At this point Antigray's comments below are idle speculation. All of the facts from NIDS Bigelow Ranch so far suggest star gate to me not cloak, but I could be wrong. Star gate is not a piece of equipment like a ship, it's a configuration in the geometrodynamic field (fabric of space-time). Exactly how they make and control it with dark energy I do not know. All we know is that they do do it.

BTW Peter Woit's book "Not Even Wrong" is a must read about the wrong turn in physics today. Unconfirmed scuttlebutt is that Congress will essentially cut all federal funding of "string theory" as a result of the books by Woit and Smolin. George Chapline Jr (Ed Teller's long-time assistant with clout inside USG) told me he arranged for Woit's book to get published, but for some reason he is not happy with it. Lubos Motl (a Czech national) pressured to resign from Harvard's physics department because of his vicious shotgun public polemical attacks on Woit, Smolin, Penrose and even Susskind! With friends like Lubos Motl, Ed Witten does not need enemies. ;-)

Note that Feynman, t'Hooft, Glashow all on record that string theory is not physics. All are Nobel laureates in physics. Several prominent string theorists have jumped ship. String theorist students unemployable even in industry. See Ch 12 of Woit's book.

On Feb 17, 2007, at 11:11 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

In a message dated 2/17/2007 11:50:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
No there is NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER! Lazar is a plant. George Knapp is a great guy but he is a reporter not a PhD physicist. I have already basically solved the problem of UFO warp drive. No need for this mindless nonsense without any coherent idea to it at all. It's a complete waste of time. What you have below is irrelevant to the Lazar issue - Red Herrings.

The star gate at the Skinwalker Ranch is MAINSTREAM PHYSICS do not muddy clear water with Lazar's not even wrong word salad!

Hi Jack,
I am not trying to muddy Skinwalker Ranch information with Bob Lazar pseudoscience. Optoelectronic camouflage has nothing to do Lazar. That is something known to exist. I was saying George Knapp reports what HE sees, be it Lazar doing a supposed experiment with Element 115, or seeing an alien jumping down out of a hole that appears near the ground. I was stating as an aside that I personally think the hole in the air was not a Stargate, but was a cloaked ship opening its hatch.

Showing alien sky at other end of tunnel? Not likely.

http://tinyurl.com/26z77x

From an operational and tactical point of view I don't think the aliens would risk using a valuable piece of equipment like a Stargate in an area that was under such close surveillance with video cams all over the ranch, because if there was a malfunction, the Stargate could fall into our hands. To show the alternative possible method of entry off a cloaked ship, I was showing real world information and photos of that electronic camo system because the aliens use it on their ships and personnel too. I am not a water muddier.
Art

Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense fools Knapp?
Date: 2/18/2007 1:32:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: ANTIGRAY
To: sarfatti@pacbell.net

Right-click picture(s) to display picture options

Hi Jack,
Hopefully George Knapp will respond and tell us the exact details of what he saw Bob Lazar doing in the experiment with the Element 115. With any luck George got a sample of the metal.
Art

Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense fools Knapp?
Date: 2/17/2007 11:57:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: sarfatti@pacbell.net
To: ANTIGRAY@cs.com

Bending of light - that's what lenses do. Any inhomogeneous medium with variable index of refraction will bend a laser beam.
How was it bent exactly?
Under what conditions.
It's easy to fool people!
On Feb 17, 2007, at 8:36 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense fools Knapp?
Date: 2/17/2007 11:36:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ANTIGRAY
To: sarfatti@pacbell.net
Right-click picture(s) to display picture options

Hi Jack,
I am not one of the cargo cultists. I am with you 100%. I only report the stuff that is out there if there is a chance there may be a kernel of usable information contained therein which the laymen writing about it have heard and/or misinterpreted from what they saw. That's why I sent you the info on George Knapp saying he saw Lazar experimenting with element 115 in a cloud chamber and it was bending light. George Knapp is a "credible" news reporter. He said HE saw it. He also reported about the alien being at Skinwalker ranch jumping down onto the ground from a lit up hole that opened up in the air. As I remember, I think you said it was a worm hole opening up. I personally think it was a hatch opening on the side of a cloaked ship hovering near the ground. We copied the concept of optoelectronic camouflage from the aliens ourselves and it is already deployed on some military aircraft, tanks, and military uniforms. There was a show on the Discovery Channel about this type camo 2 years ago. The Japanese are even making cheap knockoffs of the camo as you can see:
Art


Here are some more pics in these 3 articles:

Is Cloaking Technology for U.S. Infantry Warfighters Finally Possible?
Posted on Sunday, March 12 @ 09:22:08 PST by davidc
by David Crane
defrev@gmail.com


In the movie Predator (1987), an alien hunter visits earth to bag armed human warriors (military Special Operations personnel) as trophies, and engages in this recreational endeavor very methodically and efficiently. By the time the movie ends, the alien predator has killed off two complete (elite) and highly-experienced U.S. Special Operations teams, save for one survivor (Major Alan "Dutch" Schaeffer, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger), with extreme prejudice. Now, while the alien is bigger, stronger, faster, and much more mobile in the dense jungle environment than its human prey, it's also got another major advantage--superior technology. The alien has many high-tech weapons in its arsenal, all formidable. However, one weapon in particular stands out--the power of invisibility.


The fictional (Yautja ) alien Predator uses adaptive camouflage technology (a.k.a. electro-optical camouflage, a.k.a. optical camouflage, a.k.a. active camouflage, a.k.a. chameleonic camouflage, a.k.a. cloaking technology) to great effect in order to pick off Schaeffer's team one by one at will, without them being able to mount an effective defense. Even when they finally spot the alien and henceforth know what to look for, all they can... really see is a slight visual anomaly against the stationary jungle background when the creature is standing (or perching) still, and a moving visual anomaly (or shimmer) when the alien is moving against that stationary background. Interestingly, towards the end of the film, Schaeffer covers his body with wet mud to make himself invisible to the Predator's thermal vision, after he discovers the mud's utility inadvertently. He then uses his own new-found invisibility to turn the tables on the Predator and kill it. So, in the film, invisibility ends up being the primary component to both combatants' respective tactical success. But the Predator's cloaking capability is fictional. I mean, it's just a movie, right?

Actually, visual stealth tech (a.k.a. daylight stealth, a.k.a. daytime stealth, a.k.a. optical stealth), or invisibility, has been one of the holy grails of U.S. military technology R&D programs for quite some time, now. Why? It's simple. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) understands that if you can see the enemy, but the enemy can't see you, it's much easier to kill him, and much harder for him to kill you--and aircraft and ships are expensive. But ya' know what? So are infantry warfighters (infantry soldiers and Marines), although not in the same way. Aside from the obvious and largely-imeasurable value of human life, infantry warfighters are expensive with regard to public opinion and public relations. When they get killed or injured by IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices), RPGs (Rocket-Propelled Grenades), mortars, small arms fire, etc., it impedes U.S. war efforts, because the American people are now much softer and thus more sensitive to U.S. casualties than they used to be (like during WWI and WWII, for instance). Every additional death that's reported causes PR damage. And, right now, our infantry is suffering approx. 95% of all military casualties, because they're the most vulnerable to enemy attacks. One military expert that we spoke with awhile back described human beings as "just pink squooshy things" when they're on a battlefield. They're just very easy to damage and take out. However, if you can hide those "pink squooshy things" with adaptive camouflage/cloaking technology as they move through the battlespace, they're no longer as easy to target and kill, and both their lethality and survivability are simultaneously greatly enhanced.


But, why stop there? If we can make main battle tanks (M1 Abrams MBT), armored personnel carriers/infantry fighting vehicles (APC/IFV--like the Stryker and M113), and aircraft invisible, too, that's even better. Replacing human warfighters with robotic warfighters (armed/weaponized robots) is another part of the equation. Weaponized UGVs (Unmanned Ground Vehicles) and weaponized UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), a.k.a. UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles) can help the U.S. military cut down on infantry casualties even further. And, why not cloak those, too?

Well, maybe now we can. It's possible that a company out of Fullerton, California called Advanced American Enterprise (AAE) has achieved the holy grail--tactical invisibility. That's what they're claiming, anyway. It's called the Stealth Technology System (STS) , and AAE claims that the technology really works and is ready for prime time. According to the company, STS is more effective, less expensive, and lighter-weight than any known active camouflage/cloaking tech that's previously been under development in the past. AAE states that STS can be applied to ground vehicles, boats, infantry warfighters, and UGVs/ground robots. Any object to which STS is applied will, according to AAE, become virtually invisible, even from as little as 20-25 feet away. Wow. The STS adaptive camouflage technology is apparently still undergoing T&E for application to manned and unmanned aircraft.


The actual inventor of the Stealth Technology System is Dr. Rashid Zeineh, who already reportedly has a number of previous inventions under his belt, including the first laser scanner ever (1968) and its software that "also reads DNA identity," and anti-hijacking tech, a.k.a. a "Counter-Terrorism Device for Airplanes." BTW, Zeineh's laser scanner also reportedly reads bar codes.

It's our understanding at present that, very soon, the Stealth Technology System (STS) is going to be tested on a small weaponized unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) and unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV). This information is unconfirmed/unverified. If/when these tests are conducted, DefenseReview would very much like to see them (in person, or at least on video) and their results (witness reports, data, etc.).

We'd really like to see the technology tested on the NRI AutoCopter Gunship (weaponized unmanned mini-helicopter). If the STS tech works as advertised during these tests and it can really hold up to battlefield conditions (reliability, durability, etc.), look out, 'cause it's gonna' be game over. Imagine swarms of highly-lethal (and possibly even networked) weaponized UGVs and UCAVS zipping around the battlespace looking for you. Now imagine that you can't see them, even when they're very close or approaching you at high-speed in broad daylight. Very difficult to defend yourself against. You'd probably be killed without ever seeing what killed you. Of course, ideally, anti-thermal/IR (infrared) camouflage paint (for vehicles) or cream/makeup (for warfighters) and anti-thermal/IR apparel (for warfighters) should also be considered. This combo should give vehicle or warfighter combined visual stealth and thermal/infrared stealth. Oh, and silencers/sound suppressors should also be considered, in order to mask sound (sonic camouflage, if you will). If sound suppressors are employed, it will be harder for the enemy to hear the weapons being fired at them and/or figure out where the rounds are coming from.


Getting back to visual stealth tech, if it turns out that STS can successfully cloak mobile infantry warfighters within acceptable comfort/wearability, weight, durability, and powering requirements, then U.S. soldiers and Marines will be one step closer to Predator capability. So, does STS actually work as advertised? And, if it does work, can it be effectively applied to our infantry warfighters so they can effectively operate with it in the field? Defense Review hopes it does, because our troops could really use it. However, we (DefRev) don't really know, yet. We haven't seen STS tested, nor have we seen any video footage of it in operation. But, if it does, well...Cloak On, Game Over.

Author's note: If STS really works and is viable for U.S. infantry use, we'd better all hope the technology doesn't fall into the wrong hands (getting captured/obtained from disabled or destroyed/killed U.S. robots, vehicles or warfighters). We definitely wouldn't want to have to contend with cloaked IEDs or insurgents/terrorists, now would we. That would be very bad.


If you'd like to learn more about the Stealth Technology System (STS) you can contact Advanced American Enterprise (AAE) by phone at 714-287-0490, by fax at 714-870-6385, or by email at aab@ix.netcom.com.

