Jack Sarfatti, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Sutherland's latest paper on entanglement as local retrocausality

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 2:57:55 PM6/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Jack,

I promise myself to keep an open mind about retrocausality! But I am not sure why “influences going backward in time”  is more “ontological “ than just believing that particles do not have any real properties before measurement. As a matter of fact, the moment people accepted wave-particle duality, fate of reality was sealed! When did you see a table as both a wave and a particle? Thus it seems to me that unlike EPR, a non-real and local (Lorentz invariant) interpretation is as palatable or better than  going backwards in time!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 1:35 PM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Sutherland's latest paper on entanglement as local retrocausality

 

re: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1841/1?expanded=1841

How Retrocausality Helps

Roderick I. Sutherland
Centre for Time, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia rod.sut...@sydney.edu.au

It has become increasingly apparent that a number of perplexing issues associated with the interpretation of quantum mechanics are more easily resolved once the notion of retrocausality is introduced. The aim here is to list and discuss various examples where a clear explanation has become available via this approach. In so doing, the intention is to highlight that this direction of research deserves more attention than it presently receives.

Introduction

While quantum mechanics is a highly successful mathematical theory in terms of experimental verification, there remain long-standing questions as to what sort of physical reality could be underlying the mathematics and giving rise to the theory’s stranger predictions. Unlike classical mechanics, the theory does not give sufficient guidance towards identifying the appropriate ontology. Over time, there has been a growing awareness that backwards-in-time influences, or retrocausality, might be relevant in interpreting and understanding some of the phenomena in question. The intention here is to summarise some of the advantages that can be gained by introducing retrocausality into the underlying picture. In particular, it is found that taking this step can achieve the following:

  1. It can restore locality in the case of entangled states (such as with Bell’s theorem)
  2. It can preserve consistency with special relativity at the ontological level
  3. It can allow replacement of many-particle, configuration space wavefunctions by

individual wavefunctions

  1. In can allow statistical descriptions to be replaced by definite, ontological values
  2. It can facilitate the development of a Lagrangian formulation in the case where a

particle ontology is assumed

  1. It can suggest significant improvements to existing ontological models.

These points will be discussed individually in the following sections. A first step, however, is to define more precisely what is meant by retrocausality here. In doing so, it should be noted that no suggestion is being made of movement through 4-dimensional spacetime in either the forwards or backwards time directions. Motion remains confined, as usual, to the 3-dimensional picture. In this context, the definition of retrocausality will be taken to be as follows:

It is necessary to specify final boundary conditions as well as the usual initial ones in order to determine the state completely at any intermediate time, with the experimenter’s controllable choice of the final conditions thereby exerting a backwards-in-time influence.

For further clarity, two conventions will be introduced at this point:

(i) Since any initial boundary condition in standard quantum mechanics is specified by a

Hilbert space vector i , it will be presumed by symmetry that any final boundary condition should be similarly specified by a Hilbert space vector page2image6904f .

(ii) The initial boundary condition here will simply be equated with the result of the most recent prior measurement performed on the system. Similarly, any final boundary condition will be equated with the result of the next measurement performed. (This is not intended to imply any special status for measurement interactions compared with other interactions, but merely to frame the discussion in a clear-cut form.)

These two conventions keep the mathematics simple and straightforward. Using the second one, the definition of retrocausality can be formulated more specifically as:

·The choice of observable measured at a particular time can affect the state existing at an earlier time.

Having defined retrocausality in this way, various advantages it provides will now be discussed. 

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.02290.pdf

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/DBEAFB8F-F224-4C1C-BCFD-71966E10C0A7%40aol.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Klee Irwin

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 4:36:22 PM6/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Kashyap, in the US, it was discovered by Pepsi Co in the 1970’s that, in blind taste tests, Americans overwhelmingly preferred the tast of Pepsi over Coke. So they created a multi-million dollar TV campaign to give the news to the people and expected then to become the #1 seller. It didn’t work

 

Even though it is true that technically, statistically, Pepsi tastes better, we American’s still prefer Coke for an illogical and subconscious reason:  IT WAS FIRST

 

The first interpretation of quantum mechanics was the Copenhagen interpretation, which supposes wave particle duality. It’s more popular as a result, even to the point where many people speak of it as being implicit in the raw math of quantum mechanics itself.

 

It is NOT implicit in the raw math.

 

Then came Everett. He invented the many worlds interpretation.

