 1 + B

and

dB ~ (hG/c^3)^1/2d(Theta)/\(dPhi)

d^2B = 0 is equation of World Hologram, i.e. THE MATRIX

i.e. "anyonic" surface degrees of freedom of the fabric of space- time are fundamental, the boson volume degrees of freedom are holographic projections.

Theta & Phi are Goldstone phases of the coherent zero point vacuum inflation field.

Zero torsion is the vanishing 2-form

De = 0

D = d + W/
W is a "spin connection" "/\" is exterior multiplication

De = dB + W/\B = 0

in this special case only B determines W.

If we have torsion, i.e. De =/= 0 then the dark energy /\ field can be controlled for the metric engineering of warp drive and wormhole - is my "conjecture".

The Einstein-gravity curvature field 2-form is then

R = DW

Where

DR = 0

G = D*W = *J

is Einstein's source field equation

D*J = 0

is local covariant conservation of matter stress-energy density currents.

The equivalence principle is the local space-time invariant

ds^2 = (1 + B)(Minkowski)(1 + B) = guvdx^udx^v

where guv is a symmetric tensor

i.e.

guv(x) = eu^a(x)nabev^b(x)


On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

OK on further closer reading (after my original scan of entire document) I begin to see what you mean re: Courtney's first book.

On Jul 14, 2006, at 8:35 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Hello Phillip

I just got a book from Courtney Brown that is positive about Remote Viewing yet your article seems to say that Courtney debunked Remote Viewing?

Also I think Jessica Utts gave a talk at recent AAAS USD positive about psi phenomena as a real statistical effect yet you also seem to think she is a debunker? I can't find Utt's name in Abstracts Programme so perhaps I am misremembering where I recently heard her speak on this? James Spottiswoode was also there but is not in the official book, so perhaps she was added to the programme at the last moment?



On Jul 14, 2006, at 5:51 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


It's curious that http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra
was ~ 1953 when Andrija was getting started with Army and mentioned "twenty years" in the future when I met Andrija and The Usual Suspects. It's curious I may have met Colonel Corso before 1953 and then was in Eugene McDermott's group - part of the Arthur Young Cabal 1954 - 56 and then met Arthur himself in ~ 1974. Very curious.
Details in my book "Destiny Matrix".

On Jul 14, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Philip Coppens wrote:

Glad to hear that you like it. Uri enjoyed it greatly too... and it was
quite bizarre waking up on New Year's Day with having 2 messages, both from
him ! ;-)

It was mainly setting record straight re StarCon after Clive & Lynn gave an
interpretation of the evidence which I felt the evidence did not support...
and which I know on some occasion caused some negative comments from people
involved. So glad to hear you liked it.

Philip

Signal Nonlocality in Curved Hilbert Space

Review of some basic points.

I. Feynman Lagrangian Histories
Uses world lines in configuration space for multi-particle entangled states.
The path amplitude ~ e^i(Classical Action)/(hbar)^?
Each symplectic phase-space area element gets a factor of hbar.

II. Hamiltonian theory
Use "Unitary" Operators of generic form e^i(Hamiltonian)(Time)/(hbar)^?

Consider the generic pair entangled quantum state

|A,B) = |++)(++|A,B) + |--)(--|A,B)

(A,B|A,B) = (A,B|++)(++|A,B) + (AB|--)(--|AB)

Because (++|--) = 0 (orthogonality)

Where completeness of the internal dichotomic q-numbers in pair Hilbert space is

|++)(++| + |--)(--| + |+-)(+-| + |-+)(-+| = 1

Note that

|++)(++| + |--)(--| =/= 1

Even though

|(++|AB)|^2 + |(--|AB)|^2 = 1


i.e.


(AB|++)(++|AB) + (AB|--)(--|AB) = 1


Consider only Alice's (A) evolution starting from

|A,B) = |++)(++|A,B) + |--)(--|A,B)


|A,B) -> |A'B) = U(A+)|++)(++|AB) + U(A-)(--|AB)

Note, for now do not assume that

U(A+) = U(A-)

U(A+)*U(A+) = 1

U(A+)*U(A-) =/= 1

etc.

(A'B|A'B) = (AB|++)(++|AB) + (AB|--)(--|AB) + (AB|++)(--|AB)(++|U(A+)*U(A-)|--) + cc

=/= (AB|AB)

in the general case.

This allows signal nonlocality because the effective transformation is not unitary.

One needs an additional postulate that for all possible total experimental arrangements.

U(A+) = U(A-)

This is a possible loophole in orthodox QM for signal nonlocality to creep back in without going to a post-quantum covering theory. For example, with long coherence times and retardation plates in alternate paths for the same quantum one may have different travel times for interfering alternatives each with a different path-dependent unitary operator. That is, the unitarity may be anholonomic analogous to parallel transport in a curved space-time here we have a "curved Hilbert space." Of course, one might argue that this is a new post-quantum theory. On the other hand, it may show an incompleteness in orthodox quantum theory similar to the introduction of non-Euclidean geometries in the 19th Century.

Subject: Comments by Dr. Robert Becker on Emergent Gravity & Susskind's Hologram & Anyons


On Jul 10, 2006, at 6:56 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:

Jack,

A couple of quick comments on this and peripherally related matters.

1. Dark Energy - Your presentation below of the HeII-Dark Energy analogy is particularly transparent and clear. I recall that I even used the term "3rd component", or something to that effect, as part of trying to explain Coherent ZPM in my Thesis. But that was for HeII. I never tried to apply the concept of Coherent ZPM to the Universe, or its possible implications for resolution of the EPR problem or signal nonlocality, until my 2003 Mitre Paper and that, unlike what you do below and in your X-archive paper, was sans the math.

In relation to the tetrad representation below, in one of your earlier e-mails from some days ago, you commented - correctly, I believe - to the effect that different mathematical representations of the problem should not fundamentally change the underlying physics (assuming the math is not "completely" wrong). You typically use what you called a Class II representation, namely tetrads, as below. Someone like Vargas, who is both a physicist and mathematician, abjures both Class I (tensors) and Class II, and always uses what you called Class III, the Cartan Exterior Differential Calculus, and more generally, the Cartan Moving Frame. It would be interesting to see what your B formalism would look like in your Class III representation?

I think when I write

v = (h/m)d(theta) = SUPERFLOW 1-form

giving quantized circulation surrounding line vortex singularities with vorticity quanta

and

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Theta) over-simplified here - full formula in my archive paper where I need two effective Goldstone phases Theta & Phi contracted from eight to get

dB = 2(hG/c^3)d(Theta)/\d(Phi) = AREA 2-form

i.e. The curved tetrad B is not a closed 1-form, but dB, is i.e.

d^2B = 0

Giving quantized Bekenstein-Hawking areas surrounding point singularities naturally obeying a hologram rule i.e. independent geometrodynamical degrees of freedom are "surface" not "volume" in accord with Lenny Susskind's idea.

That is already Class III?

d is the Cartan exterior derivative and these equations are locally frame independent.

I am not familiar with the details of Vargas's distinctions.

Note that I cite you on your thesis ideas in my book "Super Cosmos".


2. Supersolid - As I've mentioned before, I proposed something like what you refer to below in a letter to Legett a couple of years ago, without knowing that you had done the same decades ago. Some other news on the Supersolid front: A couple of months ago, I read that the Penn State Un. group that claims experimental detection of Supersolid Helium, and subsequently, of Supersolid Hydrogen, has now retracted their Paper and claim on Supersolid Hydrogen. Apparently, it may be some kind of experimental artifact if I recall correctly. However, they stand by the claim for Supersolid Helium.

My 1969 paper in Physics Letters was specifically only for Supersolid Helium.


3. Anyon - You might be interested in a Paper by Das Sarma et al. in the 7/06 Physics Today. 32 on Topological Quantum Computation. They discuss use of FQHE 5/2 state anyons as elements of qubits which would be topologically protected against perturbations that would normally induce decoherence.