Click here to read AAE's FAQ on the Stealth Technology System.


Photo Captions (for photos above, from top to bottom):

1) Photo still from Predator (1987)

2) AAE company photo of small square STS panel activated in front of individual.

3) AAE company photo of large rectangular STS panel covering majority of individual

4) Individual completely cloaked by STS panel.

Company claims optical camouflage could have protected Israeli warfighters.
Posted on Friday, November 17 @ 18:27:44 PST by davidc
by David Crane
david at defensereview.com

Optical Cloaking Technology for Urban Warfare and Counterinsurgency Operations
According to Dr. R. A. Zeineh (a.k.a. "Dr. Z"), his company's (Advanced American Enterprise) IR-Stealth 4.B combination thermal/IR (infrared)/night vision (NV) stealth system could have protected Israeli infantry warfighters from Hezbollah guerrilla fighters in Lebanon. One of the recent new documents we've received from AAE discusses how the Hizbollah guerrillas used night vision (NV) equipment to kill two Israeli commandos (out of a 4-man team) near Baalback, Lebanon. In other words, the Israelis didn't "own the night," and it got some of them killed. Dr. Z claims that AAE's technology could have changed the outcome of that unfortunate scenario. AAE claims to be able to provide a "head-to-toe pocket-size IR-Stealth enforced cloth coverall less than .3 Kg protects the night fighter and his armor from detection and from IR targeting." Put another way, AAE IR-Stealth 4.B tech weighing approx. 250 grams can be integrated with a military coverall or BDU to "cloak" an infantry warfighter so that he effectively becomes invisible to enemy thermal/IR (infrared) and NV (night vision) viewers and targeting devices. AAE claims that the IR-Stealth 4.B-equipped BDU/coverall will not hinder/interfere with the warfighter's ability to fight. The warfighter will still be able to breathe, see, hear, run, drive, shoot, speak/shout, climb, or carry an injured teammate--or perform any other battle-relevant behavior, for that matter. According to AAE, current military BDUs/uniforms can be...

easily upgraded to become thermal/IR/NV stealthy . Any all main battle tanks (MBTs), APCs and IFVs (Infantry Personnel Carriers and Infantry Fighting Vehicles), HMMWVs (Humvees), and helicopters can also be upgraded with the AAE IR-Stealth tech to protect them from heat-seaking missiles. AAE has a separate optical camouflage (a.k.a. electro-optical camouflage, a.ka. adaptive camouflage a.k.a. active camouflage a.k.a. chameleonic camouflage a.k.a. visible-light-spectrum cloaking technology) called Visibility Stealth 1.B that can be applied to both ground vehicles, including MBTs, APCs/IFVs, HMMWVs, UGVs (Unmanned Ground Vehicles) a.k.a. ground robots, and infantry warfighter uniforms that can reduce their visibility by 85-100%, again without impeding functionality (ability to fight) in any way. It's Defense Review's understanding at present that IR-Stealth 4.B and Visibility Stealth 1.B can be combined/integrated to work together to cloak vehicles and warfighters in all three light spectrums (visible, thermal/infrared, and night vision a.k.a. near-infrared), but we haven't confirmed this yet. In any case either type of cloaking/adaptive camouflage technology, by itself, could prove valuable in preventing casualties from future Hezbollah-type ambush attacks that utilize the tactic of firing Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs) at vehicles and dismounted infantry. In the confrontation in Lebanon, Hezbollah guerrillas reportedly fired ATGMs not only at vehicles, but also at dismounted infantry . They also reportedly fired multiple ATGMs simultaneously at a single target in certain instances. If the AAE Stealth tech can protect U.S. and ally warfighters from small arms and light weapons (including ATGM) ambushes and IED (Improvised Explosive Device) attacks, it's definitely worth employing it. Time and testing will tell. It looks like DefenseReview will be attending a live demonstration of the AAE IR-Stealth 4.B tech soon. If/when we do, we will of course report back to our readers.

AAE IR-Stealth 4.B and Visibility Stealth 1.B Fact Sheets: Right-Click on the two links immediately below and then click on "Save Target As" (Microsoft Internet Explorer) or "Save Link As" (Mozilla Firefox) to download and view AAE documents on both optical/adaptive camo technologies: IR-Stealth 4.B Thermal/IR/NV Cloaking Tech Visibility Stealth 1.B Optical Camouflage/"Visual Cloaking" Tech Company Contact Info: If you'd like to learn more about the Stealth Technology System (STS), or Stealth III specifically, you can contact Advanced American Enterprise (AAE) by phone at 714-287-0490, by fax at 714-870-6385, or by email at aab@ix.netcom.com.

Previous articles that discuss the AAE Stealth Technology System (STS) cloaking/adaptive camouflage tech (in order from most recent to least recent): AAE Introduces IR-Stealth 5: Thermal/IR Stealth for Jet Aircraft Are Anti-Tank Guided Missiles the New Primary Threat in Urban Warfare/MOUT? Is 'Invisibility Cloak' for Combat Uniforms/BDUs Here Right Now? Tech Update: AAE Stealth III Cloaking Tech for Vehicles, Warfighters, and Helos
Stealth II Thermal/IR Cloaking Tech: Anti-Anti-Aircraft Tech for Helicopters

Cloaking Tech Continued: STS Optical AND Thermal/IR Camouflage for Warfighters

Is Cloaking Technology for U.S. Infantry Warfighters Finally Possible?

Additional articles on thermal/infrared (IR) camouflage technology: Intermat Anti-Thermal/IR Camo Tech for Infantry and Special Operations Forces Zensah Tactical Apparel for Special Operations Forces: Anti-Thermal/IR Camo?

They are covering infrared too.

Update: AAE IR/NV-Stealth and Visibility-Stealth Cloaking Technology
Posted on Friday, December 08 @ 15:33:09 PST by davidc

by David Crane
david at defensereview.com On November 27, 2006, DefenseReview published a piece about Advanced American Enterprise's (AAE) claims that their IR-Stealth 4.B thermal/IR/NV adaptive camouflage could have saved Israeli warfighters' lives during their fight with Hezbollah guerillas in Lebanon several months ago. That article also discussed AAE's Visibility Stealth 1.B optical camouflage , which the company claims would make the wearer virtually invisible in the visible light spectrum (a.k.a. daylight or normal light invisibility). Well, Defense Review just received AAE's latest fact sheet on their IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C product (titled "IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C Israel-Hezbollah"), along with photos. The document highlights the fact that the Israeli army was not able to "own the night" in it's battle against Hezbollah guerrillas because it did not have a technology like AAE IR-Stealth to prevent their vehicles (Merkava MBTs, for example) and warfighters from being targeted by Hezbollah guerrillas using "British-made" night vision equipment. AAE claims that...


an IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C-equiped "head-to-toe" coverall (or military BDU) would reduce thermal/infrared (IR) and night vision detection by more than 85%, thereby shielding the wearer from being seen/targeted by enemy combatants using night vision equipment (a.k.a. night vision sensors a.k.a. night vision viewers) or thermal/IR (infrared) viewers/sensors. The IR-Stealth device for the coverall would weigh approx. 250 grams. The document points out that the coverall would have no negative effect on the warfighters functionality or capability to fight or operate. The IR-Stealth Night vision equipment reportedly enabled Hezbollah guerrillas to target and kill 2 Israeli commandos (out of 4) near Baalback, Lebanon. "IR Stealth for Personnel 4.C Israel-Hezbullah: Both Israel &Hezbullah have night vision equipment, but neither one "owns the night" against the other. The is because. unless having AAE head-to-toe pocket-size about 250 Gram IR stealth cloth-coverall to shield the fighters or commandoes from night viewers detection &from IR designators. AAE claims it has also successfully developed Daytime Visibility-Stealth for Personnel and Vehicles optical camouflage (a.k.a. electro-optical camouflage a.k.a. adaptive camouflage a.k.a. active camouflage a.k.a. chameleonic camouflage a.k.a. cloaking technology a.k.a. "invisibility cloak") that would make whatever object it covers virtually invisible in the visible light spectrum (daylight/normal light). Specifically, visibility reduction would be more than 85% for the cloaked object (moving or stationary). The personnel version (for coverall/BDU) of this device would weigh 250 grams, and would incorporate both an On/Off switch and self-destruct switch. The vehicle-version device (for Main Battle Tanks, Stryker Infantry Fighting Vehicle, M113, HMMWV/Humvee, etc.) would weigh approx. 150 KG.


AAE will perform live field demonstrations of both technologies (IR/NV Stealth and Visibility-Stealth) for interested vetted parties. A proposed Visibility Stealth live demo would consist of person in a bunker rising and shooting blanks at observers from 20+ feet away without being seen/detected by the observers or video equipment (camcorder, for instance). DefenseReview looks forward to attending a demonstration of the technology soon. We're also going to try to obtain some high-resolution video of this type of demo, and publish it. Until we see AAE's cloaking tech for ourselves, we of course must remain skeptical. AAE IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C Fact Sheet: Right-Click on the two links immediately below and then click on "Save Target As" (Microsoft Internet Explorer) or "Save Link As" (Mozilla Firefox) to download and view AAE documents on both optical/adaptive camo technologies: IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C Israel-Hezbollah
Company Contact Info: If you'd like to learn more about the Stealth Technology System (STS), or Stealth III specifically, you can contact Advanced American Enterprise (AAE) by phone at 714-287-0490, by fax at 714-870-6385, or by email at aab@ix.netcom.com.

=====================================================
In a message dated 2/17/2007 9:43:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense fools Knapp?
Date:2/17/2007 9:43:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
From:sarfatti@pacbell.net


Look if you want a sense of what real physics is without the math read Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong."

Nuclear physics is well understood in the sense that there would be no peculiar gravity properties of element 115 even if you could get a stable isotope of it, which you can't.

On Feb 17, 2007, at 6:40 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Feb 17, 2007, at 5:15 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Hi Jack,
Bob Lazar never said the element 115 the USG had was made by us. He claimed that the USG had 500 pounds of the element they removed from captured or crashed alien craft.



Total hogwash. Completely silly. Irrational cargo cult mumbo jumbo brainwashing for True Believer cultists. This is the worst sort of pseudo-scientific trash around. It's exactly what Ray Hudson was warning about.

Some disinformationalists added to his story by saying aliens gave it to us to queer the whole story:
Bob Lazar stated that the “Sport Model” Flying Disc amplified the “Strong Nuclear Force” of Element 115 (UnUnPentium or UUP) to generate the gravity field for “Space-Time Compression.” Bob also stated that the U.S. Government had 500 pounds of Element 115 in their possession.



This is ridiculous idiocy. Not even wrong. It's word salad. This is NOT physics. It's this sort of nonsense that give the Skeptics ammunition to debunk the whole field!

More supposed information including how the metal was machined for use at: http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Element_115.htm
It may all be "BS"



It is.

but there is a lot of "S" already



It's N = NOISE!

floating around now that 70 years ago would have been considered "BS" like time travel.


DO NOT COMPARE THE TWO IN SAME SENTENCE.
I am not advocating as true

It's not even wrong. It's professor Irwin Corey snake oil. It's worthless.

anything that Lazar said, I'm just noting that he didn't say we made the 115. That would be very obvious BS. We are lucky we can refine uranium.