It is equally obedient to the experimental results and to the raw math of QM.

It is less popular because it was not first.

It is the second in time and coincidentally also the second in popularity (awareness).  

 

Then came Bohm’s rigorous mathematical development of de Broglie’s non-rigorous idea.

It is equally adherent to the math of QM and to experimental results.

It was the third in time and coincidentally also the third in popularity (awareness).

 

In QM 101 scientists are taught the Copenhagen interpretation and not Bohm’s.

This is in NO way because it is more logical or because it adheres better to the math of QM or to experiment.

 

PhD’s in physics generally have never really critically thought about Bohm’s interpretation, as it takes a little time to get as familiar with it as Jack Sarfatti is.

He worked directly with Bohm and was also a close friend of Richard Feynman. He is no lightweight and not an average level physicist. His MIT background and the associations with some of the greats and some of his own novel insights make Jack on of the living titans of physics today.

 

But it’s difficult for him to have a rigorous discussion with some of us in this group who have not invested a few months into critically thinking about Bohm’s view, which rejects wave-particle duality.

 

At least I can say that the mathematicians and physicists here at Quantum Gravity Research recognize that the Bohm/Sarfatti view is more logical and seems more physically realistic.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 4:36:22 PM6/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Read the Sutherland papers carefully before you comment. Sutherland is a very clear thinker and writer. He explains all your concerns and your current misunderstandings.
If you have specific comments and questions on what Sutherland is doing let me know. :-)

Hilbert space vector i , it will be presumed by symmetry that any final boundary condition should be similarly specified by a Hilbert space vector <image001.png>f .

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 9:25:39 PM6/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Klee,

Thanks for your e-mail. I promise to read some of the papers on retro causality before expressing my opinion again! But from what I know, even after 90 years of debate, there is no consensus on the interpretation. Most professors teach Copenhagen because it is the simplest and most physicists do not really care for any interpretation. For them the fact that quantum mechanics and quantum field theory agree with experiments to one part in billion or trillion is enough to accept them.  I am personally interested in the interpretations though. In science one should not really go by consensus. But as you know, Bohm and retro causality interpretation get zero votes so far.

Yes I  agree Jack Sarfatti is a very good physicist. Also it is interesting to note that  Ruth Kastner , who I understand, believes in particles going backward in time to explain Bell’s results, is a philosopher-physicist at Univ. of Maryland from where I got my Ph.D.!

BTW I saw Marion Kerr’s video on reality on Lubos Motl’s blog where it was hotly discussed! I will watch with interest what happens to retro causality idea and also many world formalism.

Best Regards.

kashyap

Klee Irwin

unread,
Jun 10, 2017, 4:46:54 AM6/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Yes, Ruth is a good person who might have a chance to spend some time with.

Thanks for this note. But one clarification: do universities don't teach the Copenhagen interpretation because it is the one that matches with experiment. All of the interpretations match exactly with experiments.

And the reason for this is simple: all of the interpretations use the same mathematics that is the fundamental core of quantum theory invented by the German fathers.

Also you mentioned nobody really (in meaningful numbers) approves of the Bohm interpretation. Actually, a large double digit minority approve of the many worlds interpretation and another double digit number approve of the Bohm pilot wave interpretation.

You are correct, there is no physical evidence that is widely agreed-upon to argue that any of the models are superior to the others. Most of the specialists in quantum mechanics who subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation readily admit that the other two major interpretations are equally rigorous and match exactly to the core mathematics of quantum mechanics. 

So I think that there really is something reasonable to my comparison to Coca-Cola and Pepsi. The Copenhagen interpretation was not only the first but it was also the one endorsed by the fathers of quantum mechanics themselves.

In terms of political popularity of interpretations, that gives the Copenhagen interpretation, those two things, a huge advantage in mind share.

On the other hand, we've been bubbling in the dark for almost 100 years on trying to understand why quantum mechanics implies that general relativity is incorrect and vice versa.

It's high time that we start getting more aggressive about looking at things differently. And because there is a minority who have looked at the pilot wave interpretation, maybe that will bear a little more fruit in trying to get to a four unification theory, sense if you were people have looked under those rocks.

Any event, we here in our group have little choice. The quasicrystalline mathematical formalism has the pilot wave and particle acting as a dual interactive system whether we like it or not. 

Other words, we don't fear arise it or add it by hand. It exists via geometric first principles as we break the symmetry of the E8 crystal and transform it to the lower dimensional quasicrystal mathematical quantum topological network code.