Yes, that is exciting. I have the issue on my shelf - thanks. :-)

Take care,

Robert E. Becker



Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:35 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

> Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
>>
>>> Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 8, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so /\ is a source for G_uv and R_uv, and therefore shows up
>>>>> on the RHS of the
>>>>> field equations?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct
>>>>
>>>>> Much like Yilmaz's vacuum source field?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NO! Yilmaz's source is not ~ guv!
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, it's a function of g_uv.
>>
>>
>> That's not good enough. It must be linearly proportional to guv
>> otherwise it violates Lorentz invariance & the equivalence
>> principle - > general covariance as indeed Yilmaz's theory does
>> and as Hal Puthoff's PV gravity model does.
>
> Although everything is kosher as to g_uv itself in Yilmaz's theory.

I doubt that. But I think any discussion of Yilmaz's theory, or Hal's
PV theory, or Bernie Haisch's zero point energy theory is a wasteful
"pathological physics". Whether my own ideas are also that remains to
be seen.
>
>> That's one reason I reject them as "pathological science" as
>> defined by Sharon Weinberger in "Imaginary Weapons" - note I did
>> not say "pseudoscience" or "junk science", which are worse.
>
> OK.
>
>>> In Yilmaz's model the g_uv metric field is related to the underlying
>>> phi field via an exponential expression, by the definition of phi..
>>
>> Wave a red flag in front of Raging Bull why don't you? ;-)
>
> :-)
>
>>>
>>>>> Then why do we need geometric propagation of the Weyl
>>>>> curvature? Why can't we
>>>>> just bundle it all into the /\ vacuum source field?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because /\ can be exactly zero and we still have curvature where
>>>> it is zero!
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, so /\ is truly independent of matter-induced Weyl curvature
>>> in your theory?
>>
>>
>> NO! You jump to the wrong conclusion. /\ is a source of Ricci
>> curvature the same as any ordinary matter source in Tuv. That is
>> both virtual and real sources gravitate. Puthoff does not think
>> so BTW that is another error in his PV theory.
>
> OK, thanks for clarifying this.
>
> So you have two physically independent *sources* of spacetime
> curvature, regular
> T_uv | matter, and /\.
>
> Right?

Right. But they act in the same way as far as generating Ricci
curvature locally which, in turn, induces Weyl conformal vacuum
curvature in the standard manner.
>
>>>> What /\ is depends on the inflation field intensity.
>>>>
>>>> /\ ~ (Quantum of Area)^-1[Inflation Field Intensity - 1]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In essence, isn't that what Yilmaz was proposing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NO!
>>>
>>>
>>> Yilmaz's underlying phi field couples to the sources, while it
>>> looks like your /\ field doesn't depend at all on the matter
>>> distribution.

True /\ does not depend on the on-mass-shell sources. /\ is the sum
of all the off-mass-shell sources in the sense of quantum field
theory e.g. A. Zee's "Quantum Field Theory for Nutcases" ;-) I mean
"in a nutshell." Anyone who does physics must be nuts! ;-)
>>
>>
>> There is no analogy here that is not completely misleading. Yilmaz
>> theory is not worth anything IMHO.
>
> OK, forget Yilmaz. Does your /\ field depend at all on the matter
> distribution? I think not.

Correct.
>
>>> Can there be any coupling at all between the Weyl vacuum
>>> curvature and /\ in your model? Or are these fundamentally
>>> independent quantities?
>>
>>
>> You completely misunderstand what I am saying. The relationship
>> of dark zero point energy /\ to Weyl curvature is exactly the
>> same as any Tuv is to Weyl curvature via the directly induced
>> Ricci curvature.
>
> OK. So /\ really is simply an additional source term on the RHS of
> the Einstein field equations that adds to the Ricci and indirectly
> to the vacuum curvature induced by gravitating matter (where
> "matter" includes, e.g., electromagnetic energy)?

Yes, exactly if you want to keep the equivalence principle, which
Puthoff does not seem to care about in his PV model hawked by Eric
Davis in the USAF teleportation paper that Sharon Weinberger roasted
in "Imaginary Weapons".
>
>>
>> Zero point energy and ordinary energy both bend space-time in
>> exactly the same way, both directly make the local Ricci curvature
>> that then induces Weyl curvature exactly as Wheeler et-al say it
>> does.
>
> OK.
>
>> Puthoff's error is that he thinks only gradients in zero point
>> energy bends space-time. That is completely wrong and it violates
>> the local equivalence principle.
>
> While your solution is that there are two superfluid components,
> where the gravitational effect of one compensates the gravitational
> effect of the other?

There are THREE components. Also think 4D ODLRO SUPERSOLID not 3D
superfluid.
Remember I predicted the ODLRO He supersolid in 1969 (Physics
Letters) only now recently seen in the lab.

v = (h/m)d(Ground State ODLRO Goldstone Phase) 3D superfluid


B = (hG/c^3)^a/2d(Inflation Vacuum Field Goldstone Phase) 4D supersolid

Note replace G by G* >> G the scale-dependent running coupling
constant for gravity to make contact with extra space dimensional
"brane" models like in "Warped Passages" (L. Randall)

In vacuum at T = Absolute Zero you have

Coherent Condensate + Locally Incoherent Nonlocally Coherent Zero
Point Fluctuations ~ (Quantum of Area)^-1

That together make the Super-Solid Density at Absolute Zero.

Then the "THIRD MAN" here is the "NORMAL FLUID", i.e. fermion
elementary excitations and boson collective modes in 3+1 space-time
that is Tuv(On-Mass-Shell Sources)

The Locally Incoherent Nonlocally Coherent Zero Point Fluctuations ~ /\.

"Nonlocal Coherence" in sense of Robert Becker seen experimentally in
EPR entangled fringes with CCC switched on!

4D Super Solid Emergent Gravity

On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:35 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jul 8, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jul 8, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:


OK, so /\ is a source for G_uv and R_uv, and therefore shows up on the RHS of the field equations?



Correct

Much like Yilmaz's vacuum source field?



NO! Yilmaz's source is not ~ guv!


Well, it's a function of g_uv.


That's not good enough. It must be linearly proportional to guv otherwise it violates Lorentz invariance & the equivalence principle - > general covariance as indeed Yilmaz's theory does and as Hal Puthoff's PV gravity model does.

Although everything is kosher as to g_uv itself in Yilmaz's theory.

I doubt that.

OK.

In Yilmaz's model the g_uv metric field is related to the underlying
phi field via an exponential expression, by the definition of phi..

Wave a red flag in front of Raging Bull why don't you? ;-)

:-)


Then why do we need geometric propagation of the Weyl curvature? Why can't we just bundle it all into the /\ vacuum source field?



Because /\ can be exactly zero and we still have curvature where it is zero!


OK, so /\ is truly independent of matter-induced Weyl curvature in your theory?


NO! You jump to the wrong conclusion. /\ is a source of Ricci curvature the same as any ordinary matter source in Tuv. That is both virtual and real sources gravitate. Puthoff does not think so BTW that is another error in his PV theory.

OK, thanks for clarifying this.

So you have two physically independent *sources* of spacetime curvature, regular T_uv | matter, and /\.

Right?

Right. But they act in the same way as far as generating Ricci curvature locally which, in turn, induces Weyl conformal vacuum curvature in the standard manner.

What /\ is depends on the inflation field intensity.

/\ ~ (Quantum of Area)^-1[Inflation Field Intensity - 1]


In essence, isn't that what Yilmaz was proposing?



NO!


Yilmaz's underlying phi field couples to the sources, while it looks like your /\ field doesn't depend at all on the matter distribution.

True /\ does not depend on the on-mass-shell sources. /\ is the sum of all the off-mass-shell sources in the sense of quantum field theory e.g. A. Zee's "Quantum Field Theory for Nutcases" ;-) I mean "in a nutshell." Anyone who does physics must be nuts! ;-)


There is no analogy here that is not completely misleading.