Even if we had it - so what? So you have it for sake of argument. What' hocus pocus do you use then? It's completely mindless anti-science nonsense. No element has any direct relevance to warp drive - total irrational garbage. No physics there. It's pure unadulterated crap for scientific illiterates! Ask any real physicist.


There is no physical evidence for any stable isotope of 115. Even if


In a message dated 2/17/2007 3:17:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense Lazar fools Knapp?
Date:2/17/2007 3:17:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
From:sarfatti@pacbell.net
To:ANTIGRAY@cs.com
Received from Internet:

It's balderdash. No physicist believes it. No one made of pound of this mythical stuff.

On Feb 17, 2007, at 11:44 AM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Hi Jack,
It was an isotope of element 115 which apparently has a much longer half-life and supposedly exhibits the properties claimed.
Art

In a message dated 2/17/2007 12:21:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Subj: Element 115 Lazar nonsense Lazar fools Knapp?
Date:2/17/2007 12:21:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
From:sarfatti@pacbell.net
To:Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com
Received from Internet:

I heard an unconfirmed rumor that George Knapp thinks he saw Bob
Lazar bend a light wave with a "pound" of element 115. What George
allegedly saw was a cheap magician's trick. Element 115 decays
quickly and to say one has a "pound" that does not decay of it is
ridiculous. Also it's completely silly to think that any nucleus has
unusual gravity properties on the macro scale. It's irrational cargo
cult junk science. Bob Lazar and Robert M Collins are two disinformation agents from the same pod. Ask any PhD physicist from a real university, not Bearden with his fake degree, who has examined the claims and see
what they say. No need to take my word for it.

>Element 115 is unstable
>"The disc's reactor uses a fuel which does not occur naturally on
>Earth. This fuel is a super-heavy, stable, element with an atomic
>number of 115 and does not appear on our periodic chart." (1)
>Recently a team of American and Russian scientists discovered
>elements 113 and 115. Element 115 has a decay time of tens of
>milliseconds. (3) There is no way to stop an element from decaying.
>In the experiment, element 115 was recorded four times. The
>reactions and decay time were (5):
>287-115Uup --> 283-113Uut + 4-2He (46.6 milliseconds)
>288-115Uup --> 284-113Uut + 4-2He (80.3 milliseconds)
>288-115Uup --> 284-113Uut + 4-2He (18.6 milliseconds)
>288-115Uup --> 284-113Uut + 4-2He (280 milliseconds)
>
>It is true that there is a hypothetical island of stability, in
>which the very massive elements are stable. This is because of a
>hypothetical stable proton/neutron configuration in the core.
>However, this has not been observed in element 115.
>
>The hypothetical island of stability is thought to occur in
>isotopes with around 114 protons and 184 neutrons. Element 115 has
>around 114 protons, it has 115 protons. However, it only has 172
>and 173 neutrons in the recorded decays. Only very few elements
>have 12 or more isotopes and these elements are of a different
>group than element 115. It is therefore not likely element 115 can
>reach the island of stability.
http://www.atsnn.com/story/33267.html

Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Physicists gave up on hadronic string theory ~ 1973 because
1. It has tachyons (unstable false pre-inflation vacuum without ODLRO)
2. It has a massless spin 2 particle

But 1. means spontaneous broken vacuum symmetries that provide massless Goldstone bosons that get eaten to make the Salam strong short range hadronic graviton explaining the Regge trajectories universal slope ~ 1/(1Gev)^2. String ~ Kerr blackhole G*^1/2 ~ 1 fermi.

In the case of spin 1 e.g. photon, one Goldstone boson needed to get 3 spin-1 polarizations.

So for spin 2 we need 3 Goldstone bosons to get the massive short-range hadronic graviton.


Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

I have not come to bury string theory but to resurrect it! This idea is at end of my archive paper that Waldyr Rodrigues did not understand in the large sense and got tripped by some inessential formal details. Lubos Motl understood my paper even less than Waldyr and it's no wonder he trashed Woit's book "Not Even Wrong" using polemics rather than physics. Lubos has recently left Harvard Physics Department unexpectedly and abruptly.

Woit's main point is the same as David Gross's in Nature - that the landscape is untestable. Well in fact it is testable provided that John Cramer's retro-causality experiment works http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html Then we can see beyond the observer deSitter horizons of the pocket universes to the parallel universes next door of the megaverse. Too bad for the no-cloning a photon theorem of course. Even if Cramer's approach fails, mine may work. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0203049 It's too soon to tell. It's too soon to be confident about any of these fundamental issues.

The basic new ideas in my archive paper that are trashed by Lubos Motl without any rational argument are

1. Einstein's theory of gravity is emergent in the same way that the superfluid velocity is emergent from its ground state coherence.

2. To be more specific, the Einstein-Cartan tetrad and spin-connection 1-forms are gradients of the coherent Goldstone phases of the vacuum ODLRO field that is essentially the remnant of the inflation field. The analogy is more to an elastic supersolid than to a hydrodynamic superfluid.

3. 96% of the stuff of the world is random zero point energy of which ~ 73% has positive energy density with w = - 1 negative pressure causing the universe to accelerate. The remaining ~ 23% is random zero point energy with negative energy density and w = -1 positive pressure forming things like the galactic halo holding our solar system in the galaxy. The latter "dark matter" is indistinguishable from w = 0 Cold Dark Matter (CDM) in terms of its gravity lensing of astronomical objects.

4. Therefore, I predict no dark matter particles in principle able to explain Omega DM ~ 0.23 in the LHC or any other lab experiment. This is a strong prediction.

Unlike the string theorists who promise that one day they will give us testable predictions, I am giving you predictions here and now. Looking for exotic dark matter particles in the lab is like Michelson and Morley looking for the ether wind fringe shift of the velocity of light in vacuum - no shift. So my prediction is a matter of deep principle.

So this is what I want to put on the table clearing away the smoke and mirrors of my ideological critics who actually do not address my real talking points.

Reference
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0203049

Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

In fact the claims of Waldyr Rodrigues are complete Red Herrings bearing no relation to any of the physical ideas even in the first draft of my archive paper. For example, Waldyr falsely claimed I did not know there were 4 tetrad 1-forms and 6 spin connection 1-forms, which is silly. He simply got confused on my notation. Second most of what his paper was about was on conservation laws in GR and my paper was not about that at all. Third of all, Waldyr admits he has made similar allegations of "mathematical nonsense" on many physics archive papers. Indeed, Waldyr privately did not have nice things to say about Lubos as I recall. Fourth, Waldyr admitted in writing to Tony Smith that he was pressured by "powerful people" to attack me under threat that they would take grants away from his students in Brazil.

Now on another tack, Lubos Motl has not done one important piece of work in real theoretical physics that has any relationship to real physics i.e. observable phenomena. In contrast, I was among the first to predict the supersolid phase of helium 4 in a peer reviewed journal Physics Letters in 1969 months before Tony Leggett's paper that gets the credit.

The basic idea of my archive paper is a good one, that Einstein-Cartan tetrads are emergent from modulations of the Goldstone phases of a vacuum ODLRO field "condensate" like v =( h/m)Grad theta in superflow. That's the idea of the paper. I also predict no dark matter on shell particles as a matter of principle. Unlike Lubos Motl defrocked from his Harvard post for obvious conduct unbecoming, I make testable predictions about real phenomena.

Finally read Feynman's 1965 Nobel Lecture to see how Waldyr's criterion of "mathematical nonsense" would have applied to Feynman's Nobel Prize work. Waldyr is a mathematician not a physicist, and so is Lubos. Mathematicians have different objectives of "rigor mortis" (Feynman's term) that impede creative work in theoretical physics actual phenomena such as the dark energy and the self-stress of the classical Lorentz electron as a Bohmian hidden variable.

Penrose's twistors define a real photon entire globally flat null geodesic on the light cone including its helicity with 4 complex numbers that are 2 related non-relativistic qubits from the O(3) group. This is not surprising from what we know of the 4- complex component special relativistic Dirac spinors. Space-time points in complex twistor space are Riemann spheres and the null geodesics of Minkowski spacetime are points in twistor space. The twistor program has not had much success in terms of physical predictions, so its math details while pretty are not of prime interest here.

However, from this, and from Penrose's spinor formulation of general relativity comes the IT FROM BIT (Wheeler) relation that IT world tensors in classical space-time are entangled states of O(3) qubit spinors in quantum BIT objective information space - the Plenum of Hawking's "Mind of God" if you like.

In particular, the quaternion representation of a world vector is

Vu = V0I + V1S1 + V2S2 + V3S3

where {I,S1,S2,S3} is the O(3) basis for the NR Clifford algebra, essentially the Pauli spin 2x2 matrices in the simplest representation.

Vu = (Sigma)V^A^A'VAA'

u = 0,1,2,3

Where in general

V0 = (2)^-1/2[V00'+ V11']

V1 = (2)^-1/2[V10'+ V01']

V2 = i(2)^-1/2[V10'- V01']

V3 = (2)^-1/2[V00'- V11']

If you want to think of spins then "0" is spin down along 3-axis, "1" is spin up.

Or you can think of 0 & 1 as values of classical c-bits.

We see, that Vu is at a deeper level a pair-entangled spinor state of 2 qubits.

It is assumed that each qubit is at the same space-time point, but obviously this need not be the case. We then have the non-local entangled space-time, where qubit (0,1) is at x and qubit (0'1') is at x' - this is for globally flat space-time. For curved spacetime, we need to introduce anholonomic spin-connection fields for parallel transport of the spinors. This will give both curvature and torsion.

V0(x,x') = (2)^-1/2[V0(x)0'(x')+ V1(x)1'(x')]

V1(x,x') = (2)^-1/2[V1(x)0'(x')+ V0(x)1'(x')]

V2(x,x') = i(2)^-1/2[V1(x)0'(x')- V0(x)1'(x')]

V3(x,x') = (2)^-1/2[V0(x)0'(x)- V1(x)1'(x')]

Curiously, these are essentially the 4 Bell pair states used in the quantum teleportation algorithm!

This is hardly a coincidence, but it is a clue to something even more profound and startling having to do with advanced alien extra-terrestrial super-technology seen, for example, on the NIDS Bigelow "Skinwalker Ranch" in Utah.

On Feb 4, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


We had contacts with Jim Corum at ISSO. See my book Destiny Matrix for details. Pretty bizarre. Worth watching till the end. Von Neumann died in mid-50's however ...

Begin forwarded message:


From: d14947
Date: February 4, 2007 12:39:59 PM PST
To: "Jack Sarfatti"
Subject: Re: Skinwalker

This is *very interesting, watch it all! Von Neumann, Einstein and
Phila Exp! Very important.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4168667096306129265#2m25s

On 2/4/07, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/01/bad-medicine-part-two_05.html

make sure it is complete - it's long and can cut off - copy and paste


More on this anon. Keep your eyes glued to your computer screen. ;-)

Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20061115/226timeguyxx_cramer1.jpg
Applied post-quantum signal nonlocal retro-causality violating the no-cloning theorem of orthodox quantum theory. See the papers by Antony Valentini on this observed breakdown of quantum theory. All of this was already implicit in Martin Gardner's "Magic and Paraphysics" (MIT Tech Review, 1976) and in Lawry Chickering's 1982 letter to DOD under-secretary Richard De Lauer cited by N.D. Mermin, Jeremy Bernstein and others. Now we have Cramer's experiment in the offing. Will the Fat Lady sing? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html

Quantum Physics, abstract
quant-ph/0203049

From: Antony Valentini [view email]
Date (v1): Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:48:32 GMT (14kb)
Date (revised v2): Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:07 GMT (11kb)
Subquantum Information and Computation

Authors: Antony Valentini
Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
Report-no: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
Journal-ref: Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0203049

Begin forwarded message:

From: ANTIGRAY@cs.com
Date: February 7, 2007 6:14:21 PM PST
To: sarfatti@pacbell.net
Cc: marssouthpolereturns@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 1985 CRV training manual/document - found in the Stargate FOIA archives.