Hilbert space vector i , it will be presumed by symmetry that any final boundary condition should be similarly specified by a Hilbert space vector <image001.png>f .

Paul Werbos

unread,
Jun 10, 2017, 9:12:30 AM6/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear Klee,

Thanks for your e-mail. I promise to read some of the papers on retro causality before expressing my opinion again! But from what I know, even after 90 years of debate, there is no consensus on the interpretation. Most professors teach Copenhagen because it is the simplest and most physicists do not really care for any interpretation. 


In truth, it is a matter of different theories which make different predictions. See my open access paper in the Internatoinal Journal of Theoretical Physics, the journal where Feynman published his early papers:

Many physicists have been reluctant to face up to the difference in theories, because each one of them is very complex, and most people are trained on only one or two of them. 

But in fact, decisive experiments ARE POSSIBLE, at a cost far, far less than most of the experiments now being pursued in the high energy.
(These would be cheaper, because they can be done in the world of quantum optics, where double and triple entanglement of photons is enough.)

I have documented one of the two possible experiments, and the two conflicting predictions of Copenhagen versus time-symmetric physics, at:
================
 Werbos, Paul J., and Ludmilla Dolmatova. "Analog quantum computing (AQC) and the need for time-symmetric physics."Quantum Information Processing(2015): 1-15. To see the full paper, click here. For more information on the amazing new experimental results of 2015, and possibilities for confirmation, click here.

 ==================


Something is wrong with "science" when "scientists" prefer to discuss hermeneutics and opinion but do not energetically work to do the critical experiments which could tell us what the true story is. But yes, triple entanglement does require skill, and so far as I know it has only been done in China, in Austria (GHz) and in a US lab which has lost the capability due in part to fluctuations in government funding.

(Primary credit: congressman Lamar Smith, friend of Comey and of Cruz network.) I have recently figured out a way to test the "retrocausal" hypothesis with only double entanglement, and a few folks say they have the apparatus and may get around to it soon... 


========


By the way, I do get slightly annoyed when Jack keeps telling me he will enlighten my obvious ignorance about the newly discovered ideas of "retrocausality" and their implications for local realism.  The classic seminal paper on triple entanglement (by GHz) appeared in a book edited by Kafatos on Bell's Theorem, based on discussions from 1988-1990. My own paper in that same book was as brutally clear about the link between time-symmetric physics and local realism as one could possibly be, and cited my paper from the 70's in Nuovo Cimento which was the first to make that point. However, translating theory into design of a decisive experiment, replicable in dozens of physics labs, is not a trivial translation. It took time, but for those who have not yet died of old age or become ossified and jaded, the path to a new world has opened up. Some things take time, and demand that we remember what is important. Of course, that also applies to yoga itself. 







 

Stuckey, Mark

unread,
Jun 10, 2017, 10:49:54 AM6/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

I like Sutherland’s definition of retrocausality, it accords with Price and Wharton’s “interventionalist” account:

 

… the retrocausal proposal accepts the standard presupposition of all experimental science, namely that experimenters such as Alice and Bob are free to choose measurement settings. Moreover, it accepts a standard operational definition of causality – a definition long assumed in science, and refined and formalised in philosophy over the past three decades – in which the notion of free agency plays a central role. According to this so-called “interventionist” account of causality, a variable X is a cause of a variable Y if and only if a free intervention on X makes a difference to Y.

Price, H., & Wharton, K.: Disentangling the Quantum World. Entropy 17, 7752-7767 (2015) http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01140.

We prefer the term “spatiotemporal global constraint” or “adynamical global constraint” to “retrocausality,” as the latter sounds a bit dynamic when in fact nothing moves in spacetime (as acknowledged in Sutherland’s talk linked by Jack) http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IJQF2015v1n3p2.pdf.  Price uses this term when he says his Helsinki toy model “shows how something that ‘looks like’ retrocausality can emerge from global constraints on a very simple system of ‘interactions’, when the system in question is given a natural interpretation in the light of familiar assumptions about experimental intervention and observation.” 

Price, H.: Toy models for retrocausality. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 39 (4), 752-761 (2008).