OK, forget Yilmaz. Does your /\ field depend at all on the matter distribution? I think not.

Correct.

Can there be any coupling at all between the Weyl vacuum curvature and /\ in your model? Or are these fundamentally independent quantities?


You completely misunderstand what I am saying. The relationship of dark zero point energy /\ to Weyl curvature is exactly the same as any Tuv is to Weyl curvature via the directly induced Ricci curvature.

OK. So /\ really is simply an additional source term on the RHS of the Einstein field equations that adds to the Ricci and indirectly to the vacuum curvature induced by gravitating matter (where "matter" includes, e.g., electromagnetic energy)?

Yes, exactly if you want to keep the equivalence principle, which Puthoff does not seem to care about in his PV model hawked by Eric Davis in the USAF teleportation paper that Sharon Weinberger roasted in "Imaginary Weapons".


Zero point energy and ordinary energy both bend space-time in exactly the same way, both directly make the local Ricci curvature that then induces Weyl curvature exactly as Wheeler et-al say it does.

OK.

Puthoff's error is that he thinks only gradients in zero point energy bends space-time. That is completely wrong and it violates the local equivalence principle.

While your solution is that there are two superfluid components, where the gravitational effect of one compensates the gravitational effect of the other?

There are THREE components. Also think 4D ODLRO SUPERSOLID not 3D superfluid. Remember I predicted the ODLRO He supersolid in 1969 (Physics Letters) only now recently seen in the lab.

v = (h/m)d(Ground State ODLRO Goldstone Phase) 3D superfluid


B = (hG/c^3)^a/2d(Inflation Vacuum Field Goldstone Phase) 4D supersolid

Note replace G by G* >> G the scale-dependent running coupling constant for gravity to make contact with extra space dimensional "brane" models like in "Warped Passages" (L. Randall)

In vacuum at T = Absolute Zero you have

Coherent Condensate + Locally Incoherent Nonlocally Coherent Zero Point Fluctuations ~ (Quantum of Area)^-1

That together make the Super-Solid Density at Absolute Zero.

Then the "THIRD MAN" here is the "NORMAL FLUID", i.e. fermion elementary excitations and boson collective modes in 3+1 space-time that is Tuv(On-Mass-Shell Sources)

The Locally Incoherent Nonlocally Coherent Zero Point Fluctuations ~ /\.

"Nonlocal Coherence" in sense of Robert Becker seen experimentally in EPR entangled fringes with CCC switched on!

Feynman's "rigor mortis"

On Jul 7, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

I think Waldyr's position is that there is something wrong with GR itself from a physical standpoint. I think his main point is that for purely mathematical reasons GR doesn't generally admit true energy conservation principles, either in correspondence with Newtonian theory or otherwise.

Perhaps, but it has no bearing on my paper.


Jack, your model recovers GR -- with /\, of course.


Yes, it explains WHY GR works and is consistent with all observations.

You mean why GR is empirically accurate?

It unifies the emergence of gravity with inflation in a bootstrap. The coherent phase modulation of the inflation field forms curved space-time.

Because you can get tetrads from the Goldstone phase of your BEC?

He points out that in order to write an energy conservation law for the Einstein field there must exist a timelike hypersurface- orthogonal Killing field, which is only true in certain special cases, such as the SSS spacetimes.

Well known in every text book.

The conclusion is that total energy and local energy density is not fundamental. What is fundamental is the tetrad field.

Same wine, different bottles.

Clearly if you take Einstein's model seriously you are forced to abandon the requirement for sensible energy conservation
laws and correspondence with Newtonian theory.

The odd thing here, however, is that you still have quadrupole radiation from moving sources, which raises serious questions
about non-locality of the field energy in GR. You would expect localized energy transport from point to point, based on an
analogy with Maxwell EM theory. As we know, this is not allowed in Einstein's theory.


What textbook says that this limits the validity of GR as a theory of gravitation?


None. That's not what I said.

I was saying that this is Waldyr's position.

I said the proper conclusion is that the Newtonian idea of local energy density is not fundamental.

I agree that this is where Einstein's model leads.

Wheeler says that. From Nother's theorem we know that energy conservation comes from time translation invariance violated in the expanding universe!

Right.

The universe is obviously not time translation invariant on the large scale!

It's much worse than that. In Einstein's theory you cannot give any clear unambiguous definition of the
energy content of the gravitational field, as we've previously discussed, unless you restrict general
covariance *ad hoc*.

The timelike Killing vector field isotropy of some solutions to Einstein's field equation, not all solutions, is closest we can come to the Newtonian notion of energy conservation for the vacuum itself.

In Einstein's theory, yes.

When we write

Tuv^;v = 0

That does not include gravity.

Well, indirectly it does, due to the coupling of the Ricci and Weyl tensors at the source boundaries
and the geometric propagation of the resulting Weyl curvature components through the gravitational
vacuum.

It only includes the local non-gravity sources of gravity.

Right. But indirectly it creates Weyl curvature "over there".

The actual vacuum equation is

Guv + /\guv = 0

where

(c^4/8piG)/\guv = LOCAL RICCI Dark VACUUM Energy Stress-Energy Density Tensor (ZERO ENTROPY)

So this is a non-material but nevertheless physical vacuum source field, right?

What is NONLOCAL here is the WEYL CONFORMAL CURVATURE "VACUUM ENERGY" and only that has ENTROPY according to Roger Penrose.

Why does Penrose say the Weyl field is "non-local" when the Weyl tensor components are all perfectly
well-defined at each point in spacetime?

Note in standard black hole theory /\ = 0.

Right.

Also note /\ is uniform and constant in standard 1915 theory. You need torsion fields, at the very least, to make /\ a local field for weightless zero-g warp drive and star gate time travel metric engineering.

OK. So while the Weyl curvature is "non-local", the /\ field may or may not be?

Locally gauge 4-parameter translation group to get 1915 GR with curvature only i.e. spin connection is redundant.

OK.

Locally gauge 10-parameter Poincare group to get curvature + torsion with independent spin connection.

OK.

Note that even in the exotic dark energy vacuum

CONFORMAL =/= 0

When

EINSTEIN + /\METRIC = 0

when /\(Dark energy) = 0

then

EINSTEIN -> RICCI -> 0

OK, so /\ is a source for G_uv and R_uv, and therefore shows up on the RHS of the
field equations? Much like Yilmaz's vacuum source field?

Then why do we need geometric propagation of the Weyl curvature? Why can't we
just bundle it all into the /\ vacuum source field?

In essence, isn't that what Yilmaz was proposing?

Z.

See Roger Penrose's 3 books for details.

i.e., Emperor, Shadows & On The Road.


But I shouldn't speak for Waldyr on this. He should speak for himself.


I think he is arguing that this means that the geometric model of GR should not be taken too seriously in terms of *physics* -- although of course he will insist on full rigor with respect to the *math* regardless.



I doubt he means that.


I seem to recall that he wrote something to that effect a while back.

Maybe Waldyr should speak for himself here.

I don't know what he means. Can you follow his 21 pages?


Not easily.

Z.



My Ansatz is basically empirical. It's not a "theorem". It's a conjecture. It had implications for "quantum gravity". My theory is emergent bottom-up not top-down as in conventional quantization of gravity that fails!



But I understand that Waldyr doesn't believe in Einstein's geometrical model as a direct
description of physical space and time to begin with.



Not relevant to the several new physics ideas I give in the paper that are relevant to enigmatic observations. In any case I would be surprised if that's what he means.


Of course he also has purely technical issues with your paper that have nothing to do with physics.


They are minor points about notations. He goes into irrelevant details fighting other battles irrelevant to my paper.


I'm talking about his general motivation.


John Baez can't even derive GR with spin foams - so what good is it?



It makes great applied math to be published in journals on applied math, AKA contemporary
spacetime physics. Who cares about "physical reality"? What the hell is that, anyway?