New - 1985 CRV training manual/document - found in the Stargate FOIA archives

Whilst part of the way through organizing the entire archives into chronological order I found this doc which to me a CRV student is like a holy relic. This document is an earlier version than the current in public domain manual, and is a record of Ingos famous six stage CRV methodology. What's different for me about this document is that it feels less military in its overall feeling and the addition of diagrams and an actual CRV session makes it an easier insight into how this ingenious PSI method works.

I feel this is a great document and a great insight into Ingo's thinking. Especially for those Newbies stuck on some of the key CRV elements like Ideograms - its a great find. The gem in the crown is near the back, a hypothetical set of stages past the stage 6 going from 7 to stage 11. And boy some of the expanded stage ideas are mind blowing!(see below)

STAGE VII ANALYTICS
Analytics is the ability to make a yes/no decision without producing AOL. This also gives the viewer the ability to "recognize" numbers and letters. This is a further development of Stages IV and V. This has application in the recognition of addresses in search problems and code breaking. This stage is in the process of development by I.Swann. According to Mr. Swann this development is proceeding well.

STAGE VIII PHONETICS/SONICS
This, too, is a concept of 1.Swann. This was originally believed to be Stage VII until he realized analytics actually preceded it. Stage VIII will allow the viewer to produce phonetic/sonic sounds which, it is hypothesized, will allow the viewer to produce the name of persons, places, and things at the site. In my experience these signals, which I have produced, have at times been very accurate. An example of this is "Carribah," which was produced when tasked against Karriba Dam.

STAGE IX TELEPATHIC SIGNALS
Stage IX is a follow-on to the Stage IV emotional impact (EI) column. The EI column is the place the viewer discusses the "feelings" of people at the site. If the viewer is "in-touch" with a distant persons feelings the next step would seem to be a more complete telepathic link. Stage IX would be broken into two phases:

PHASE I would be receiving telepathic signals from the site area. Again, this is very similar to Stage IV EI.

PHASE II would be transmitting telepathic signals to the site area. Once we understand telepathic signals well enough to receive them the next step would be to transmit them.


STAGE X REMOTE ACTION (RA)
Stage X would be mind-over-matter, also known as psychokinesis (PK). We have very little understanding of PK, but we do know it exists. If Stage IX is telepathic signals which effect people, it is logical the next stage would be RA signals which effect "things."

Stage X would be divided into three phases:

PHASE I Would be affecting or interacting with "things" at the site.

PHASE II would be teleportation of things from the site. Teleportation is an element of PK. Once we can interact with things at the site the next step would be to "bring things back from the site."

PHASE III would be teleportation of things to the site. Once we can remove things from the site we should be able to send them as well.

STAGE XI ALTERING THE DIMENSIONALITY AT THE SITE
This is the most diffiE-ultstage to under s tanT.-Time is considered another dimension, but there may be many more. Mathematically it is considered that there are infinite numbers of dimensions.

See Lisa Randall's "Warped Passages"

Stage XI would be broken into at least two phases:

PHASE I would be altering time at the site. Time could be frozen, moved forward, or moved back. The implications of this are mind boggling. I believe this is the first stage where we could truly effect (alter) the future (as well as the past and the present).

PHASE II Maybe by the time we reach Stage XI we will understand enough about alternate dimensions to use this phase. I believe there would probably be an additional phase for each additional dimension we discover. I realize these concepts are difficult to grasp and impossible to believe, but, they are a natural flow of the signal and it is for this reason I included them. Only time will tell, whatever time is.

The Full document can be found and downloaded from here:

http://www.cosmicspoon.com/blog/2007/02/new-1985-crv-training-manualdocument.html

Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

From: "John G. Cramer"
Date: January 29, 2007 11:13:52 PM PST
To: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: Why it won't work.

Dear Jack,

I had used the transactional interpretation to analyze your "stencil" scheme for nonlocal communication, and I had immediately seen the problem you mention. Without coincidences the "receiver" detector has no way of distinguishing entangled photons whose twins passed through the stencil from those whose photon twins stopped on the solid parts of the stencil, so no signal comes through. I was planning to write you and point this out.

I should also point out that my coincidence-free Dopfer gedankenexperiment is not affected by this.

Regards,
John Cramer

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
OK folks I woke up this morning realizing why my particular scheme without the coincidence circuit won't work. Very simple, same reason as usual. The noise from the receiver photons entangled with those sender photons that are absorbed by the stencil barriers will destroy the local signal. Of course, in the usual way of nonlocal interferometry the signal can be reconstructed after the fact with a proper design using data transmitted from the sender in the usual way. The only other loop hole would be if there were advanced EM signals, but if there were we would not have to go to all this trouble.

On Jan 28, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

http://qedcorp.com/APS/SignalNonlocality.pdf
now online is a bigger file with references, illustrations and some more corrections and clarifications. This file will be continually updated expanded clarified and will be presented at Quantum Mind Conference in Salzburg and at the ISST Time Conference in Montery in summer 2007.

There has been a lot of flurry on retrocausality in the media that got me thinking about that issue once more. I suspended belief and for a few brief moments on champagne thought I really had it. But I was wrong ...

OK folks I woke up this morning realizing why my particular scheme without the coincidence circuit won't work. Very simple, same reason as usual. The noise from the receiver photons entangled with those sender photons that are absorbed by the stencil barriers will destroy the local signal. Of course, in the usual way of nonlocal interferometry the signal can be reconstructed after the fact with a proper design using data transmitted from the sender in the usual way. The only other loop hole would be if there were advanced EM signals, but if there were we would not have to go to all this trouble.

On Jan 28, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

http://qedcorp.com/APS/SignalNonlocality.pdf
now online is a bigger file with references, illustrations and some more corrections and clarifications. This file will be continually updated expanded clarified and will be presented at Quantum Mind Conference in Salzburg and at the ISST Time Conference in Montery in summer 2007.

Whoops - wrong Penrose diagram

http://qedcorp.com/APS/desitter.jpg

is strictly speaking not correct, but it's basically OK - remove the upper left triangle and squash the diamond a bit.

But the retro-causal idea still works. More on this soon.

On Jan 26, 2007, at 3:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Hawking and Ellis p. 127 The Large Scale Struture of Space-time

Conformal Penrose diagram for dark energy deSitter solution of

Guv + /\guv = 0

Fig 17 ii

A square, horizontal lines time = constant

vertical lines are "coordinate chi = constant" see Fig 16 for definition of chi.

The upper (lower) horizonal boundary is future (past) null infinity I^+- for light rays (null geodesics).

What about i^+,^- for timelike geodesics?

So my basic idea is even easier to picture using the correct Penrose diagram.

"de Sitter space has ...a spacelike infinity for timelike and null lines both in the future and the past. This difference corresponds to ... both particle and event horizons for geodesic families of observers."

Then go to Fig 18i for particle past horizons - that concerns us. We are the "particle."

What I am talking about is in Fig 19 i p. 130

The future event horizon for advanced light waves shooting back to past event horizon on 45 degree lines in the Penrose diagram has "area" ~ 1//\(dark energy) ~ 10^120 - 10^122 BITS.

The region bounded by both future and past event horizons of timelike geodesic observers (us) for the spacelike future and past spacelike null infinities is a skewed "diamond" shape (Fig 19i) like in my wrong diagram. So the basic idea below is correct, simply imagine that triangle at upper left is not there at first. It's actually there and more but those are in effect other universes we can never communicate with provided that signal locality is correct. If it is not, it's a different ball game - that's a key unresolved issue.

Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

re: My final remarks in http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022

http://qedcorp.com/APS/ureye.gif

I first started thinking about retro-causality back at Brandeis in 1961 when I read David Inglis's Rev Mod Phys paper on the Tau-Theta puzzle from a remark on the EPR effect. I had seen it previously when I read David Bohm's "Quantum Theory" at Cornell in the summer of 1958 when I was Robert Wilson's apprentice at the Synchrotron helping it take it apart and running it at night when it was not in pieces. They had a shower there and I would sing Gilbert and Sullivan loudly.
http://www.rso.cornell.edu/savoyards/58prin.htm
Photos from the 1958 Princess Ida with me as Prince Hilarion opposite Jeremy Bernstein's sister Alice, with Ronnie Peierls in the chorus - see if you can find him.
Reading Inglis it suddenly dawned on me that there seemed to be a faster than light effect here, that there had to be. I had not yet understood the real intent of Einstein in 1935 that indeed there had to be such an effect in order not to violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The problem was that Sylvan Schweber discouraged me to think along those lines. I suppose he thought it was too philosophical, yet at the same time he was trying to get David Bohm to come to Brandeis.

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: January 25, 2007 1:57:33 PM PST
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
Subject: Re: Cramer's Upcoming Retrocausality Experiment Back From The Future - new twist 4

"To use this setup to send a signal, it needs to work without a coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame University, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs. The double slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector should have its twin appear at the other. As before, the way you measure one should affect the other. Jensen suggested that such a setup might let you send a signal from one detector to another instantaneously -- a highly controversial claim, since it would seem to demonstrate faster-than-light travel."

"Shape of photon" is really the shape of its landscape quantum potential Q or mode function or "wave packet." In a laser pulse each photon has identical shape - the shape of the macro pulse itself. This is same as a Bose-Einstein condensate - all the photons in the pulse are in the same "single particle wave packet" (equivalent to a Q) i.e. collapse in phase space what we call macroquantum ODLRO "more is different".

However, even in the incoherent micro-quantum "ensemble" without macroquantum ODLRO all the quanta in the experiment must be prepared in same way.

"One can imagine the photons as bulletlike cylinders fired at the
target, Howell says, only each cylinder is two-to-three
millimeters in diameter and up to a meter long. As the cylinders
pass through the stencil, the parts that hit the opaque material
are absorbed and no longer represent locations at which the photon
can potentially be measured."

Controlled collapse?

'It's just like when you put Play-Doh through one of those
stencils,' Howell says. Like the Play-Doh, each pulse that passes
through the stencil does carry the whole "UR" shape, but, as with
the two-slit diffraction pattern, one photon does not produce the
whole image on being detected.


Howell says the experiment is the first demonstration that optical buffering, or delaying of light, can reliably transmit two-dimensional information in this case an image. The kind of information sent down optical fibers is normally encoded along the length of the pulse, he says.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=5116CF53-E7F2-99DF-3B64CF41CFBB5B91

On Jan 25, 2007, at 2:50 AM, AB wrote from Moscow:
Dear Jack,

I belive that the core of a photon may apparently be bullet like a string, but I do not believe that information on the image may be encoded in one photon. I can suppose that this photon excites many other weak photons on the bound of the stencil image, which may produce this image on target.

Yours, AB

Let me clarify this and try to be more precise. Of course any single photon detection is a localized point like event and all information on the shape of the wave function. I am using Bohm's pilot wave theory here. Of course it's more complicated for the photon, let's use an electron instead to make it as simple as possible.