One doesn’t have to go to quantum mechanics to appreciate the adynamical perspective, it also beats its dynamical counterpart in explaining the Big Bang, the low entropy problem, the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the paradoxes of closed timelike curves. We explain this at length in chapter 3 of “Beyond the Dynamical Universe: Unifying Block Universe Physics and Time as Experienced” (forthcoming with Oxford UP, book abstract is posted at the blog on www.relationalblockworld.com). I posted a shorter version here https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/blockworld-foundational-implications-part-3-general-relativity-big-bang/ and here https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/blockworld-foundational-implications-part-4-general-relativity-closed-timelike-curves/ .

 

We believe that adynamical explanation will ultimately replace dynamical explanation at the fundamental level and that is what we argue in “Beyond the Dynamical Universe.”

 

Mark Stuckey

 

W.M. Stuckey, PhD

Professor of Physics

Elizabethtown College

(717) 361-1436

stuc...@etown.edu

http://facultysites.etown.edu/stuckeym/

 

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 10, 2017, 3:21:08 PM6/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Jun 10, 2017, at 7:40 AM, Stuckey, Mark <stuc...@etown.edu> wrote:

I like Sutherland’s definition of retrocausality, it accords with Price and Wharton’s “interventionalist” account:

yes
 
… the retrocausal proposal accepts the standard presupposition of all experimental science, namely that experimenters such as Alice and Bob are free to choose measurement settings.

yes, no problem with free will


Moreover, it accepts a standard operational definition of causality – a definition long assumed in science, and refined and formalised in philosophy over the past three decades – in which the notion of free agency plays a central role. According to this so-called “interventionist” account of causality, a variable X is a cause of a variable Y if and only if a free intervention on X makes a difference to Y.

Exactly.


Price, H., & Wharton, K.: Disentangling the Quantum World. Entropy 17, 7752-7767 (2015) http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01140.

We prefer the term “spatiotemporal global constraint” or “adynamical global constraint” to “retrocausality,” as the latter sounds a bit dynamic when in fact nothing moves in spacetime (as acknowledged in Sutherland’s talk linked by Jack) http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IJQF2015v1n3p2.pdf.  Price uses this term when he says his Helsinki toy model “shows how something that ‘looks like’ retrocausality can emerge from global constraints on a very simple system of ‘interactions’, when the system in question is given a natural interpretation in the light of familiar assumptions about experimental intervention and observation.” 


Price, H.: Toy models for retrocausality. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 39 (4), 752-761 (2008).

OK note

"Einstein always considered the quantum theory to be an incomplete description of
reality and the EPR thought experiment part of his great debate with Niels Bohr.
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen showed that, if quantum theory was a complete
description of individual particles, it’s possible to design an experimental arrangement in
which a new kind of quantum information or “qubits” and “e-bits” can conceivably get
around in ways faster than a signal limited to the speed of light would permit. Indeed,
Einstein did not like this consequence of quantum theory. It took another 35 years or so
before an actual experiment was conducted to test this idea. Quantum theory was correct
in this conclusion if one did not believe in parallel quantum universes.5
Jack’s idea that I helped to trigger with my insistent questions over many hours at the
Caffe Trieste in the late 70’s was the globally self-consistent “loop in time”. A New
York Science Times article from the Wigner Conference of the New York Academy of
Sciences in 1986 cites Jack on “time loops”.6 However, back in 1979 Jack was unaware
of similar ideas of Igor Novikov and Kip Thorne.7 So the idea of the UFO weapon was
the “paradox effect”. Attempt to set up a time travel to the past paradox with the device
you want to temporarily disable in the time loop. Jack later published this in September
1991 Physics Essays (University of Toronto) causing Lyle Fuller to come up with a very
ingenious gedanken experiment in the manner of the Bohr-Einstein dialogues. The
problem however with all this is that it violates the statistical structure of quantum theory.
Although one can encode a message nonlocally, one cannot locally decode it at the
receiver faster than the speed of light and even backward in time from the future. Even
modern “quantum teleportation” of qubit information needs a light speed limited classical
c-bit signal to make it work. Jack maintains that one needs a new post-quantum theory to
do it. Quantum theory would then be a limiting case of this more general theory. Jack has
made progress in this direction but that is another story that I do not have time for here."

Kim Burrafato in Destiny Matrix (2002).
 