Actually that's Niels Bohr's fault.


Do you think maybe Bohr should have stuck to soccer? :-)


Bohr should have stuck to psychology.


Z.


Z.


Z.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:


Still, I think you do have a good point that you are not the only theorist that Waldyr has
accused of writing "mathematical nonsense".





He admits I think to "twenty". What this means is that Waldyr is applying an inappropriate standard and missing The Forest for The Trees. Also he pounced on an early hastily assembled rough draft and never once really addresses the physical ideas that ARE my paper.




On Jul 7, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

So, Jack, you do know what I'm talking about when I call Penrose and Hawking
"mathematicians", with styles of reasoning, criteria of relevance, and standards of
rigor that are rather different from those of a true physicist such as, for example,
Richard Feynman.

Yes, I understand the general rule. I think you misapply it in the case of Penrose and Hawking. They are mathematicians who are ABLE to think like physicists! They are able to do BOTH modes.

Well, what about this idea that a collapsed gravitational mass results in a curvature singularity
at a point that is removed from physical spacetime, on the grounds that it is not technically part
of a "manifold"?

I would suggest that this is not the thinking of a physicist. Also that on hearing this someone like
Feynman would have a fit.

Z.

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

Back FROM The Future? A Real or Imaginary WMD?

OK here is my morning-after assessment of the situation.

Quantum Reality is complex. ;-)

Woke up this morning with a lucid dream of a technicolor 3D tour of Dante's Inferno underneath The Vatican - seemed very real. :-)

Clarifications on "counter-factual definiteness" and the equation for the complete set of Alice's photon states |y) that washes out any stand-alone local fringes on Bob's side if the CCC is switched off in the usual orthodox quantum theory.

Previously I wrote:
The real idea here is counter-factual definiteness that what might happen even if it doesn't would be definite if it were to happen.

Now what happens is that we need to wait for a large enough statistical sample or "Born ensemble" of photon pairs to register on each side to see what is happening. This is like Lenny Susskind's populated "peppered" cosmic landscape in eternal chaotic inflation on the much larger scale in which our universe has a small enough cosmic dark energy allowing us to come into being and becoming in the sense of the Weak Anthropic Principle AKA WAP.

Therefore, the equation of completeness

Integral |y)(y| = 1

of everything Alice might have done in all the multiple branches or parallel classical worlds add up to what Bob actually sees locally without the CCC. That's the basic implicit subliminal ontological-epistemological Ansatz in the orthodox thinking I think?

Now Alice the "sender" has two choices to measure in the image plane or in the focal plane in the picture. Call the two variables y and y' respectively.

The issue is

Sum|y)(y| = 1 image plane (POSITION MEASUREMENT) YES? NO? (1)

Sum|y')(y'| = 1 focal plane (MOMENTUM MEASUREMENT) YES? NO? (2)

These sums add up all the actual places Alice's photons land in the statistical sample that act as nonlocal entanglement random noise on what Bob sees LOCALLY when the CCC (Coincidence Counting Circuit) is switched off.

Specifically (2) at the focal plane. Standard theory says (2) is still true only the domain of y' at the focal plane has been squeezed compared to the domain of y at the image plane.

Also at issue here is

(-ps|-pd) = 0 YES? NO? image plane (3)

(-ps|-qs) = 0 YES? NO? focal plane (4)

Note that in the case of Alice's image plane ensemble of y measurements, the nonlocally entangled pair state has already collapsed to

(y,x|A,B) = (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)

+ (y|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B) + (y|-qd)(-qd|A)(x|qu)(qu|B)

-)

(y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)

from Alice's filters

-) (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B)

from Bob's filters

This final pair state is completely disentangled with the Bohm random phase factor e^i@ so that we have a random statistical mixture of (x|ps) and (x|qs) on Bob's screen with no local fringes at all!

The issue then is what happens when Alice freely chooses to do a focal plane measurement of the y' variable?

The two-sided Copenhagen "collapse" of the nonlocally entangled photon pair state is now

(y',x|A,B) = (y'|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y'|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)

+ (y'|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B) + (y'|-qd)(-qd|A)(x|qu)(qu|B)

-)

(y',x|A,B)' = (y'|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y'|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B)


After both Alice's and Bob's filters operate - this is the entangled state left over.

The key to what Bob sees locally is then the integral of (-ps|y')(y'|-qs) over the statistical ensemble of Alice's photons collected in the extended focal region of Alice's lens. If

(-ps|-qs) = 0 ORTHOGONALITY

and if

Sum |y')(y'| = 1 COMPLETENESS

Then Bob still sees NO STAND-ALONE LOCAL FRINGES when the CCC is switched off.

If you switch on the CCC one will see Bob's fringes emerge after the fact TOO LATE for any retro-causal (BACK FROM THE FUTURE) or faster-than-light SIGNAL NONLOCALITY.

This is what most physicists will say will happen contradicting what Cramer, Woodward, Srikanth think might happen.

If the mainstream is correct here then the no perfect cloning theorem of orthodox quantum theory is correct and if orthodox quantum theory is complete in Bohr's sense as THE FINAL SOLUTION FOR ALL PHYSICAL REALITY then Lenny Susskind's black hole complementarity is also correct. From that it follows that:

1) Signal nonlocality is impossible.

2) Remote viewing is impossible.

3) We can never directly see beyond the horizons (event or particle) to the parallel universes on the cosmic landscape.

This is a creative tension in Lenny Susskind's theory because as David Gross pointed out in Nature it makes Lenny's theory untestable in Popper's sense. That makes everyone uneasy.

On the other hand from AAAS USD Russell Targ's comments on Ingo Swann in the CIA SRI tests remote viewing is ALLEGEDLY a fact. We also heard from Roger Nelson the Global Consciousness data and from other people. So the debate will be on how good the evidence is? Is it junk science? Is it pathological science? Or is it good science? No double standards here. The same rules need to be applied not only to Hafnium isomer triggers but also to string theory and to loop quantum gravity theory. No one is above the Rule of Law.

A final remark: The UNITARITY LOOPHOLE is not yet plugged.

The standard argument against signal nonlocality in orthodox micro-quantum theory is that if

(Alice(0)|Alice'(0)) = 0 at time t = 0

Then

(Alice(t)|Alice'(t)) = 0 at time t

Because

|Alice(t)) = U(t)|Alice(0))

and U(t) is a UNITARY OPERATOR in qubit Hilbert space

Therefore

U*(t)U(t) = 1

Therefore, sums over y' of

(Alice(t)|y')(y'|Alice(t)') = 0

Note however that

U*(t)U(t') =/= 1 when t =/= t'

This may be a clue for a loophole to let signal nonlocality creep back into orthodox micro-quantum theory.

That is, if the focal plane momentum measurement statistical sample Alice makes correspond to different arrival times t =/= t' then perhaps local fringes will be seen by Bob with the CCC switched off?

Note my Super Cosmos book does NOT ASSUME signal nonlocality in orthodox micro-quantum theory. I replace orthodox micro-quantum theory with a post-quantum macro ODLRO theory that explains the "classical limit", i.e. WHY space-time physics is local physics at the light signal level and also explains why the early universe has low entropy from retro-causal signal nonlocality at the cosmic scale in accord with the empirical Second Law of Thermodynamics. The post-quantum theory reduces to orthodox micro-quantum theory when non-equilibrium open system complexity vanishes in the same way that 1915 General Relativity reduces to 1905 Special Relativity when the curvature vanishes.