The electron really is an extended hard massy ball like in Newton - to the first approximation. It is equivalent to a "string".

Think of it as your Kerr vacuum solution "geon" except Lp* ~ 10^-17 cm not 10^-33 cm
e.g. Abdus Salam's "f-gravity" sort of picture with Wheeler's "Mass without mass" etc.

The electron has a definite classical path rolling like a stone on the landscape of its quantum potential Q made from its wave function PSI. The quantum potential Q encodes the "message" we want to send using entanglement.

The particle here is a test particle without direct back-reaction changing the landscape it rolls on in a self-organizing way - in the orthodox approximation of "no cloning," i.e. "signal locality" in spite of nonlocal entanglement.

Of course we need a large statistical sample of particles all on the same landscape with chaotic initial conditions that populate all final possible positions on the landscape's basins of attraction where the detection is made. This is similar to the chaotic inflation of Susskind's cosmic landscape whose minima contain actual universes. As Above, So Below.

So each quantum particle does not encode the image in the EXPLICATE ORDER (detected as a point), but it does in the IMPLICATE ORDER of the WAVY Quantum Potential Q.

An entangled pair state electrons a & b does not factorize.

In terms of a basis set of modes, one possible class of entangled states is

(1a) Psi(a,b) = Sum over k psi(a)kpsi(b)k

We can write this same thing in the equivalent Q representation

(1b) Q(a,b) = Sum over k Qk(a)Qk(b)e^i@k

including the relative phases @k that for our initial arbitrary choice of convenience has all @k = 0.

Where the complex mode functions psi(...)k and their corresponding real Qk landscapes are the same shape, but have widely separated supports in the actual nonlocal measurement. This special unnormalized form is maximally entangled assuming equal probabilities to measure each k-mode. However, the real experiment with delayed choice UR Stencil will not in general measure those modes. The UR Stencil is a filter that will change the above initial entangled state into

(2a) Psi(a,b) = Sum over k A(k)psi(a)kpsi(b)k

(2b) Q(a,b) = Sum over k A(k)Qk(a)Qk(b)e^i@k

where A(k) are a set of complex UR stencil modulation coefficients defining the shape of the nonlocal signal violating the no-cloning theorem.

In this case, we have a counter-factual, if we did a different experiment other than the one we do here, we would get a different definite result. In particular if we measure the k-modes, then the von-Neumann projection postulate of what Antony Valentini calls the "sub-quantal heat death" of the "boring universe" (Matt Visser's term) gives the Born probability spectrum

(3) P(k) = |A(k)|^2

However, this may do if we assume that the above states are nonlocal in time as well as space.

Let A(k) be inserted by delayed choice (in the relative future of the detection of receiver photon "b") in the path of sender photon "a" in a large ensemble of pairs emitted in an intense pulse where each pair in the ensemble obeys (1). Assume the result is (2). Execute Stapp's algorithim, i.e. integrate over all the orthogonal Q modes. The result in the past is an incoherent mixture of modes each with quantum potential landscape Qk(b). The Born probability of each mode in the past is then precisely (3) using von Neumann's rule. The nonlocal signal is |A(k)|^2 that is the image (b) in
http://qedcorp.com/APS/URstencil.jpg

That is, even using von Neumann's rule, if the future delayed choice filter (AKA stencil) is imaged by the twin photons in the entangled pairs then we are home free. We do not seem to need a coincidence circuit. The no-cloning theorem is possibly wrong. In any case this is what the popular descriptions of Dopfer's experiment seem to suggest and what seems to be in Cramer's mind at least subliminally or implicitly. R Srikanth seems to have a similar idea. Hepburn & Peacock also set the stage that the unitary operators U generated by Hamiltonians H may not be local. Whether or not they are is purely empirical.
If any of this is true then as I said in my archive paper http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022 Lenny Susskind needs to go back to the drawing board. Information can leak out of the black hole much faster than the Hawking radiation. We can even see beyond the deSitter observer horizons.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/desitter.jpg

Now the Dopfer experiment + the recent UR experiment seem to say that we can control the collapse at the sender a with a stencil so that for k = UR

Q(a,b) collapses controllably to Qur(a)Qur(b) =
http://qedcorp.com/APS/URstencil.jpg

Now this step violates von Neumann's "projection postulate", but it obtains in a NEW total experimental arrangement not conceived by von Neumann.

This would be a post-quantum theory beyond 20th century quantum theory.

Signal locality is based on premise of uncontrollable collapse - here we have a new set of conditions. Ultimately it's an empirical issue.

Signal nonlocality violating the no-cloning theorem says you can use entanglement as a stand-alone C^3 system without needing any coincidence circuits that prevent real faster than light and retro-causal back from the future local decoding of the "UR" message.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/in_laser_1.jpg
They are saying local fringes on both sides without a coincidence circuit on both sides when delayed movable detector is close to lens, and no fringes on both sides when that movable detector is far from the detector. This is close to the setup I had in Gary Zukav's Dancing Wu Li Masters in 1979 before the little creep deleted it in later editions. If the pulses are intense enough, you do not have to wait. You get a lot of photons identically prepared in a short time. That objection you raised is not crucial, though it probably won't work for other reasons.

My new suggestion is to replace the delayed double slit by different shaped stencils at different times - provided only that Cramer's original version works as he thinks it might, but probably won't.

This would seem to contradict pair correlation interferometry experiments where you only see the fringes indirectly in the correlation data output from the coincidence circuit. See math below.

So now we have this new extraordinary "Dopfer" claim:

"Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were 'entangled', or linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same wave-or-particle behavior as one another. ... The double slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory."

And also on the "coincidence circuit":

To use this setup to send a signal, it needs to work without a coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame University, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs. The double slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector should have its twin appear at the other. As before, the way you measure one should affect the other. Jensen suggested that such a setup might let you send a signal from one detector to another instantaneously -- a highly controversial claim, since it would seem to demonstrate faster-than-light travel.

Patrick Barry wrote this piece for the New Scientist, where it first appeared. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.

Page E - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL

Warp Drive Power Generator 1
Remember, the condition to neutralize the ambient gravity field from the dominating closest ordinary mass M can be roughly estimated as

/\zpf(UFO) ~ GM/c^2r^3

At surface of Earth

GM/c^2r^3 ~ 1/(1AU)^2 ~ 10^-26 cm^-2

In comparison, the cosmic dark energy density is ~ 10^-56 cm^-2, i.e. 30 powers of 10 weaker. Therefore, I, at first, made a mistake by using the naive bare quantum field theory value of Einstein's cosmological constant. I need to use the actual, so to speak, renormalized value.

"The Question is: What is The Question?" J.A. Wheeler

/\zpf(x) ~ [(Einstein's Cosmological Constant)(Anyon Surface Density)]^1/2cos(2pi(applied magnetic flux through x)/(magnetic flux quantum)

Therefore, for Earth flight

10^-26 = 10^-28/L

L ~ 10^-2

Anyon condensate surface density ~ 10^4 anyons per cm^2

But this is too optimistic as there will be an addition dimensionless coupling that I do not know yet how to calculate even roughly. It's analogous to Ray Chiao's model of gravimagnetic-EM field coupling and here is where the torsion field theory must come in.

On Jan 24, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

In the scheme below (still intuitive) we do not need mechanical rotation of the superconducting fuselage. Larry Kraus shows why that is not a good idea BTW in "Beyond Star Trek."
On Jan 24, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:12 PM, .... wrote:

ok, I like this, but can you give me a mechanics view of how, practically, do you change the sign of the /\zpf field using Goldstone-Josephson phase- locking with electromagnetic fields in rotating superconductors? In other words, how to we test this to see if it works?

Imagine a mesh of tiny anyon superconducting loops embedded in the fuselage - each loop at "x" position on fuselage.

/\zpf(x) = (Lambda Anyon Surface Density)^1/2cos(2pi(applied magnetic flux through x)/(magnetic flux quantum)

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:58:59 -0800

New physical insight!

d(log/\zpf)/dx^u = (3/2)S^uvwg^v^w = (3/2)S^u^vv = (3/2)S^u

That is the contracted torsion field vector is essentially the gradient of the log of the net zero point energy density (set G = c = 1, ignore factors of pi for now).

Hammond's torsion field theory may be too specialized in terms of Max Tegmark's "Fig 1" classification of all physically interesting connection fields for the parallel transport of geometric objects along world lines in the spacetime.

From Tegmark's latest paper 2007

Affine Connection

= symmetric Levi-Civita + symmetric non metricity + antisymmetric contorsion

A = (LC) + Q + K

Einstein's 1915 GR has

A = (LC)

(LC) is a globally flat 10-parameter Poincare group 3rd rank tensor, but it is not a GCT tensor. See Tegmark's eq (18) above. The inhomogeneous 2nd term on RHS spoils the homogeneous multilinear GCT tensor transformation property for nonlinear GCTs.

"GCT" are local 4-parameter General Coordinate Transformations, i.e. arbitrary infinitesimal displacements in 4D spacetime. Localizing T4 as a gauge group in all field actions with the non-trivial tetrads as the compensating gauge potentials restoring the symmetry to the enlarged system.

However, if you parallel transport a vector around a tiny parallelogram using only symmetric non-tensor (LC) you get a "disclination defect" i.e. a change in the orientation of the vector around a complete circuit. Look at Tegmark's eq. 10 above for the covariant curl and essentially use Stoke's theorem that the surface integral of the curl of the vector field is the bounding loop integral of the vector field. Set second torsion term on RHS zero. If you do not, you get a torsion gap, i.e. the tiny parallelogram does not close to the 2nd order Taylor series relevant to the process here.

Obviously the disclination change in orientation of the transported vector is proportional to the curvature multiplied by the area of the parallelogram, just as the geodesic deviation is proportional to the small separation between pairs of test particles. In this sense the operational consequences of the local curvature tensor 4th rank tensor field are not local! Hence, there is no compelling reason to expect a local energy momentum stress-density tensor for the vacuum gravity curvature field - at least in the 1915 limit

A = (LC)

Note also that the length of the vector has not changed because the symmetric 3rd rank GCT non-metricity tensor Q = 0.

A physical meaning of nonmetricity is extra space dimensions like in string theory because the gravity field tetrads are able to rotate into hyperspace between the brane worlds. Therefore, the length of geometrodynamic vectors in the 4D brane (on which Yang-Mills electroweak-strong fields are stuck like flies on flypaper) can change. However, the lengths of non-gravity field vectors cannot change so that this kind of hyperspace nonmetricity tensor would not be universal.

Now Hammond writes:

Note he has a nonsymmetric matter tensor. C. Lanzcos showed that it will allow propellantless propulsion like Shipov's 4D gyro where mechanical rotating masses generate these antisymmetric torsion fields. This makes Shipov's claims more plausible.
http://www.shipov.com

Looking only at the symmetric piece Hammond's eq.(5) and (7).

In (7) stick in the w = -1 random zero point fluctuation ZPF energy stress density tensor

Tuv --> Tuv(ZPF) ~ /\zpfguv = Ricci tensor source

/\zpf > 0 is anti-gravity repulsive dark energy (negative pressure blue shift)

/\zpf < 0 is gravity attractive dark matter (positive pressure red shift)

The sign of /\zpf is controlled by the local vacuum ODLRO post- inflation field.

I suspect that it can be tweaked via Goldstone-Josephson phase- locking with electromagnetic fields in rotating superconductors. Indeed, that's what we in fact see flying saucer ARVs doing is my CONJECTURE!

The local ZPF dark energy current conservation equation is therefore

[(d/dx^v)(log/\zpf)]g^u^v = (3/2)S^u^v^wgvw


d(log/\zpf)/dx^u = (3/2)S^uvwg^v^w = (3/2)S^u^vv = (3/2)S^u

That is the contracted torsion field vector is essentially the gradient of the log of the net zero point energy density (set G = c = 1, ignore factors of pi for now)

Note that Suvw is antisymmetric only in the first 2 indices u,v, not in the v,w pair.

Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay? docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

On Jan 23, 2007, at 8:27 PM, Fidelio wrote:
Researchers announced last week that they had slowed down faint pulses of laser light and retrieved an image from that light after speeding it back up. In principle such "slow-light" technology might be used to build a kind of traffic stop for light signals, called an optical buffer, that would be cheaper, more powerful and faster than converting light beams into electrical signals. That is why the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an arm of the Department of Defense, asked a group at the University of Rochester to explore the technology, says group leader, quantum optics researcher John Howell.

So naturally Howell was bemused that some media outlets focused in on one aspect of the report: that an entire image was somehow produced from a single photon, the smallest unit of light. "A lot of people are getting excited about the single photon," he says.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=5116CF53-E7F2-99DF-3B64CF41CFBB5B91

Yes, of course. What I write below is consistent with the above of course - I mention the need for entangled laser pulses to get enough amplification statistics to see something macroscopically. However, the point is that it's a bit like a hologram in that the entire message, the stencil pattern, is encoded as a whole, in each individual photon pair. Of course as you cut down on the number of photons to lower and lower total energies it gets harder and harder to see the pattern indeed to see anything. So of course we need a lot of photons, but the point is that each entangled photon pair is carrying so to speak a complete copy of the message in the shape of its mode function, i.e. the set {A(k)} from the delayed choice stencil.

I have combined two different experiments here, suggesting that the above experiment be incorporated in Cramer's retrocausal experiment.

Retrocausality Experiment Back From The Future

http://qedcorp.com/APS/ureye.gif

http://qedcorp.com/APS/desitter.jpg

First let's look at the classic Clauser-Aspect experiment. Too simple for a complex signal.

The photons were in a maximally entangled spin triplet

http://www.roxanne.org/epr/aspect2.gif
http://www.roxanne.org/epr/qmS.html
http://www.roxanne.org/epr/eprS.html

Bottom line, although you can code a message S(t) in the nonlocal correlation relative phase (mutual orientation at times of passage) ~ cos^2(2Theta(t)) that can be detected in hindsight by comparing data from both ends via classical retarded at most luminal signals you cannot decode the signal locally because the local detection probabilities ~ 1/2 (ideally) independent of the orientation of the sender at one end that codes the message.

Now, the idea behind Cramer's experiment is that there is some complete set of spatial transverse modes fk(x,y t) along line of flight z where, each photon pair is maximally entangled as, to a good approximation,

Psi(1,2) ~ Sum over k fk+(x,y,t)fk-(x'y't')e^iEk(t - t')

Where fk+(x,y,t)and fk-(x'y't') have the same shape in their respective transverse planar coordinates.

Now, what the "stencil"

http://qedcorp.com/APS/URstencil.jpg

Does on the time delayed future (b) sender photon is to MODE SELECT or filter a set of the initial modes into the UR shape, for example as above. This means the wave function collapses to a new state

Psi(1,2)' ~ Sum over k A(k)kfk+(x,y,t)fk-(x'y't')e^iEk(t - t')

With the set of filter coefficients {A(k)} encoding the shape of the UR stencil above.

This is a completely different kind of measurement than previous experiments.

The intuitive idea then is that the stencil inserted in the future by Wheeler delayed choice will be shadowed or imaged in the past for the twin photon. This is essentially the idea in Cramer's mind I suspect. That is, the retroactive nonlocal signal image is essentially the set {A(k)}

One then has to assume that the amplification at the past receiver photon can be done faithfully with a sufficiently good signal to noise ratio to clone a large number of photons with the same {A(k)} pattern without violating the no-cloning theorem.

Note what is seen at the receiver (x,y) image plane is the nonlocal signal set

{|A(k)|^2}

because we need to integrate the orthogonal modes over the entire source (x'y') plane.

Note, we can encode more info using scale-dependent wavelets.

The effective "amplification" is to use intense enough entangled very short laser pulses so that a large enough number of pairs are detected in each short burst to get enough statistics to see something.


Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: January 22, 2007 7:54:49 PM PST
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
Subject: Re: Cramer's Upcoming Retrocausality Experiment Back From The Future - new twist

On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Ah, yes, here it is.
Begin forwarded message:

From: ANTIGRAY@cs.com
Date: January 21, 2007 10:14:26 PM PST
To: marssouthpolereturns@yahoogroups.com
Cc: sarfatti@pacbell.net
Subject: Researchers condense entire image into single photon

Researchers condense entire image into single photon?

OK the photon quantum field operators are a sum over "modes" fk(x,y,z,t) i.e.

A = Sum over k [fk(x,y,z,t)a + fk*(x,y,z,t)a*]

where a and a* destroy and create a photon respectively

aa* - a*a = 1

The mode function need not be small. It can be quite large! Indeed the surviving mode function can be shaped by a "stencil" so that the "message" would be that filtered mode function

fk(x,y,z,t) = http://qedcorp.com/APS/URstencil.jpg

Thus, the single mode "message" pattern can be large in space and last in time for a significant duration - it's that the energy in the single photon is tiny and one needs to amplify that energy with a laser in such a way that the modal shape is not distorted since the "nonlocal signal" or "message" is in the shape of the single future filtered mode. The point of all this is that we should not need to use hindsight in after the fact time correlations between future sender and past receiver. The conventional wisdom of "signal locality" is that this is impossible in orthodox quantum physics.

The issue then is:

Can we shape this "UR" mode function with the "future" delayed (6.2 miles of coiled fiber optic cable) sender photon passing through the stencil and will that act back in time to select that same "UR" mode function in the past in the twin entangled receiver photon even before the choice is made in the future of what "stencil" message to insert in the future?

http://qedcorp.com/APS/in_laser_1.jpg

If we can do that, then can we amplify that stencil image in the past receiver photon with a good enough signal to noise ratio and not violate the no cloning theorem at the receiver?

Then, if we succeed in the above, what happens when we attempt to make an autocidal time travel paradox? What prevents the loop from being disturbed?

Posted Jan 21st 2007 4:06AM by Conrad Quilty-Harper
Filed under: Storage A team of researchers has managed to find a way to store a large amount of data in a single photon of light. Although the first stored item -- an image of the characters "UR" -- implies that the inventor was a 13 year old girl dealing with an extremely low text messaging limit, the image was in fact intended to signify the institution which developed the technology, the University of Rochester (either that or it's the shortest example of the "UR IN MY ... " meme that we've seen in the while.) Apparently the system works because "instead of storing ones and zeros" (a la binary code), the team has figured out how to store an entire image in a single photon, which sounds sort of impossible to us. Funny, because that's exactly what John Howell, the leader of the team said about the system. One of the key components of the process is the particle-wave duality nature of light: by firing a single photon of light through a stencil -- we presume one heckuva small one -- the wave carries a shadow of the image along with it at a very high signal-to-noise ratio, even with low light levels. The light is then slowed down in a cell of cesium gas, where it is compressed to 1 percent of its original length. This is where the storage aspect of the device comes in, as the researchers hope to be able to delay a single photon almost permanently, resulting in a device that can store "incredible amounts of information in just a few photons": an enticing thought for a world currently satisfied with a maximum of 1TB hard drives based on physical platters. A pity then that the world is completely distracted by the potential for "Photon on photons" jokes that this throws into the ring.

http://hdtv.engadget.com/2007/01/21/researchers-condense-entire-image-into-single-photon/


On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

There was also a report of being able to imprint a complex image on a single photon!
Well, if that is true then what happens if that is done one photon pair at a time to the delayed photon in Cramer's experiment? Will that complex image be transmitted backwards in time to the undelayed twin photon. Since, it's one photon pair at a time the usual argument of the late H.Pagels et-al of the random washing out of the nonlocal signal in the statistical accumulation (e.g. local probabilities stay at 1/2) would be side-stepped, completely irrelevant to this new kind of total experimental arrangement seemingly permitted by the new technology beyond the wildest dreams of the creators of quantum theory almost 100 years ago now.

On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:19 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

Go to
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL&type=printable

Science hopes to change events that have already occurred
- Patrick Barry
Sunday, January 21, 2007

Ever wish you could reach back in time and change the past? Maybe you'd like to take back an unfortunate voice mail message, or rephrase what you just said to your boss. Or perhaps you've even dreamed of tweaking the outcome of yesterday's lottery to make yourself the winner.

Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible -- what's done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you might change the circumstances by which your parents met, derailing the key event that led to your birth.

Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the door remains wide open for a demonstration.

It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed -- and that is a huge if -- it would overturn our most cherished notions about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.

Dating back to Newton's laws of motion, the equations of physics are generally "time symmetric" -- they work as well for processes running backward through time as forward. The situation got really strange in the early 20th century when Einstein devised his theory of relativity, with its four-dimensional fabric of space-time. In this model, our sense that history is unfolding is an illusion: The past, present and future all exist seamlessly in an unchanging "block" universe.

"If you have the block universe view, the future and the past are not any different, so there's no reason why you can't have causes from the future just as you have causes from the past," says David Miller of the Centre for Time at the University of Sydney in Australia.

With the advent of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, the relative timing of particles and events became even less relevant. "Real temporal order in general, for quantum mechanics, is not important," says Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna, Austria. By the 1940s, researchers were exploring the possibility of time-reversed phenomena. Richard Feynman lent credibility to the idea by proposing that particles such as positrons, the antimatter equivalent of electrons, are simply normal particles traveling backward in time. Feynman later expanded this idea with his mentor, John Wheeler of Princeton University. Together they worked out a theory of electrodynamics based on waves traveling forward and backward in time. Any proof of reverse causality, however, remained elusive.

Fast forward to 1978, when Wheeler proposed a variation on the classic double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics. Send photons through a barrier with two slits in it, and choose whether to detect the photons as waves or particles. If you put up a screen behind the slits, you will get a pattern of light and dark bands, as if each photon travels through both slits and interferes with itself, like a wave. If, on the other hand, you take a snapshot of the slits themselves, you will find each photon passes through one slit or the other: it is forced to pick a path, like a particle. But, Wheeler asked, what if you wait until just after the photon has passed the slits to make your choice? In theory, you could suddenly raise the screen to expose two cameras behind it, one trained on each slit. It would seem that you can affect where the photon went, and whether it behaved like a wave or particle, after the fact.

In 1986, Carroll Alley at the University of Maryland at College Park, found a way to test this idea using a more practical set-up: an interferometer which lets a photon take either one path or two after passing through a beam splitter. Sure enough, the photon's path depended on a choice made after the photon had to "make up its mind." Other groups have confirmed similar results, and at first blush this appears to show the present affecting the past. Most physicists, however, take the view that you can't say which path the photon took before the measurement is made. In other words, still no unambiguous evidence for retrocausality.