Encyclopedia
"The Novikov self-consistency principle, also known as the Novikov self-consistency conjecture, is a principle developed by Russian physicist Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov in the mid-1980s to solve the problem of paradoxes in time travel, which is theoretically permitted in certain solutions of general relativity (solutions containing what are known as closed timelike curves). Stated simply, the Novikov consistency principle asserts that if an event exists that would give rise to a paradox, or to any "change" to the past whatsoever, then the probability of that event is zero. In short, it says that it's impossible to create time paradoxes."  http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Novikov_self-consistency_principle                                                                                                          














One doesn’t have to go to quantum mechanics to appreciate the adynamical perspective, it also beats its dynamical counterpart in explaining the Big Bang, the low entropy problem, the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the paradoxes of closed timelike curves. We explain this at length in chapter 3 of “Beyond the Dynamical Universe: Unifying Block Universe Physics and Time as Experienced” (forthcoming with Oxford UP, book abstract is posted at the blog on www.relationalblockworld.com). I posted a shorter version here https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/blockworld-foundational-implications-part-3-general-relativity-big-bang/ and here https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/blockworld-foundational-implications-part-4-general-relativity-closed-timelike-curves/ .
 
We believe that adynamical explanation will ultimately replace dynamical explanation at the fundamental level and that is what we argue in “Beyond the Dynamical Universe.”
 
Mark Stuckey
 
W.M. Stuckey, PhD
Professor of Physics
Elizabethtown College

PS Sutherland's "two-way" post-quantum action-reaction Lagrangian coupling mental quantum information waves to classical matter beables, absent in conventional quantum mechanics, permits the globally self-consistent (constraints across time) to be used as a locally decodable keyless (locally non-random) entanglement command control communication channel. Indeed, our quallia subjective awareness depends on that fact in my opinion for the record.
 


jim kowall

unread,
Jun 10, 2017, 9:00:36 PM6/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Klee

I find this discussion about pilot waves very odd. The very idea of pilot waves assumes that fundamental particles really exist, which they don't. The holographic principle tells us (as Ted Jacobson has shown) that what we call fundamental particles (as described by quantum field theory) are at best a thermal average (thermodynamic equation of state) description of the world that is only valid as a low energy limit or an effective field theory. We may as well try to formulate a pilot wave theory for sound waves and assume the phonon is a fundamental particle. The quantum fields for the U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) interactions are no more fundamental than the fields for sound waves, and an electron or photon is no more fundamental than a phonon.


So what is fundamental? We might think that the bits of information encoded on a holographic screen along the lines of the holographic principle are fundamental, but they're not. A holographic screen is an event horizon that arises in relation to an observer that enters into an accelerated frame of reference, which implies the expenditure of energy. The holographic screen encodes bits of information in a pixelated way, where the pixel size is about a Planck area. Are these bits of information really fundamental? No. Is the holographic screen really fundamental? No. Is the observer at the origin of the reference frame or at central point of view really fundamental? No. The whole holographic scenario implies the expenditure of energy that gives rise to the observer's accelerated frame of reference. What exists before energy is expended and the observer enters into an accelerated frame of reference? What exists before the holographic scenario emerges?


This is the question that nobody seems interested in answering. I'll take that statement back. Truth-realized beings (like Nisargadatta Maharaj to give a recent example) have been answering this question since the dawn of time. Their answer is quite simple. Before the world of matter, energy, space and time (or any other possible world) comes into existence, and after the world goes out of existence, what (timelessly) exists is non-dual awareness (undifferentiated consciousness), which can only be described as the void or nothingness. In metaphysical terms, it is the beginning and the end, or the primordial nature of existence. The trick for physics is to describe how (starting with the void of nothing but non-dual awareness) the world comes into existence. How does the void pull the rabbit out of its hat when it has no hat? If we start with any other kind of assumption, we're only deceiving ourselves into believing that something is true that is not true.


Jim Kowall



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CD0D7D27-F362-4D31-9EA5-AF4C831E8BA2%40QuantumGravityResearch.org.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 11, 2017, 5:00:55 AM6/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Jun 10, 2017, at 4:37 PM, jim kowall <jkowa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Klee

I find this discussion about pilot waves very odd. The very idea of pilot waves assumes that fundamental particles really exist, which they don't.

How do you know? You have assumed the Copenhagen interpretation as an article of faith.

The holographic principle tells us (as Ted Jacobson has shown) that what we call fundamental particles (as described by quantum field theory) are at best a thermal average (thermodynamic equation of state) description of the world that is only valid as a low energy limit or an effective field theory.


While I like the idea, Ted Jacobson's views are controversial and should not be accepted as gospel.