On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

This is a tighter version so you can tell who is saying what for the record.re: http://qedcorp.com/APS/Srikanth1.jpg I have not fully understood as yet all of Srikanth's potent remarks below. So this is only the first comment of an emerging sequence since the objective is mind-boggling and will have profound technological impact if Srikanth is ultimately correct here. Too soon for me to tell. Much of the folklore of modern physics will collapse like a heap of wilted broccoli if Srikanth and Cramer and Woodward and Peacock and Hepburn et-al prevail. Reality will be like the way I pictured it in the mid-1970's brilliantly irreversibly described by Arch-Debunker Martin Gardner in MIT Technology Review 1976 and in "Magic and Paraphysics" about me and Uri Geller. That's why I am being careful not to jump back on my old bandwagon prematurely especially with Sharon Weinberger's example of Carl Collins's Hafnium isomer trigger delusion fresh in mind. We have had enough "Imaginary Weapons" already. ;-)

On Jul 7, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Srikanth R wrote:

"Thank you for the forwards on the articles by Prof. John Cramer, which I read with interest. I also found Ray Jensen's article on the net."

What's the URL?

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The raw pair entangled state in the above picture is, if I am not mistaken,

(y,x|A,B) = (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)

+ (y|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B) + (y|-qd)(-qd|A)(x|qu)(qu|B)

The two lenses on Bob's side filter the above nonlocally entangled SIGNAL state down to

(y,x|A,B)' = (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B)

The issue then is whether or not (-ps|-qs) = 0 or not? If the former for both image and focal plane choices by Alice, then the experiment will not work without the CCC, if the latter then it will. I think that's what Srikanth is asserting?

“Indeed. In this "four-stream" model, the condition is true to the extent that the nonlocal correlation is tight, as manifested in the usual two-photon interference in the CCC.”

Yes.

“Thus, I think one cannot give up (-ps|-qs) = 0 without also giving up the observed two-particle correlations observed in the CCC.”

But if (-ps|-qs) = 0 for both Alice using image plane and Alice using focal plane, and IF in both cases we must use

Integral |y)(y| = 1

Then Bob will never see stand-alone local fringes without the CCC ever no matter what Alice does. In other words "signal nonlocality" does not happen and, therefore, the perfect no-cloning theorem and black hole complementarity is saved IF orthodox quantum theory is THE FINAL SOLUTION for physical reality - or in Einstein's words if quantum theory really is "complete."

The real idea here is counter-factual definiteness that what might happen even if it doesn't would be definite if it were to happen. Therefore, the equation of completeness

Integral |y)(y| = 1

of everything Alice might have done in all the multiple branches or parallel classical worlds add up to what Bob actually sees locally without the CCC. That's the basic implicit subliminal ontological-epistemological Ansatz in the orthodox thinking I think?


“To see this, for example, let us replace Bob's optics with a lens system like Alice's. Her detection at y selects modes |-ps) and |-pd) on her side, and leaves Bob's field in the superposition |ps) + |pu).”

Let's see if Alice filters in focal plane at y, starting from

(y,x|A,B) = (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)

+ (y|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B) + (y|-qd)(-qd|A)(x|qu)(qu|B)

there is a collapse to

(y,x|A,B)" = (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)

Bob's filter further collapses this to

(y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) with a random Bohm phase factor e^i@ relative to |qs).

Which is completely disentangled. B's state is then |ps) and there is also |qs), so I get a random mixture of |ps) & |qs) at x without any fringes. I don't understand how you get the coherent superposition |ps) + |pu) at x in the picture? It seems only |ps) & |qs) make it through the diaphragm with the hole? So let's stop here for the moment to get this detail straight. What am I missing here?

In any case that's only a definite y for a possible thing for Alice to do. We still must make the Sum |y)(y| according to the conventional wisdom that does seem to fit other experiments on nonlocal EPR pair-correlated interferometry. Let's delay discussion of the stuff below until we get the above stumbling point settled.

“One can then show that, if Bob measures in his image plane, his twin photon will be found in -y (above the lens' axis, on Bob's side), in agreement with the Dopfer experiment. But if it were the case that (-ps|-qs) not = 0, this would mean the nonlocal correlation is not tight, so that one sees "ray-optically" that Bob's twin photon might also be found at y (on his side), and, for the matter, at points other than -y, in contradiction with the observed reasonably strong correlation in the Dopfer experiment (This analysis ignores noise, which, unless it is conspiratorially pathological, can still be taken care of by rewording the contradiction in terms of the visibility of the correlations, rather than of perfect correlations).

The proposed experiment could be also described in this way. The state of the down converted light field (apart from a normalization factor) can be written in the entangled form:
|psi) = |-pd,pu) + |-ps,ps) + |-qd,qu) + |-qs,qs)

Because of Bob's "direction filter", the state conditioned passing thru it, is, ignoring normalization:

|psi1) = |-ps,ps) + |-qs,qs)

If Alice does not do anything, or if she measures "position", by detecting her photon in the image plane, Bob's state is:

rho_1 ~ |ps)(ps| + |qs)(qs|,

that is, an incoherent mixture of the two modes. Hence no double-slit pattern fringes are found. Until this point, there are no surprises.

But if she measures "momentum", by detecting her photon in the focal plane, following the standard procedure, her measurement P is represented as the sum over annihilation operators for the two modes. Apart from phase factors, it is:

P = a_(-ps) + a_(-qs)
= |vac)(-ps| + |vac)(-qs|
= |vac)((-ps| + (-qs|)

Applying this to |psi1), we find that Bob's field is left in the state:

|phi2) = |ps) + |qs),

that is, the two modes are coherently related, which is why they can interfere and Bob can observe a fringe pattern unilaterally (even without CCC).”

OK if you really have proved that it is important. I need to think about this. :-)

“I think the basic idea in Jensen's experiment is the same, except perhaps that my use of a direction filter can help boost the nonlocal signal, and may be experimentally more convenient. But it appears that the heart of nonlocality here is that Alice's focal plane measurement is not complete. (Her measurement at the focal plane in the {|-qs),|-ps)} subspace consists of only one measurement operator, namely P not = 1.)”

That is, the formal issue is Alice's cross-term integral dy(-ps|y)(y|- qs) + cc
does it vanish or not? Does its vanishing depend on whether the integral is done in the focal plane or the image plane on Alice's side? There will still be NOISE A photons in states -pd & -qd, but they are no longer effectively entangled to B photons because of the two lenses with the pinhole screen in-between, and therefore will not affect what happens at B when Alice decides to make an image plane measurement.

On Jul 5, 2006, at 9:59 PM, james f woodward wrote:

“OK, I'm pleased to see that you tracked down R. Srikanth as his papers on
this subject are quite illuminating (so to speak). Assuming that this
will see wider circulation, I note that those papers are available on the
arXiv server in the quant-ph files: 9904075, 0101023, and 0101022.

The configuration of the experiment in 0101023 was inspired by the Dopfer experiment (though, not having had a look at her thesis, I cited it indirectly through Zeilinger's Reviews of Mod. Phys. article).

[....]

First, a disclaimer: I am just an innocent bystander in this business. That said, I note that the normal "formal" argument is pretty much what one would expect, namely, that non-local (that is FTL) signaling is precluded so that SRT seems to be preserved by nature by denying us FTL communications. This notwithstanding that non-local actions that we are denied access to are otherwise permitted (without, allegedly, violating SRT). The formal argument is based on the analysis of two pairs of slits and a source of entangled photons. While one might argue that the proposed experiment (and one already done that demonstrates the functionality of the "Heisenberg" detector used by Alice in the attached figure) can be effectively reduced to the simple two pairs of slits of the formal argument, I note that the proposed experiment differs in important ways from the simple formal case. The issue then is do these differences merit the expectation that FTL signaling might actually be possible, the formal argument notwithstanding?

Yes, indeed. The formal argument goes thru if we allow the usual assumptions (measurement completeness in particular, but others have been discussed, eg., by Peacock and Hepburn).

My own understanding, outlined above, is that the reason why Jensen and my configurations work is that Alice's focal plane measurement violates the usual (reasonable) assumption of measurement completenesss.”


That is, you claim

Sum |y)(y| = 1 does not apply there in focal plane, but it does apply in image plane?