That's where John Cramer comes in. In the mid-1980s, working at the University of Washington in Seattle, he proposed the "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics, one of many attempts to relate the mathematics of quantum theory to the real world. It says particles interact by sending and receiving physical waves that travel forward and backward through time. In June, at a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Cramer proposed an experiment that can at last test for this sort of retrocausal influence. It combines the wave-particle effects of double slits with other mysterious quantum properties in an all-out effort to send signals to the past.

The experiment builds on work done in the late 1990s in Anton Zeilinger's lab, when he was at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Researcher Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were "entangled", or linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same wave-or-particle behavior as one another. Using a crystal, Dopfer converted one laser beam into two so that photons in one beam were entangled with those in the other, and each pair was matched up by a circuit known as a coincidence detector. One beam passed through a double slit to a photon detector, while the other passed through a lens to a movable detector, which could sense a photon in two different positions.

The movable detector is key, because in one position it effectively images the slits and measures each photon as a particle, while in the other it captures only a wave-like interference pattern. Dopfer showed that measuring a photon as a wave or a particle forced its twin in the other beam to be measured in the same way.

To use this setup to send a signal, it needs to work without a coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame University, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs.

Instead of the "double slit" use the "stencil" on the delayed photon! See what happens.



One of the key components of the process is the particle-wave duality nature of light: by firing a single photon of light through a stencil

The double slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector should have its twin appear at the other. As before, the way you measure one should affect the other. Jensen suggested that such a setup might let you send a signal from one detector to another instantaneously -- a highly controversial claim, since it would seem to demonstrate faster-than-light travel.

If you can do that, Cramer says, why not push it to be better-than-instantaneous, and try to make the signal arrive before it was sent? His extra twist is to run the photons you choose how to measure through several kilometers of coiled-up fiber-optic cable, thereby delaying them by microseconds. This delay means that the other beam will arrive at its detector before you make your choice. However, since the rules of quantum mechanics are indifferent to the timing of measurements, the state of the other beam should correspond to how you choose to measure the delayed beam. The effect of your choice can be seen, in principle, before you have even made it.

That's the idea anyway. What will the experimenters actually see? Cramer says they could control the movable detector so that it alternates between measuring wave-like and particle-like behavior over time. They could compare that to the pattern from the beam that wasn't delayed and was recorded on a sensor from a digital camera. If this consistently shifts between an interference pattern and a smooth singleparticle pattern a few microseconds before the respective choice is made on the delayed photons, that would support the concept of retrocausality. If not, it would be back to the drawing board.

If the experiment does show evidence for retrocausation, it would open the door to some troubling paradoxes. If you could see the effects of your choice before you make it, could you then make the opposite choice and subvert the laws of nature? Some researchers have suggested retrocausality can occur only in limited circumstances in which not enough information is available for you to contradict the results of an experiment.

Another way to resolve this is to say that even if the present can influence the past, it cannot change it. The fact that your hair is shorter today has as much influence on your going to the barber yesterday as the other way around, yet you can't change that decision. "You wouldn't be able to talk about altering, but you could talk about causing or affecting," says Phil Dowe, an expert on causation at the University of Queensland in Australia. While it would mean we cannot change the past, it also implies that we cannot change the future.

If all that gives you a headache, then consider this: if retrocausality does exist, it says something profound about how the universe works. "It has the potential to solve what is one of the biggest problems in modern physics," says Huw Price, head of Sydney's Centre for Time. It goes back to quantum entanglement and "nonlocality" -- one particle instantaneously affecting another, even from the other side of the galaxy. That doesn't sit well with relativity, which states that nothing can travel faster than light. Still, the latest experiments confirm that one particle can indeed instantaneously affect the other. Physicists argue that no information is transmitted this way: Whether the spin of a particle is up or down, for instance, is random and can't be controlled, and thus relativity is not violated.

Retrocausality offers an alternative explanation. Measuring one entangled particle could send a wave backward through time to the moment at which the pair was created. The signal would not need to move faster than light; it could simply retrace the first particle's path through space-time, arriving back at the spot where the two particles were emitted. There, the wave can interact with the second particle without violating relativity. "Retrocausation is a nice, simple, classical explanation for all this," Dowe says.

While Cramer last week prepared to start a series of experiments leading up to the big test of retrocausality, some researchers expect reverse causality will play an increasingly important role in our understanding of the universe. "I'm going with my gut here," says Avshalom Elitzur, a physicist and philosopher at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, "but I believe that when we finally find the theory we're all looking for, a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, it will involve retrocausality."

But if it also involves winning yesterday's lottery, Cramer won't be telling.

Did we reach back to shape the Big Bang?
If retrocausality is real, it might even explain why life exists in the universe -- exactly why the universe is so "finely tuned" for human habitation. Some physicists search for deeper laws to explain this fine-tuning, while others say there are millions of universes, each with different laws, so one universe could quite easily have the right laws by chance and, of course, that's the one we're in.

Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney, suggests another possibility: The universe might actually be able to fine-tune itself. If you assume the laws of physics do not reside outside the physical universe, but rather are part of it, they can only be as precise as can be calculated from the total information content of the universe. The universe's information content is limited by its size, so just after the Big Bang, while the universe was still infinitesimally small, there may have been wiggle room, or imprecision, in the laws of nature.

And room for retrocausality. If it exists, the presence of conscious observers later in history could exert an influence on those first moments, shaping the laws of physics to be favorable for life. This may seem circular: Life exists to make the universe suitable for life. If causality works both forward and backward, however, consistency between the past and the future is all that matters. "It offends our common-sense view of the world, but there's nothing to prevent causal influences from going both ways in time," Davies says. "If the conditions necessary for life are somehow written into the universe at the Big Bang, there must be some sort of two-way link."

-- Patrick Barry
Retrocausality: Can the present affect the past?




Researchers have devised an experiment using laser light to demonstrate a property of quantum mechanics: That pairs of entangled photons show identical properties as either a wave or a particle. By using this knowledge, they hope to demonstrate how to influence an event that has already occurred.


1. A laser beam is directed into a crystal that makes two streams of photons.

2a. One stream of photons travels through a screen with two slits.

2b. The other stream of photons travels through an identical screen with two slits BUT is routed through six miles of fiber-optic cable that delays the light by microseconds.

3a. A detector captures the light and records it as a wave-like or particle-like photon (you don't know which yet).

3b. The delayed light is sensed by a movable detector. If the detector is closer to the lens it's recorded as a wave-like interference pattern. If its farther from the lens it is recorded as a particle.

What is happening here: By choosing to measure the delayed photon as either a wave or particle photon, the experimenter forces the other photon to appear in the same way - because they are entangled - even though it reaches the detector earlier.


Sources: John Cramer, University of Washington; NewScientist, Sept. 2006

Patrick Barry wrote this piece for the New Scientist, where it first appeared. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.

Page E - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL


Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Retrocausality Experiment Back From The Future

http://qedcorp.com/APS/ureye.gif

http://qedcorp.com/APS/desitter.jpg

First let's look at the classic Clauser-Aspect experiment. Too simple for a complex signal.

The photons were in a maximally entangled spin triplet

http://www.roxanne.org/epr/aspect2.gif
http://www.roxanne.org/epr/qmS.html
http://www.roxanne.org/epr/eprS.html

Bottom line, although you can code a message S(t) in the nonlocal correlation relative phase (mutual orientation at times of passage) ~ cos^2(2Theta(t)) that can be detected in hindsight by comparing data from both ends via classical retarded at most luminal signals you cannot decode the signal locally because the local detection probabilities ~ 1/2 (ideally) independent of the orientation of the sender at one end that codes the message.

Now, the idea behind Cramer's experiment is that there is some complete set of spatial transverse modes fk(x,y t) along line of flight z where, each photon pair is maximally entangled as, to a good approximation,

Psi(1,2) ~ Sum over k fk+(x,y,t)fk-(x'y't')e^iEk(t - t')

Where fk+(x,y,t)and fk-(x'y't') have the same shape in their respective transverse planar coordinates.

Now, what the "stencil"

http://qedcorp.com/APS/URstencil.jpg

Does on the time delayed future (b) sender photon is to MODE SELECT or filter a set of the initial modes into the UR shape, for example as above. This means the wave function collapses to a new state

Psi(1,2)' ~ Sum over k A(k)kfk+(x,y,t)fk-(x'y't')e^iEk(t - t')

With the set of filter coefficients {A(k)} encoding the shape of the UR stencil above.

This is a completely different kind of measurement than previous experiments.

The intuitive idea then is that the stencil inserted in the future by Wheeler delayed choice will be shadowed or imaged in the past for the twin photon. This is essentially the idea in Cramer's mind I suspect. That is, the retroactive nonlocal signal image is essentially the set {A(k)}

One then has to assume that the amplification at the past receiver photon can be done faithfully with a sufficiently good signal to noise ratio to clone a large number of photons with the same {A(k)} pattern without violating the no-cloning theorem.

Note what is seen at the receiver (x,y) image plane is the nonlocal signal set

{|A(k)|^2}

because we need to integrate the orthogonal modes over the entire source (x'y') plane.

Note, we can encode more info using scale-dependent wavelets.

The effective "amplification" is to use intense enough entangled very short laser pulses so that a large enough number of pairs are detected in each short burst to get enough statistics to see something.


Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: January 22, 2007 7:54:49 PM PST
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
Subject: Re: Cramer's Upcoming Retrocausality Experiment Back From The Future - new twist

On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Ah, yes, here it is.
Begin forwarded message:

From: ANTIGRAY@cs.com
Date: January 21, 2007 10:14:26 PM PST
To: marssouthpolereturns@yahoogroups.com
Cc: sarfatti@pacbell.net
Subject: Researchers condense entire image into single photon

Researchers condense entire image into single photon?

OK the photon quantum field operators are a sum over "modes" fk(x,y,z,t) i.e.

A = Sum over k [fk(x,y,z,t)a + fk*(x,y,z,t)a*]

where a and a* destroy and create a photon respectively

aa* - a*a = 1

The mode function need not be small. It can be quite large! Indeed the surviving mode function can be shaped by a "stencil" so that the "message" would be that filtered mode function

fk(x,y,z,t) = http://qedcorp.com/APS/URstencil.jpg

Thus, the single mode "message" pattern can be large in space and last in time for a significant duration - it's that the energy in the single photon is tiny and one needs to amplify that energy with a laser in such a way that the modal shape is not distorted since the "nonlocal signal" or "message" is in the shape of the single future filtered mode. The point of all this is that we should not need to use hindsight in after the fact time correlations between future sender and past receiver. The conventional wisdom of "signal locality" is that this is impossible in orthodox quantum physics.

The issue then is:

Can we shape this "UR" mode function with the "future" delayed (6.2 miles of coiled fiber optic cable) sender photon passing through the stencil and will that act back in time to select that same "UR" mode function in the past in the twin entangled receiver photon even before the choice is made in the future of what "stencil" message to insert in the future?

http://qedcorp.com/APS/in_laser_1.jpg

If we can do that, then can we amplify that stencil image in the past receiver photon with a good enough signal to noise ratio and not violate the no cloning theorem at the receiver?

Then, if we succeed in the above, what happens when we attempt to make an autocidal time travel paradox? What prevents the loop from being disturbed?

Posted Jan 21st 2007 4:06AM by Conrad Quilty-Harper
Filed under: Storage A team of researchers has managed to find a way to store a large amount of data in a single photon of light. Although the first stored item -- an image of the characters "UR" -- implies that the inventor was a 13 year old girl dealing with an extremely low text messaging limit, the image was in fact intended to signify the institution which developed the technology, the University of Rochester (either that or it's the shortest example of the "UR IN MY ... " meme that we've seen in the while.) Apparently the system works because "instead of storing ones and zeros" (a la binary code), the team has figured out how to store an entire image in a single photon, which sounds sort of impossible to us. Funny, because that's exactly what John Howell, the leader of the team said about the system. One of the key components of the process is the particle-wave duality nature of light: by firing a single photon of light through a stencil -- we presume one heckuva small one -- the wave carries a shadow of the image along with it at a very high signal-to-noise ratio, even with low light levels. The light is then slowed down in a cell of cesium gas, where it is compressed to 1 percent of its original length. This is where the storage aspect of the device comes in, as the researchers hope to be able to delay a single photon almost permanently, resulting in a device that can store "incredible amounts of information in just a few photons": an enticing thought for a world currently satisfied with a maximum of 1TB hard drives based on physical platters. A pity then that the world is completely distracted by the potential for "Photon on photons" jokes that this throws into the ring.

http://hdtv.engadget.com/2007/01/21/researchers-condense-entire-image-into-single-photon/


On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

There was also a report of being able to imprint a complex image on a single photon!
Well, if that is true then what happens if that is done one photon pair at a time to the delayed photon in Cramer's experiment? Will that complex image be transmitted backwards in time to the undelayed twin photon. Since, it's one photon pair at a time the usual argument of the late H.Pagels et-al of the random washing out of the nonlocal signal in the statistical accumulation (e.g. local probabilities stay at 1/2) would be side-stepped, completely irrelevant to this new kind of total experimental arrangement seemingly permitted by the new technology beyond the wildest dreams of the creators of quantum theory almost 100 years ago now.

On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:19 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

Go to
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL&type=printable

Science hopes to change events that have already occurred
- Patrick Barry
Sunday, January 21, 2007

Ever wish you could reach back in time and change the past? Maybe you'd like to take back an unfortunate voice mail message, or rephrase what you just said to your boss. Or perhaps you've even dreamed of tweaking the outcome of yesterday's lottery to make yourself the winner.

Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible -- what's done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you might change the circumstances by which your parents met, derailing the key event that led to your birth.

Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the door remains wide open for a demonstration.

It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed -- and that is a huge if -- it would overturn our most cherished notions about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.

Dating back to Newton's laws of motion, the equations of physics are generally "time symmetric" -- they work as well for processes running backward through time as forward. The situation got really strange in the early 20th century when Einstein devised his theory of relativity, with its four-dimensional fabric of space-time. In this model, our sense that history is unfolding is an illusion: The past, present and future all exist seamlessly in an unchanging "block" universe.

"If you have the block universe view, the future and the past are not any different, so there's no reason why you can't have causes from the future just as you have causes from the past," says David Miller of the Centre for Time at the University of Sydney in Australia.

With the advent of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, the relative timing of particles and events became even less relevant. "Real temporal order in general, for quantum mechanics, is not important," says Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna, Austria. By the 1940s, researchers were exploring the possibility of time-reversed phenomena. Richard Feynman lent credibility to the idea by proposing that particles such as positrons, the antimatter equivalent of electrons, are simply normal particles traveling backward in time. Feynman later expanded this idea with his mentor, John Wheeler of Princeton University. Together they worked out a theory of electrodynamics based on waves traveling forward and backward in time. Any proof of reverse causality, however, remained elusive.

Fast forward to 1978, when Wheeler proposed a variation on the classic double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics. Send photons through a barrier with two slits in it, and choose whether to detect the photons as waves or particles. If you put up a screen behind the slits, you will get a pattern of light and dark bands, as if each photon travels through both slits and interferes with itself, like a wave. If, on the other hand, you take a snapshot of the slits themselves, you will find each photon passes through one slit or the other: it is forced to pick a path, like a particle. But, Wheeler asked, what if you wait until just after the photon has passed the slits to make your choice? In theory, you could suddenly raise the screen to expose two cameras behind it, one trained on each slit. It would seem that you can affect where the photon went, and whether it behaved like a wave or particle, after the fact.

In 1986, Carroll Alley at the University of Maryland at College Park, found a way to test this idea using a more practical set-up: an interferometer which lets a photon take either one path or two after passing through a beam splitter. Sure enough, the photon's path depended on a choice made after the photon had to "make up its mind." Other groups have confirmed similar results, and at first blush this appears to show the present affecting the past. Most physicists, however, take the view that you can't say which path the photon took before the measurement is made. In other words, still no unambiguous evidence for retrocausality.

That's where John Cramer comes in. In the mid-1980s, working at the University of Washington in Seattle, he proposed the "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics, one of many attempts to relate the mathematics of quantum theory to the real world. It says particles interact by sending and receiving physical waves that travel forward and backward through time. In June, at a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Cramer proposed an experiment that can at last test for this sort of retrocausal influence. It combines the wave-particle effects of double slits with other mysterious quantum properties in an all-out effort to send signals to the past.

The experiment builds on work done in the late 1990s in Anton Zeilinger's lab, when he was at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Researcher Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were "entangled", or linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same wave-or-particle behavior as one another. Using a crystal, Dopfer converted one laser beam into two so that photons in one beam were entangled with those in the other, and each pair was matched up by a circuit known as a coincidence detector. One beam passed through a double slit to a photon detector, while the other passed through a lens to a movable detector, which could sense a photon in two different positions.

The movable detector is key, because in one position it effectively images the slits and measures each photon as a particle, while in the other it captures only a wave-like interference pattern. Dopfer showed that measuring a photon as a wave or a particle forced its twin in the other beam to be measured in the same way.

To use this setup to send a signal, it needs to work without a coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame University, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs.

Instead of the "double slit" use the "stencil" on the delayed photon! See what happens.



One of the key components of the process is the particle-wave duality nature of light: by firing a single photon of light through a stencil

The double slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector should have its twin appear at the other. As before, the way you measure one should affect the other. Jensen suggested that such a setup might let you send a signal from one detector to another instantaneously -- a highly controversial claim, since it would seem to demonstrate faster-than-light travel.

If you can do that, Cramer says, why not push it to be better-than-instantaneous, and try to make the signal arrive before it was sent? His extra twist is to run the photons you choose how to measure through several kilometers of coiled-up fiber-optic cable, thereby delaying them by microseconds. This delay means that the other beam will arrive at its detector before you make your choice. However, since the rules of quantum mechanics are indifferent to the timing of measurements, the state of the other beam should correspond to how you choose to measure the delayed beam. The effect of your choice can be seen, in principle, before you have even made it.

That's the idea anyway. What will the experimenters actually see? Cramer says they could control the movable detector so that it alternates between measuring wave-like and particle-like behavior over time. They could compare that to the pattern from the beam that wasn't delayed and was recorded on a sensor from a digital camera. If this consistently shifts between an interference pattern and a smooth singleparticle pattern a few microseconds before the respective choice is made on the delayed photons, that would support the concept of retrocausality. If not, it would be back to the drawing board.

If the experiment does show evidence for retrocausation, it would open the door to some troubling paradoxes. If you could see the effects of your choice before you make it, could you then make the opposite choice and subvert the laws of nature? Some researchers have suggested retrocausality can occur only in limited circumstances in which not enough information is available for you to contradict the results of an experiment.

Another way to resolve this is to say that even if the present can influence the past, it cannot change it. The fact that your hair is shorter today has as much influence on your going to the barber yesterday as the other way around, yet you can't change that decision. "You wouldn't be able to talk about altering, but you could talk about causing or affecting," says Phil Dowe, an expert on causation at the University of Queensland in Australia. While it would mean we cannot change the past, it also implies that we cannot change the future.

If all that gives you a headache, then consider this: if retrocausality does exist, it says something profound about how the universe works. "It has the potential to solve what is one of the biggest problems in modern physics," says Huw Price, head of Sydney's Centre for Time. It goes back to quantum entanglement and "nonlocality" -- one particle instantaneously affecting another, even from the other side of the galaxy. That doesn't sit well with relativity, which states that nothing can travel faster than light. Still, the latest experiments confirm that one particle can indeed instantaneously affect the other. Physicists argue that no information is transmitted this way: Whether the spin of a particle is up or down, for instance, is random and can't be controlled, and thus relativity is not violated.

Retrocausality offers an alternative explanation. Measuring one entangled particle could send a wave backward through time to the moment at which the pair was created. The signal would not need to move faster than light; it could simply retrace the first particle's path through space-time, arriving back at the spot where the two particles were emitted. There, the wave can interact with the second particle without violating relativity. "Retrocausation is a nice, simple, classical explanation for all this," Dowe says.

While Cramer last week prepared to start a series of experiments leading up to the big test of retrocausality, some researchers expect reverse causality will play an increasingly important role in our understanding of the universe. "I'm going with my gut here," says Avshalom Elitzur, a physicist and philosopher at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, "but I believe that when we finally find the theory we're all looking for, a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, it will involve retrocausality."

But if it also involves winning yesterday's lottery, Cramer won't be telling.

Did we reach back to shape the Big Bang?
If retrocausality is real, it might even explain why life exists in the universe -- exactly why the universe is so "finely tuned" for human habitation. Some physicists search for deeper laws to explain this fine-tuning, while others say there are millions of universes, each with different laws, so one universe could quite easily have the right laws by chance and, of course, that's the one we're in.

Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney, suggests another possibility: The universe might actually be able to fine-tune itself. If you assume the laws of physics do not reside outside the physical universe, but rather are part of it, they can only be as precise as can be calculated from the total information content of the universe. The universe's information content is limited by its size, so just after the Big Bang, while the universe was still infinitesimally small, there may have been wiggle room, or imprecision, in the laws of nature.

And room for retrocausality. If it exists, the presence of conscious observers later in history could exert an influence on those first moments, shaping the laws of physics to be favorable for life. This may seem circular: Life exists to make the universe suitable for life. If causality works both forward and backward, however, consistency between the past and the future is all that matters. "It offends our common-sense view of the world, but there's nothing to prevent causal influences from going both ways in time," Davies says. "If the conditions necessary for life are somehow written into the universe at the Big Bang, there must be some sort of two-way link."

-- Patrick Barry
Retrocausality: Can the present affect the past?




Researchers have devised an experiment using laser light to demonstrate a property of quantum mechanics: That pairs of entangled photons show identical properties as either a wave or a particle. By using this knowledge, they hope to demonstrate how to influence an event that has already occurred.


1. A laser beam is directed into a crystal that makes two streams of photons.

2a. One stream of photons travels through a screen with two slits.

2b. The other stream of photons travels through an identical screen with two slits BUT is routed through six miles of fiber-optic cable that delays the light by microseconds.

3a. A detector captures the light and records it as a wave-like or particle-like photon (you don't know which yet).

3b. The delayed light is sensed by a movable detector. If the detector is closer to the lens it's recorded as a wave-like interference pattern. If its farther from the lens it is recorded as a particle.

What is happening here: By choosing to measure the delayed photon as either a wave or particle photon, the experimenter forces the other photon to appear in the same way - because they are entangled - even though it reaches the detector earlier.


Sources: John Cramer, University of Washington; NewScientist, Sept. 2006

Patrick Barry wrote this piece for the New Scientist, where it first appeared. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.

Page E - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL


Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784