Search Results

The Reference Frame: Einstein's equations as equations of state

Mar 8, 2009 - Ted Jacobson (1995) ... So Jacobson is clearly wrong in the case of the sound, too. ... Posted by Luboš Motl at 8:46 AM | one comment |.

The Reference Frame: Einstein's equations from first law of ...

Dec 31, 2013 - ... anti de Sitter version of Ted Jacobson's heuristic derivation of Einstein's equations from entropy considerations .... Luboš Motl • 3 years ago.

Physics Satire About the Theory of Everything: Motl and Jacobson

Dec 17, 2010 - In a recent post, Lubos Motl discusses a paper from 1995 by Ted Jacobson. That paper makes an important point: gravitation is a consequence ...

The Entropy Decade | Not Even Wrong - Columbia Math Department

Jan 11, 2010 - ... of points in his paper and conducting a discussion of it on Lubos Motl's blog here. ..... Is Lubos still considered an important voice in the field? ... Ted Jacobson's original paper avoids this problem, at the cost of using some ...

Expanding Crackpottery | Not Even Wrong - Columbia Math Department

Feb 9, 2010 - Lubos Motl is getting rather concerned (yes, I know about what pops up when .... And it doesn't come out of nowhere Ted Jacobson, Black Hole ...


We may as well try to formulate a pilot wave theory for sound waves and assume the phonon is a fundamental particle. The quantum fields for the U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) interactions are no more fundamental than the fields for sound waves, and an electron or photon is no more fundamental than a phonon.

So what is fundamental? We might think that the bits of information encoded on a holographic screen along the lines of the holographic principle are fundamental, but they're not. A holographic screen is an event horizon that arises in relation to an observer that enters into an accelerated frame of reference, which implies the expenditure of energy. The holographic screen encodes bits of information in a pixelated way, where the pixel size is about a Planck area. Are these bits of information really fundamental? No. Is the holographic screen really fundamental? No. Is the observer at the origin of the reference frame or at central point of view really fundamental? No. The whole holographic scenario implies the expenditure of energy that gives rise to the observer's accelerated frame of reference. What exists before energy is expended and the observer enters into an accelerated frame of reference? What exists before the holographic scenario emerges?

This is the question that nobody seems interested in answering. I'll take that statement back. Truth-realized beings (like Nisargadatta Maharaj to give a recent example) have been answering this question since the dawn of time. Their answer is quite simple. Before the world of matter, energy, space and time (or any other possible world) comes into existence, and after the world goes out of existence, what (timelessly) exists is non-dual awareness (undifferentiated consciousness), which can only be described as the void or nothingness. In metaphysical terms, it is the beginning and the end, or the primordial nature of existence. The trick for physics is to describe how (starting with the void of nothing but non-dual awareness) the world comes into existence. How does the void pull the rabbit out of its hat when it has no hat? If we start with any other kind of assumption, we're only deceiving ourselves into believing that something is true that is not true.

Jim Kowall


On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Klee Irwin <Kl...@quantumgravityresearch.org> wrote:


Yes, Ruth is a good person who might have a chance to spend some time with.

Ruth's theory is incomplete in my opinion - only waves no beables like in Copenhagen.. Also she does not really understand what Huw Price, Ken Wharton, Rod Sutherland are proposing.


Thanks for this note. But one clarification: do universities don't teach the Copenhagen interpretation because it is the one that matches with experiment. All of the interpretations match exactly with experiments.

Sutherland's theory transcends all the previous ones because it points to the new PQM regime beyond QM with new phenomena, i.e. life itself.

The reason that conventional QM works so well for dead matter is clearly shown mathematically in Sutherland's model.

This in itself is a great conceptual advance.


And the reason for this is simple: all of the interpretations use the same mathematics that is the fundamental core of quantum theory invented by the German fathers.

Also you mentioned nobody really (in meaningful numbers) approves of the Bohm interpretation. Actually, a large double digit minority approve of the many worlds interpretation and another double digit number approve of the Bohm pilot wave interpretation.

You are correct, there is no physical evidence that is widely agreed-upon to argue that any of the models are superior to the others. Most of the specialists in quantum mechanics who subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation readily admit that the other two major interpretations are equally rigorous and match exactly to the core mathematics of quantum mechanics. 

So I think that there really is something reasonable to my comparison to Coca-Cola and Pepsi. The Copenhagen interpretation was not only the first but it was also the one endorsed by the fathers of quantum mechanics themselves.