“Further reasons for me to believe this is that if we give it up in order to avert the nonlocal signalling, we also end up spoiling our ability to explain two-particle correlations _with_ CCC.

Another reason is that I am able to interpret noncomplete measurement simply as a sort of counterfactual suppression or augmentation of the probabilty to generate photons (in this case, entangled photons) _within the coherence time_ of the light source. Thus it seems to have a natural interpretation within orthodox QM. (I could elaborate this, if required).

Jensen, Cramer, and, from his comments below, Srikanth seem to think that
the Heisenberg detector based experiment might indeed sidestep the
conditions of the formal argument and make such communications possible.
Were the transactional interpretation (TI) of QM not available to square
relativity with such seeming non-local signaling, I'd probably not count
myself among those of this view. But the TI is available, and I suspect
that apparent FTL signaling may well be possible as it would not violate
SRT.

First let me point out some interesting features of the setup in Figure
1. If you add a coincidence counting circuit CCC to the setup you get
basicly the experiment done by Dopfer mentioned by Cramer (whose thesis
he has studied).”

This is the key issue. If you add the CCC of course you will see Bob's (B) fringe visibility controlled by Alice (A) because IN THE ABSTRACT ORTHODOX ARGUMENT (like Fred Alan Wolf suggested) the CCC filters a coherent sub-ensemble out of the full integrated incoherent random ensemble - that's orthodox QM, i.e. use of the CCC projects out a single value of the integrand (A+|x')(x'|A-)(B+|x)(x|B-) + cc rather than the local smear which is the dx' integral of the above expression. The orthodox prediction is that Bob will never see fringes no matter what Alice does if the CCC is switched off. The CCC is the classical key that allows one to extract the nonlocal quantum message.

“Another interesting point (noted by Srikanth) is that if Alice's apparatus is deactivated and only unentangled photons from the source pass through Bob's apparatus, Bob sees interference fringes, not a single slit diffraction pattern. Note too that Bob's detection system is completely passive; he merely registers whether an interference pattern or diffraction pattern is present (or accumulates in some short interval) on his screen.

Indeed. I think I added this note in response to an early objection to my proposed experiment, that the diffraction caused at the hole in the direction filter would produce an interference pattern, no matter what Alice did. While the appearance of an interference pattern is true, it does not invalidate my argument because one can still show that the _visibility_ in the patterns Bob observes will mutually differ.

Ultimately, the "funny business" seems to be taking place on Alice's side, rather than Bob's, in her focal plane measurement. The direction filter merely helps expose it but is in principle not necessary.

The active part of the experiment is the placement of her detector by
Alice either in the focal or imaging plane (1 or 2 f distant from her
lens) of her apparatus. If the detector is in the focal plane (at the
focus) of the lens, then the entangled photons produce an interference
pattern in Bob's apparatus (along with the unentangled photons in the
system). Placement of the detector in the imaging plane, however,
produces the opposite outcome: the photons, at best, produce a
diffraction pattern in Bob's apparatus as they pass through one or the
other of his slits. So detecting a signal doesn't consist of picking out
a faint interference pattern in overwhelming noise using a coincidence
counter. It is noting the degradation of an interference pattern
assisted by a coincidence counter.”

If that works I will be amazed and happy since that is close to what I thought would be possible somehow back in the 1970's.

“It would be great if an open-minded quantum optical experimentalist could be interested to test the modified Dopfer experiment! As pointed out by Prof. John, this issue may be regarded as a quantum paradox that can be resolved via an experiment. I once talked to a researcher at Grenoble, France, who was quite interested in testing my idea. But he has still not reported any further progress, possibly because their current main thrust area seems to be in condensed matter physics.

This behavior is already demonstrated in apparatus with a coincidence
counting circuit (which, if the coincidence counter is required to
discriminate changes in the interference pattern, limits signal
transmission to (= c speeds). The question is: What happens in this
system if you turn off the coincidence counting circuit? Does Bob's
fringe/blob pattern visibly (detectably) change "instantaneously" when
Alice changes the position of her detector? If the answer to this
question is "yes", then apparently FTL signaling should be possible. In
other words, does turning off the coincidence counting circuit (which
only enables one to identify and separate entangled photons from those
that are not) change the behavior of the photons in the system so that
the entangled photons in Bob's apparatus are unaffected when Alice
places her detector in the imaging plane of her Heisenberg detector?
Keep in mind that upwards of 80% of the photons in the system are
entangled, so the SNR in the fringe pattern Bob sees is not one picked
out of massive amounts of noise -- thus requiring the coincidence
counting circuit as a matter of practicality.
Obviously, neither I, nor anyone else to my knowledge, know the factual
answer to this question (yet). But I'll still put a small amount of
money on the basic behavior of the system not depending on the presence
of the coincidence counting circuit.”

That's the key issue. Lenny Susskind will bet that Bob will only see CONDITIONAL FRINGES for a fixed y selected by the CCC because if you are right then his whole theory of information flow through black hole horizons collapses like wilted broccoli and Hawking caved in too quickly at GR 17.

With best regards,
Srik.

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 20:31:35 -0700 Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti@pacbell.net)
writes:
On Jul 3, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Srikanth R wrote:
“Hi, Dr. Jack,
Thanks for the cc. Being the said "fellow called Srikanth", the
reference to my work prompts me to pen this quick note. ;-)
Your point about why nonlocal signaling is not possible via
entanglement can be paraphrased also in this standard way: if
Alice and Bob share entanglement, Alice's any local operations will not
affect Bob's reduced density operator. Ergo there is no nonlocal
signaling.”

Right, so how do Cramer and Woodward get around this barrier?

“One of the assumptions that go into showing this is the very
reasonable one that Alice's any measurement on her half of the
entanglement must be _complete_: that is, a partition of unity.”

Yes, that was in my formalism.

“It must not be non-complete. If I am right about the possibility
of nonlocal signaling, it must be because my set-up on the sender
Alice's side appears to permit a non-complete measurement, when
She detects photons at a "path singularity" (by placing her detector
At the lens focus).”


That's what I called Y in

Sum of |y)(y| = 1 + Y


Y can be negative - under-complete

or positive - over complete

like Glauber & squeezed states, i.e. ODLRO AKA macro-quantum
coherence in ground states of condensed matter systems and in vacua
of relativistic quantum fields in D + 1 space-times.

“It is still not obvious to me that this kind of peculiar non-
complete measurement is not possible. For example, in a laser
experiment conducted within the laser's coherence length, I
believe noncompleteness can be interpreted as the augmentation or
suppression of the probability to generate photons, without
violating energy conservation.”

With ODLRO there is a breakdown of Born's probability rule. The
ODLRO condensate is a source and sink of particles and the condensate
itself is emergently phase-rigid.

“I have another ground to believe such noncompleteness is not
precluded. In a recent work (quant-ph/0602114, to be updated), I
suggested that locality (or, the prohibition on nonlocal
signaling) may be a consequence of the algorithmicity of the universe, i.e.,
that physical reality is fundamentally discrete and information
theoretic, and that the laws of physics correspond to efficient
"sub-physical" algorithms in the computational complexity
theoretic sense. From this viewpoint, nonlocal signaling is prohibited
because interactions enabling it would also permit computing NP-
complete problems efficiently, something that seems unlikely from
a computation theoretic perspective.”

Well you have just proved Roger Penrose's thesis that consciousness
is non-algorithmic beyond Strong AI and that the universe has a
conscious Mind of God. I mean, the facts are that signal nonlocality
exists in living matter - many experiments show that at AAAS USD
meeting. As Fred Alan Wolf says "the vacuum thinks".
If locality is indeed a side-effect of a deeper layer of physical
reality in this way, this suggests that it may be possible to
physically realize a logic gate (if such exists) that permits
nonlocal signaling but lacks the power to make NP-complete (and
presumably harder) problems tractable. I am able to show that the
noncomplete measurement of the above type indeed fits this bill.
I want to turn what you just said topsy turvy. :-)
Thanking you,
With best regards,
Srikanth

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The usual formal argument against any such scheme of direct
entanglement communication without a supplementary classical key
to unlock the locally undecodable entangled message goes like
follows.

First consider an ordinary double slit experiment with 2 slits a
& a'. The single-quantum state of A passing the slits is then

|A) = Ca|a) + Ca'|a')

where (a|a') = 0 means integral (a|x)(x|a') = 0
x is a position on the screen beyond the 2 slits.
The fringe pattern field is ~ Ca*Ca'(a|x)(x|a') + cc
If the pair of quanta A & B is entangled that means something
Like

|A,B) = Cab|a)|b) + Ca'b'|a')|b') I

for slits a & a' and slits b & b' for A & B respectively.
Note that this is different from two local independent fringe
patterns that you can have in a NON-ENTANGLED pair state like

[Ca|a) + Ca'|a')][Cb|b) + Cb'|b')]

In this UN-ENTANGLED case the Bohm quantum potential is QUASI-
LOCAL not directly coupling the different quanta of the form QA +
QB in non-overlapping sectors of configuration space in contrast
to the ENTANGLED case where the Bohm potential is manifestly
NONLOCAL having support in overlapping sectors of configuration
space of the form QAB =/= QA + QB.

The DOUBLE NONLOCAL PAIR OF FRINGES in the ENTANGLED STATE I has
the form

Cab*Ca'b'(a|x)(x|a')(b|x')(x'|b') + cc

Therefore there is no local fringe pattern at either end no
Matter what changes are made to the apparati because e.g. the local
fringe pattern at x is the integral of the above formula over all
x'. The result is zero for one of two reasons

(b|b') =0

and

Integral of |x')(x'| = 1

Therefore, this is the general FORMAL refutation of the INFORMAL
argument below. One will locally see no fringes under all
conditions. One can see the fringes in a correlation measurement
that selects out a fixed x' (i.e. a small enough region of x'
whose influence on the phase noise at x is small). Such
correlation measurement are always retarded timelike in hindsight
inside the light cone. That is, signal nonlocality is impossible within the rules of
orthodox micro-quantum theory. Post-quantum theory breaks these
rules but limits to them in the appropriate regime in the same
way that General Relativity limits to Special Relativity when
curvature -) 0 in a space-time region.

On Jul 3, 2006, at 12:48 AM, james f woodward wrote:
“The presence or absence of fringes in the "receiver
detector" [that is, dots (no fringes) or dashes (fringes)] is determined completely
by the local conditions of detection of the entangled photons in the
"transmitter detector" (at either 1 or 2 focal lengths from the
lens in the system there).”

The above formal argument says this initial step is wrong. If so,
then the quanta would not be entangled to begin with contrary to
hypothesis.

“This is completely independent of the temporal ordering of the detection of the photons by the receiver and transmitter.

The temporal ordering of photon detection in the receiver and
Transmitter can be adjusted by changing the location of the source of the
Entangled photons between the receiver and transmitter.

For example, if the source is slightly closer to the transmitter than the receiver, the
Transmitter detector will register photons first, and the state of the
Entangled photon in the receiver slightly later will clearly be determined
by the detection conditions in the transmitter.”

That’s ordinary common sense retarded causality. Beware “common sense.”

“But as the transmitter detection conditions can be changed locally, the receiver
detection conditions will also change almost instantaneously when the
transmitter conditions are changed. FTL signaling; but no causal paradox
(as the transmitter detector acts first).”

???

“Move the source close to the receiver, however, and the receiver
registers the conditions at the transmitter at some non-
negligible time in the future. Retro-causation, for what you see at the
receiver depends on conditions at the transmitter in the future that has
allegedly not yet happened.”

The above formal argument predicts that one will only see a
uniform smear locally under all the different conditions
described here. One will only see the fringes emerge in a correlation
analysis after the fact.

“As I commented to John when I told him of Jensen's STAIF paper
(of which there is a more complete and detailed version by a fellow named
Srikanth published several years ago that I didn't know about at the
time), this opens the possibility of testing Wheeler and Feynman's "bilking
paradox" with real hardware that has already been proven in operation (by
Dopfer, as John has remarked). :-) Real experimental tests of FTL
Signaling using this elegant technique are now possible. And the results
should be just as significant as those of Aspect, et al. My money (in
small amounts) is on FTL signaling being possible (and the TI being
correct and discriminable thereby from other interpretations of QM).”

I hope Woodward and Cramer are correct on this because it would
then show that I was essentially correct qualitatively way ahead
of my time back in the 1970's (see Martin Gardner's "Magic and
Paraphysics"), but they have to show how the above formal
refutation I give above - the standard mainstream one essentially
- is wrong somehow.
-
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 21:17:48 -0700 Jack Sarfatti
(sarfatti@pacbell.net)
writes:
Why do you think that? I hope you are right. I have not yet
Really thought about it.

On Jul 2, 2006, at 9:03 PM, james f woodward wrote:
It should work.
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:45:51 -0700 Jack Sarfatti
(sarfatti@pacbell.net)
writes:
Is anyone able to refute John Cramer's gedankenexperiment for
backwards-through-time reverse causation in which the future
creates the past? I have not had time enough yet to think hard enough about
Cramer's particular proposal in this attachment from the AAAS USD
Meeting last week.

PK Dick VALIS
Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: May 20, 2006 3:11:45 PM PDT
To: saul-paul & mary-minn sirag
Cc: newsome@panix.com,
Subject: Re: The VALIS Idea, PK Dick & Walter Breen

Thanks for reminding me! :-)

Saul-Paul there is a major publishing project going to happen. I will cut you in on my share and what you need to start doing is to assemble all your notes journals from your own life and also the events you and I both participated in. You remember many details I have completely forgotten!

On May 20, 2006, at 2:00 PM, saul-paul & mary-minn sirag wrote:

Jack,
In 1976, you and I visited Walter Breen at Marion Zimmer Bradley's house on Deakin Street in Berkeley. She gave us each a copy of her latest novel, *The Heritage of Hastor* (published 1975). This was a few months after the month-long workshop we did at Esalen (January 1976). You had Walter Breen come down to Big Sur for a few days. He brought along recorded music to play and demonstrate the psychological effects of different pieces of music.

Here are more details on Philip K. Dick in the 1964-1965 period:

In early 1964, the young SF writer, Grania Davidson, had recently broken up with her husband Avram Davidson (a well known SF & fantasy writer and friend of Phil's). By June 1964 Grania (and her young son) and Phil moved into a house on Lyon street in Oakland. Throughout the summer and fall of 1964, that house became a kind of salon for SF & fantasy writers including: Avram Davidson, Marion Zimmer Bradley & Walter Breen, Ray Nelson, Poul & Karen Anderson.

Shortly after Halloween, Grania Davidson moved out of Phil's house and into the Berkeley home of Marion Zimmer Bradley. Phil and his friend Jack Newkom pulled off childish pranks around Bradley's Deakin Street house -- including perhaps stealing diapers off the front porch.

By December 1964 Phil was into a new love, young Nancy Hackett. In March 1965 Nancy moved into Phil's Lyon street house. BTW: Nancy's mother Maren became Bishop James Pike's secretary and secret lover, which is how Phil got to know Pike quite well. Pike attended but did not officiate at Phil's marriage to Nancy in 1966. The third novel in the VALIS trilogy (*The Transmigration of Timothy Archer*) is based on Bishop Pike and other people in Phil's life. (It was published in 1982 after Phil's death.)

You remember Sidney Lanier knew Bishop Pike quite well. Laurance Rockefeller used to call for Jean Lanier at PCRG HQ across the street from the Grace Cathedral. Didn't you pick of the phone once with Laurance on it?

I met Phil Dick in the summer of 1964 when Ray Nelson brought him to a "Channing Club" meeting at my apartment on Dana Street in Berkeley. They were working together on a novel, *The Ganymede Takeover* (published in 1967). Everyone in the meeting (except me perhaps) had already read Phil's novel *The Man in the High Castle* -- an alternate reality tale in which the Axis nations had won World War Two. The Germans had taken over Eastern US, the Japanese had taken over the West coast, while the Rocky Mountain area was still a kind of free zone.

The next (and last) time I met Phil was in November 1971. This was just after Phil's house in San Rafael had been burglarized. Phil was freaked out by the "hit on my house" as he put it, and was staying with Avram Davidson in Berkeley. There was a birthday party for the (10 yr. old ?) son, Frodo, of Avram and Grania at the Sausallito home of Grania and her husband Dr. Steven Davis. Avram brought Phil and Frodo to Grania's party. Leslie, my wife at that time, had an afternoon play school in Berkeley, in which Frodo participated. Thus Leslie and I were invited to Frodo's birthday party in Sausallito. There were about a dozen people present, most of whom were writers. I was then writing the weekly column "The New Alchemy" on the frontiers of science. I remember discussing some of the ideas I was writing about with Jim Benford.

And yes, Jack, I have learned since that time that you knew the twin physicist brothers Jim and Greg Benford (who also write SF), when they were in graduate school.

Jim and Greg Benford, Herbie Bernstein and I were all grad students together at UCSD in the 60's. This was when George Chapline would drive down from Cal Tech in his black AC Shelby Cobra. John Wheeler, Ed Teller, Fred Hoyle were frequent visitors at Revelle College because of the Burbidges, Herbert York, Keith Brueckner, Walter Kohn ...This was the setting for Greg's "Timescape" about waves from the future in a time loop. I had the idea to make a BEC of EPR photon pairs. Greg and I worked on it briefly but nothing much came of it.

Phil seemed to be cycling between paranoia and amazing calmness and openness that evening. He had recently completed the first draft of *Flow My Tears the Policeman Said*, and he tried to talk Leslie into editing it for him. After much rewriting, it was published in 1974 and won the John W. Campbell award.

Of course, February-March 1974 was the time of Phil's experience of VALIS. Moreover, on June 7th of 1974 in the libretto of "Ezekiel's Vision" I quoted a few lines from your letter, written from Trieste (27 March 1974) -- and these words were sung by Tom Buckner, baritone (at the University Art Museum in Berkeley):

"We are creating the Qabala right now. General Relativity provides 'time machines' in the form of 'closed time-like curves'. It would be possible for a super-conscious culture to go back in historical time and create its own history on one of the space-time pages in the great gook of the cosmos."

All for now ;-)

Saul-Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 20, 2006, at 11:22 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I was at that house I think in 1965 in Berkeley. I also stayed with Lenny Susskind at that time as I recall.
On May 20, 2006, at 1:22 AM, wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I think P.K.D. and Walter Breen knew each other?

PKD had a huge crush on a girl who was living at Walter Breen and
Marion Zimmer Bradley's house, so he used to hang around in hopes
of running into her. She wound up marrying another writer. This
was in 1965 when MZB and Walter Breen were living in Oakland
(or was it Berkeley?).

Richard Newsome
newsom@panix.com

Gravity energy and entropy is nonlocal

The "Euclidean space" E is the tangent fiber space of a metric space that should not be confounded with local coordinate patches in the base space.

"Riemann's surfaces provided the first instances of the general notion of a manifold, which is a space that can be thought of as 'curved' in various ways, but where LOCALLY (i.e. IN A SMALL ENOUGH NEIGHBORHOOD OF ANY OF ITS POINTS) it looks like a piece of ordinary Euclidean space." 8.1 p. 138 Penrose RR

In the case of spacelike 3D you cannot use the global form r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 where r reaches between 2 arbitrary points of the manifold with a general metric guv(P) specified. You can do so only when the metric field is globally flat. (In answer to Zielinski)

In general, the Taylor series expansion of the "foreign" metric field IMPOSED on the pre-metrical manifold is

guv(P + &P) = guv(P) + guv(P),w(&P)^w + (1/2!)guv(P),w,l(&P)^w(&P)^l

The special LIF geodesic "normal coordinates" correspond to the CHOICE OF LOCAL REPRESENTATION in which guv(P),w = 0 - different for each P in the general curved metric field.

That is, we have a FUNCTION FIBER SPACE of gauge equivalent metric fields at each P and we look for a CRITICAL POINT in that function space.

So that, where dx^w --> (&P)^w

ds^2 = guv(P + &P)dx^udx^v ~ guv(P)dx^udx^v + terms of 4th order in smallness.

Now for the LOCAL field equation

Ruv - (1/2)Rguv = 8piTuv

G = c = h = kB = 1 absolute Planck units convention

The LOCAL RICCI MATERIAL CURVATURE information is in the second order (1/2!)guv(P),w,ldx^wdx^l

Apparently the NONLOCAL Weyl conformal VACUUM curvature information is in all the other terms!

The Ricci flat vacuum Ruv = 0 means zero local Ricci curvature everywhere-when.

Note that zero point DARK ENERGY /\zpfguv counts as a "material source" of LOCAL Ricci curvature. This zero point energy induces ZERO GRAVITY ENTROPY if we use Penrose's conjecture, i.e. conformally flat with zero gravity entropy.

The event horizon in the Ricci FLAT Kerr solution i.e. Ruv = 0 is pure NONLOCAL CONFORMAL CURVATURE and it has NONLOCAL GRAVITY ENTROPY and NONLOCAL ENERGY-MOMENTUM - the NONLOCALITY is key here! This is what is implied by Penrose's CONJECTURE. It shows why the Yilmaz idea is fundamentally wrong if you believe Penrose's conjecture - it is clear why the Ricci flat gravity energy-momentum is NONLOCAL i.e. from derivatives in the metric field higher than second order!

Classically, partial differential equations higher than second order are known to be NONLOCAL.

Jack Sarfatti wrote to Zielinski:

They are being sloppy that's all. There is NOTHING in the quote you sent that requires the metric equation

r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + ... (1)

That's an INDEPENDENT postulate like Euclid's 5th!

The point is that you cannot have global (1) and the generic

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v (2)

together in same problem unless you severely constrain allowed guv ad hoc so that 4th rank spatial curvature vanishes like K = 0 FLRW metric for example.

Arrow of Time
Penrose conjectures that the entropy of the vacuum geometrodynamical field is proportional to it's conformal curvature. This is still not a precise statement of course. "Wood" (Einstein) sources, i.e. Tuv create local Ricci curvature. Apparently the FLRW cosmological metric has zero conformal "Marble" (Einstein) curvature and it has a "cosmological fluid" everywhere when. On the other hand, the event horizon of a vacuum black hole is only conformal curvature and it has entropy S according to the Bekenstein formula

S = A/4

A = 4pi(2M)^2 = area of event horizon of the SSS black hole.

Lp^2 = 1

in Planck units where h = c = G = kB = 1

This can be generalized to the rotating Kerr metric.

Therefore, one reason to reject an SSS solution to GR with a singular point source Tuv and a timelike NAKED future singularity is that it has no entropy. If all future singularities were naked then the second law of thermodynamics might not be possible.

Penrose's idea for the cosmic arrow of time is that the Big Bang has zero gravity entropy because all the curvature from it is Ricci curvature. Even the dark zero point energy makes only Ricci curvature. Ordinary matter is only ~ 4% of all the stuff so that the usual stat mech arguments for increasing phase space volumes in say kinetic theory of gases cannot explain the actual cosmic arrow of time. Matter is a relatively small effect. The largest effect is from the increase in gravity entropy as the conformal curvature of the universe increases from black hole event horizon formation. That is, there is a close connection between cosmic censorship and the second law of thermodynamics for the universe as a whole. The final singularities of clumping matter have large entropy from the future event horizons. In contrast, the initial Big Bang singularity has zero entropy.