In terms of political popularity of interpretations, that gives the Copenhagen interpretation, those two things, a huge advantage in mind share.

On the other hand, we've been bubbling in the dark for almost 100 years on trying to understand why quantum mechanics implies that general relativity is incorrect and vice versa.

It's high time that we start getting more aggressive about looking at things differently. And because there is a minority who have looked at the pilot wave interpretation, maybe that will bear a little more fruit in trying to get to a four unification theory, sense if you were people have looked under those rocks.

Any event, we here in our group have little choice. The quasicrystalline mathematical formalism has the pilot wave and particle acting as a dual interactive system whether we like it or not. 

Other words, we don't fear arise it or add it by hand. It exists via geometric first principles as we break the symmetry of the E8 crystal and transform it to the lower dimensional quasicrystal mathematical quantum topological network code.

On Jun 9, 2017, at 6:24 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear Klee,

Thanks for your e-mail. I promise to read some of the papers on retro causality before expressing my opinion again! But from what I know, even after 90 years of debate, there is no consensus on the interpretation. Most professors teach Copenhagen because it is the simplest and most physicists do not really care for any interpretation. For them the fact that quantum mechanics and quantum field theory agree with experiments to one part in billion or trillion is enough to accept them.  I am personally interested in the interpretations though. In science one should not really go by consensus. But as you know, Bohm and retro causality interpretation get zero votes so far.

Yes I  agree Jack Sarfatti is a very good physicist. Also it is interesting to note that  Ruth Kastner , who I understand, believes in particles going backward in time to explain Bell’s results, is a philosopher-physicist at Univ. of Maryland from where I got my Ph.D.!


Ruth only has waves that go backwards in time not particles. He theory is basically John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation with some minor changes in informal language whose importance is debatable.

BTW I saw Marion Kerr’s video on reality on Lubos Motl’s blog


URL please. Thanks.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Klee Irwin

unread,
Jun 11, 2017, 5:00:55 AM6/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Hi, Jim. I believe in the Oroborus principle where the universal consciousness you elude to is created by the evolution of the universe itself, whose origin and abstract (information theoretic) beingness lives in the substrate of the universal consciousness that emerges from it. This is difficult for religious people to accept, whether Vedic or Western, because it does not place a linear causal chain into being where a God-like thing creates the creation. This is the notion of co-creation, where the mother creates the son and the son creates the mother.

 

Regarding the notion you began your note with; I think everything is information or thought without the mind-like substrate of “all that is”. So, for me, you’re asking me a false question when you talk about “fundamental particles really exist”. I don’t subscribe to the Bohm view. Our E8 derived quasicrystal code physics borrows inspiration from some of Bohm’s insight: mainly that there is an interaction at all times between a particle like pattern and a certain wave around it, technically called it’s “empire wave”, which we hope can explain the quantum wave function and the electromagnetic field.

 

Regarding the holographic principle; I’m sure you realize it is not a model or even a toy model. It is a remarkable fact about quantum gravity theory as applied to black hole modeling. Our program deals with that in some sophisticated ways. But for the non-mathy level of this discussion, one thing I can say is that I like a lot of the intuition of the holographic principle. Namely, I like the notion of transdimensionality and projective transformation. Indeed, that is what quasicrystals are all about.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

 

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Paul Werbos

unread,
Jun 11, 2017, 8:54:18 AM6/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:37 PM, jim kowall <jkowa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Klee

I find this discussion about pilot waves very odd. The very idea of pilot waves assumes that fundamental particles really exist, which they don't. The holographic principle tells us (as Ted Jacobson has shown) that what we call fundamental particles (as described by quantum field theory) are at best a thermal average (thermodynamic equation of state) description of the world that is only valid as a low energy limit or an effective field theory.


There are times when it is very important to be careful with language and logic.

From what you write, it sounds as if Ted Jacobson has proposed yet another possible theory, to which he appends the name "holographic principle," just as Jack has at times appended the name "Bphm" to Sutherland. 

I understand you to say that this theory implies that the intuitive concept of "pilot wave" is not useful or relevant. 


But:

1. I apologize if I have overstated the role of the pilot wave concept, in replies to Jack. Intuition and vision really are important in finding mathematics which works, but I am not proposing a formal "pilot wave axiom," at least not anything familiar to folks from the 1950's.

2. This totally leaves open the question of whether Jacobson's theory is true and operationally testable.   

Best of luck,

  Paul





 
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages