Bohm,Q-Gravity&God
James McGowan
sarf...@ix.netcom.com "Jack Sarfatti " writes:
> <html>
> <head>
Piss off - only assholes use a WWW browser to read Usenet.
James
============================================================================
We apologise for the loss of .sig - service will be resumed as soon as poss.
============================================================================
Jack Sarfatti
The spin 1/2 Dirac equation in Bohm's theory does allow us to picture
slower-than-light spacetime paths (e.g.,12.2) unlike the spin zero
Klein-Gordon equation. However, a relativistic theory of bound spin
1/2 particles forming spin 0 would have to be described by the
Klein-Gordon equation which demands faster-than-light motions that
quantum tunnel through the Einstein barrier. This is the sort of
"exotic matter" needed to stabilize traversable wormholes.
Holland has a neat solution of the Klein Paradox in the Bohm theory.
In the Copenhagen interpretation, a Dirac relativistic wave is incident
on a potential step. As the barrier height is increased, the Dirac
equation predicts the counter-intuitive result that the particle is
able to get through the barrier. The Bohm picture shows that what is
actually happening is that the particle motion is opposite to its wave
motion in the "paradoxical" region. Therefore, the actual hidden
variable particle is not incident on the barrier form the left, but is
coming in from the right and simply falls "over the cliff" into the
region of its "incident" wave. (p.515)
Bohm's thoery permits a visualization of the Dirac equation's
"Zitterbewegung" ("Trembling movement"). This is an oscillation about
the classical motion confined to a tube of diameter equal to the
Compton wavelength h/mc. (12.3.3)
So far we have focused on the classical "particle" hidden variable.
But Bohm's theory also has the classical gauge fields, like the
electromagnetic field, as a hidden variable. This feature is not well
understood by the majority of Bohm's critics. So let's see how Bohm
quantized classical field theory as a generalization of how he
quantized the classical mechanics of particles.
Bohm's Version of Quantum Field Theory
Consider the neutral Lorentz scalar classical local field psi(x,t).
The local classical field Lagrangian density is
dL/dx^3 = (1/2)[(&psi/&t)^2 - (grad psi)^2]
The metric signature is +---. The action principle gives
D'Alembertian psi = 0.
The canonical conjugate field momentum is
pi = &(dL/dx^3)/&(&psi/&t) = &psi/&t
The local classical field Hamiltonian density is
dH/dx^3 = pi &psi/&t - dL/dx^3 = (1/2)[pi^2 + (grad psi)^2]
The complete Hamiltonian of the field is the 3D space integral over an
entire spacelike surface whose 3D metric is gij. Unlike the particle
case, the classical field Hamiltonian is a nonlocal quantity.
Now in classical Hamilton-Jacobi theory, the local canonical conjugate
field momentum pi is replaced by the local Tomonaga functional
derivative &S/&psi, where the nonlocal S[psi] is not a simple local
function but is a nonlocal functional of the particular field
configuration psi over the entire spacelike slice of 4D spacetime. The
classical field Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the time evolution is
&S/&t + H = 0
which looks like a fragment of the quantum Schrodinger equation missing
a wave function.
This is re-written as the partial differential equation
&S/&t + (1/2)Integral dx^3 [(&S/&psi)^2 + (grad psi)^2] = 0
Quantization is done by introducing the microcausal field commutation
rules. The field commutators vanish over spacelike separations. This
condition is necessary for the solution of renormalizable field
theories and Holland does not question them in his book. My own
program is different. I want to use microcausality-violating
commutation rules which allow faster-than-light signal propagation
within the spacelike surface as a description of the invisible dark
matter and exotic matter. This kind of theory may eliminate the need
to renormalize. But it is mathematically difficult although the use of
Green's functions with new superluminal mass shells and new contours in
the complex energy plane seems to be the way to go. Violations of the
spin-statistics connection for dark and exotic matter are expected.
Returning to the standard quantum field theory, the classical local
field psi plays the role of the "particle position" and should not be
confused with the quantum wave function PSI in Hilbert space. The
Schrodinger equation for the quantized field is
i&PSI/&t = H PSI = {Integral dx^3(1/2)[-(&/&psi)^2 + (grad psi)^2]}PSI
where &/&psi is a local functional derivative operator. This
corresponds to making a small deviation of the classical field pattern
psi(x,t) in a small region of the spacelike surface as described by
Tomonaga. It is important to keep in mind that PSI (the quantum wave
function of the quantized field) is not a local quantity, but depends
upon the quantum field psi over the entire spacelike surface inside
spacetime.
To get to the Bohm theory use the polar decomposition of the nonlocal
complex-valued PSI
PSI = Re^iS
The Bohm equations for the relativistic quantum field are
&S/&t + (1/2)Integral dx^3 [(&S/&psi)^2 + (grad psi)^2] + Q = 0
&R^2/&t + Integral dx^3 (&/&psi)(R^2 &S/&psi) = 0
where the superpotential of the quantum field is
Q[psi,t] = -(1/2R)Integral &^2 R/&psi^2
Quantum field theory limits to classical field theory when Q -> 0.
Note we are using hbar = 1.
Note that R^2 Dpsi is the generalized nonlocal Born probability for the
field to be measured in an element of volume Dpsi about the
configuration field pattern psi(x) over the entire spacelike surface.
What is important is that the nonlocal quantum wave function of the
field is an active nonclassical agent strongly modifying the dynamics
of the classical field.
"We now introduce the assumption that at each instant t the field psi
has a well defined value for all x. as in classical field theory.
whatever the state PSI of the field. The time evolution may be
obtained from the solution of the guidance formula
&psi(x,t)/&t = &S[psi(x),t]/&psi(x)|psi(x) = psi(x,t) (12.4.13)
(analogous to mdx/dt = grad S) once we have specified the initial
function psio(x) (analogous to xo). ...
To find the equation of motion of the field coordinate ....
(d/dt)&psi/&t = - (&/&psi)[Q + Integral dx^3 (1/2)(grad psi)^2
(12.4.14)
..
d/dt = &/&t + Integral dx^3 (&psi/&t) &/&psi (12.14.15)
Equation (12.4.14) is analogous to the particle equation of motion
m d^2x/dt^2 = - grad(V + Q)
Noting that
(d/dt)&psi/&t = &^2 psi/&t^2 and taking the classical ‘external force’
term over to the left hand side ...
D’Alembertian psi(x,t) = - &Q[psi(x),t]/&psi(x)|psi(x) = psi(x,t)
(12.4.16)
.. The ‘quantum force’ term on the right hand side is responsible for
all the characteristic effects of quantum field theory.” pp. 521-522
Note that “psi(x,t) is a c number at each spacetime point. It is the
eigenvalue of the Schrodinger field operator evaluated along a system
‘trajectory’, a notion that has no meaning in the conventional
interpretation but is crucial to the revovery of the classical limit
.. psi(x,t) is not to be confused with the Heisenberg field operator
psi^(x,t) which satisfies the classical wave equation
D’Alembertian psi^(x,t) = 0.”
“The energy of the quantum field,
E = -&S/&t is continuously variable and is not conserved in general.
..
dE/dt = &Q/&t|psi(x) = psi(x,t) (12.4.17)
“.. the causal interpretation enables one to account for individual
events in quantum field theory if the classical definition of an
individual system, the field psi, is supplemented by the state
PSI[psi].” p.522
The local classical field is a Lorentz invariant scalar, but its
quantum generalization is not. Equation (12.4.16) above is not Lorentz
covariant because of the explicit dependence on t. One might ad hoc
define t as the cosmic time that appears in the Friedmann solution of
the expanding universe in the standard Big Bang cosmology. There is a
gauge freedom there but one can use the absolute temperature of the
black body photons to define t and one can consistently use the
isotropy to define absolute rest as the Hubble flow without violating
Lorentz invariance in the local tangent space. This is the spontaneous
broken symmetry approach since the curved spacetime solution to the
generally covariant and tangentially Lorentz covariant classical
Einstein gravitational field equations.
Full Lorentz covariance is restored in Bohm’s theory in the classical
limit where the superpotential Q is small. This suggests a new
connection of the nonlocal quantum superpotential of the local field to
the global curvature parameters of the Friedmann solution.
“The breaking of Lorentz covariance is a quantum effect of individual
processes” p.523
On the other hand using the Tomonaga theory (in Schwinger’s Dover book
of reprints in QED) it might be possible to redo Bohm’s theory so that
it is fully Lorentz and generally covariant in the individual case.
Holland mentions the possibility in passing but does not do it. This
is a worthy problem for research.
From the c-number equation (12.4.16) which is Bohm’s fundamental
equation for relativistic quantum field theory, it follows that “the
evolution of the field is governed by a highly nonlinear and nonlocal
equation that, in principle, involves the state of the field over the
entire universe” p.523
Note that from the right hand side of (12.4.16) it appears that this
nonlocality extends over all time as well as all space in what Kip
Thorne calls a “globally self-consistent” way. Therefore, unless I am
mistaken here(and I might be) the “|psi(x) = psi(x,t)” constraint
implies a teleological view of the evolution of our actual universe.
See below on quantum gravity and the “Mind of God” (Hawking’s term) for
more details.
Holland does not include the trans-temporal connections, but limits
himself to spacelike surfaces - presumably the preferred surfaces of
the Hubble flow in the standard Big Bang model.
“This is the field-theoretic version of the holistic aspect of quantum
theory ... it implies instantaneous connections between distant field
elements which, in turn, implies the violation of [special] relativity
in individual processes. ... This feature is characteristic of the
quantum domain and vanishes in the classical limit. Nonlocality of
fields is a quantum effect. .... Lorentz covariance and locality are
statistical effects.” pp
523-524
Jack Sarfatti
<head>
<title>Space-Time and Beyond</title>
<center><h1>Bohm’s Quantum Gravity and The Mind of God</h1></center>
<center>Version 2.0</center>
</head>
<body>
How is one to define localized position in orthodox relativistic
quantum mechanics? We cannot do without the negative energy states.
If we do not include negative energy states, the argument x of both the
spin 0 Klein-Gordon and the spin 1/2 Dirac equations is not the
eigenvalue of a Hermitian operator. This implies a breakdown of the
Born probability density formula in this case. Newton and Wigner tried
to define a position operator whose eigenfunctions have a spread equal
to the Compton wave length. Their program lies uncompleted to this
day. <p>
Lorentz covariant wave equations can violate causality and permit
faster-than-light signals unless one throws in ad hoc constraints.
(p.502)<p>
From Peter Holland's book, The Quantum Theory of Motion (Cambridge,
1995. pp. 567-569):<p>
<blockquote><b>12.9 Beyond space-time-matter. Wavefunction of the
universe</b><p>
The classical analytical approach to the theory of matter assumes that
a complex physical system may be broken down into a collection of
subsystems obeying relatively simple laws which govern their
interactions, and that the state of the whole is defined by no more
than a summation of the states of the parts. <p>
In the quantum theory of motion this procedure is turned on its head.
Here the basic notion is that of an objectively real state of an
individual system that lies beyond its material components (particles
and fields in their classical conception), and even beyond the
spacetime manifold. In the sense that its law (the Schrodinger
equation) governs the law of the elements (the guidance formula), we
may say that the state of the whole is prior to that of the parts (in
the model studied in this book the parts are not physically determined
as aspects of the whole, as they would be in a unified field theory,
for instance). <p>
Including the laws of the parts in the quantum mechanical theory allows
one to overcome what we have located as the central interpretative
dilemma posed by quantum mechanics the failure to provide sufficient
concepts to furnish a complete description of the processes with which
quantum mechanics deals in circumstances where we are sure something
more could be said that is not contained in the formalism (e.g., the
positions of meters). <p>
The holistic concept represents a first step towards realizing
Einstein's programme of freeing microphysics from its reliance on the
classical paradigm, although not in a way that Einstein approved of. It
is, perhaps paradoxically, anticipated most forcibly in Bohr's
analysis. Like Bohr, the mode of being of the parts is a function of
the whole, but unlike him they can be conceptually analysed, including
when they are examined empirically. <p>
<b>Such a view tends to contradict the classical notion of a mechanism
and is more suggestive of a self-regulating organism. Its ability to
form and maintain subtle, stable patterns of matter, and to bring about
transitions to qualitatively new stable structures, implies a role for
the wavefunction akin to a kind of multidimensional field of
self-organization. And because an infinite variety of organized forms
can be generated through the linear superposition principle, there is
here the hint of a primitive description of creativity or novelty in
nature.</b><p>
The emphasis it lays on the primacy of the whole implies two special
properties of the quantum theory of motion. First, it forces into the
open the issue of how far the individual events whose mean behaviour is
grasped by quantum theory should obey the principles of relativity, and
whether the latter have merely a statistical validity. If the
description of the quantum theory of motion applied to fields is
correct, the Lorentz symmetry exhibited by the formalism represents not
so much a unification of the quantum and relativity theories as an
expression merely of their empirical compatibility In the realm of the
theory of matter, i.e., the structure and motion of individual systems,
true unification of the two theories cannot be said to have yet been
achieved. Strict observance of the relativity principles is restored
only in the classical limit and for some other nonclassical special
cases. <p>
The second special property of the theory relates to attempts to apply
quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole a currently fashionable
subject known as 'quantum cosmology'. This has widely been interpreted
according to the many-worlds picture of quantum mechanics but there is
no need for this. Because it is first and foremost a theory of
individuals and does not rely on the ensemble or probability concepts
for its formulation, the quantum theory of motion is eminently suited
to a description of systems that are essentially unique such as the
universe. </blockquote>
The structure of spacetime in Einstein's classical theory of general
relativity in empty space obeys the equation <p>
<center><h2>Ruv - guvR = 0</h2></center>
where Ruv is the Ricci tensor, R is the curvature scalar and guv is the
spacetime metric tensor.<p>
Use canonical Hamiltonian theory to make the 3+1 decomposition of the
square of the invariant infinitesimal spacetime separation <b>ds</b>
between two events in curved spacetime. This is:<p>
<center><h2>ds^2 = (NiN^i - N^2)dt^2 + 2Nidx^idt +
gijdx^idx^j</h2></center>
gij is the three-dimensional metric tensor of a spacelike surface
embedded in spacetime. Each "point" of Wheeler superspace is a
function gij(x). A possible four-dimensional spacetime history is a
path through this superspace for which we can define a Feynman quantum
probability amplitude to try to do quantum gravity.<p>
The Schrodinger equation of quantum gravity comes from quantizing the
classical Hamiltonian constraint which gives the Wheeler-DeWitt
equation:<p>
<center><h2>[Gijkl &^2/&gij&gkl + g^1/2 3^R]PSI = 0</h2></center>
where PSI is the quantum wave functional of the universe which may also
be the "Mind of God" if my theory of consciousness is correct. <p>
The superspace metric Gijkl is a sum of three terms. Each term is a
product of two gij's and the whole thing is multiplied by 1/2g^1/2
where g is the determinant of gij. 3^R is the intrinsic curvature of
the spacelike surface. &^2/&gij&gkl is the second order functional
derivative with respect to local variations in gij. This idea of
functional derivative was first defined by Tomonaga for quantum
electrodynamics and will be explained elsewhere in due course.<p>
<b>Note that there is no notion of time in the above Schrodinger
equation for quantum gravity. Therefore, the Schrodinger equation for
the Mind of God is beyond spacetime.</b><p>
Following Holland, we get the Bohm theory of quantum gravity by writing
<center><h2>PSI = Ae^iS</h2></center>
This gives a conservation equation (12.9.4) p.570 <p>
<center><h2>Gijkl&/&gij(A^2 &S/&gij) = 0</h2></center>
and a Hamilton-Jacobi equation with a new quantum gravity potential
Q<p>
<center><h2>Gijkl&S/&gij &S/&gkl - g^1/2 3^R + Q = 0</h2></center>
<center><h2>Q = -A^-1 Gijkl&^2/&gij&gkl</h2></center>
Q is invariant under diffeomorphisms of the spacelike surface which is
a point in superspace.<p>
<b>Now the unique conceptual feature of Bohm's ontology which is absent
in the dominant Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics - the
universe whose quantum state (<i>or God-Mind "pilot-wave" pattern</i>)
is PSI has a definite "material" 3-geometry gij(x,t) at each instant.
</b> This three-geometry is the analog to the <b>hidden variable</b>
particle position in the simplest non-relativistic version of Bohm's
theory. There are no parallel universes in Bohm's theory of quantum
gravity. The guidance condition on the unique actual objectively
existing three geometry is Holland's eq. 12.9.7 on p.570.<p>
<center><h2>&gij(x,t)/&t = &iNj + &jNi + 2NGijkl&S/&gkl|gij(x) =
gij(x,t)</h2></center>
The "Breath of God" is in the final quantum term depending on S on the
right-hand side of the way the wave functional of the entire universe
which is beyond time, guides the spacelike surface evolution in time.
Notice that A plays no role in the guidance condition on the phase S of
the quantum wave functional of the universe.<p>
<hr>
<center><a
href="http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr"><h1>Return</h1></a></center>
</body>
</html>
Jack Sarfatti
really needs to violate Lorentz symmetry for individual quantum events
even though it obeys that symmetry in the statistical average.
S. Tomonaga's (ST) 1946 paper "On a Relativistically Invariant
Formulation of the Quantum Theory of Wave Fields" (reprinted in
Schwinger's Dover book QED p.156) may provide the answer.
ST gives a four-dimensional form of the field commutation relations.
First he defines a "functional" in a footnote. psi[v'(xyz)] means that
psi is a functional of the variable function v'(xyz).
By "variable function" ST does not mean that the value of the function
varies as its independent variables xyz vary. Rather he means, imagine
a space of all possible functions each subject to the same constraints
or boundary conditions, perhaps with a "metric" giving the "separation"
between two such functions which are "points" in the function space.
In general this separation can be a complex number, maybe even a
quaternion or an octonion. The functions may not even be continuous
and differentiable as in elementary calculus. They may be fractals, or
distributions. When ST says "variable" function he means moving from
point to point in this function space. A functional is a
meta-function. The function idea self-referentially jumps to a level
outside itself maintaining its invariant structure. It's a kind of
self-iteration.
ST gives an example, the energy density dH(v(xyz) u(xyz))/dxdydz is an
ordinary function of xyz, but the total energy
H[u,v] = Integral dxdydz dH/dv
is a functional of the two functions u and v.
ST considers the problem of two interacting fields 1 and 2. In the
non-Lorentz covariant form, the frame-dependent Schrodinger equation is
(equations numbered as in ST's paper for reference)
(H1 + H2 + H12 + (hbar/i)&/&t)PSI = 0 (5)
H's refer to total field energies. They are nonlocal quantities defined
as integrals over a particular spacelike surface that defines a global
inertial frame in flat spacetime. Global inertial frames are not
possible in the general relativity of curved spacetime.
ST then goes to an "interaction picture". This is our first problem
because Peter Holland says that the Bohm theory is stuck in the
Schrodinger picture.
ST defines the unitary operator for the free fields 1 and 2
Z = e^i(H1 + H2)t/hbar (7)
The Shrodinger picture time-independent fields are u1(xyz) and u2(xyz)
with canonically conjugate momenta v1(xyz) and v2(xyz) respectively.
Define the unitary transformations
U(V)1(2) = Zu(v)1(2)Z^-1
(8)
PSI' = Z PSI
for each field i = = 1 or 2
ihbar Vi = UiHi - UiVi = [Ui,Hi]
(9)
ihbar Vi = ViHi - HiVi = [Vi,Hi]
ST then gives the Lorentz-covariant field commutation relations
[Ui(xyzt), Uj(x'y'z't')] = Aij(x-x',y-y',z-z',t-t')
[Vi(xyzt), Vj(x'y'z't')] = Bij(x-x',y-y',z-z',t-t')
[Ui(xyzt), Vj(x'y'z't')] = Cij(x-x',y-y',z-z',t-t')
"where Aij, Bij and Cij are functions which are combinations of the
so-called four-dimensional delta functions and their derivatives."
Consider a 2D surface in 3D wavenumber kx,ky,kz defined by the Lorentz
frame-invariant "mass shell" constraint equation
k^2 = kx^2 + ky^2 + kz^2 + |m|^2
Therefore,
kdk = kxdkx + kydky + kzdkz
For a fixed energy k and a fixed invariant mass m, the mass shell is a
sphere of radius sqrt(k^2- |m|^2) in kx,ky,kz space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Homework Problem 1
Prove that the element of area on the sphere is dA =(m/k) dkx dky dkz
and that it is Lorentz invariant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Digression (this may skipped by novice).
The four-dimensional Lorentz-invariant delta functions have the form
Di(xyzt) = Integral dA{e^i(xkx + yky + zkz + kt)
- e^i(xkx + yky + zkz - kt)} (11)
Lorentz invariance demands that the first exponential is an advanced
plane wave propagating backward in time rather than a retarded wave
propagating forward in time opposite to the wave in the second
exponential. This because the Lorentz signature is +++- and the
invariant scalar product must be of that form, therefore t is a
negative quantity in the first exponential and positive in the second.
Therefore, the above function is the destructive interference of an
advanced wave with its "mirror" retarded wave connecting the two events
(xyzt) and (x'y'z't'). (We have set (x'y'z't') at the origin in the
above equation (11).)
Equation (11) above obeys microcausality since it vanishes when the two
events are spacelike separated.
However, it is possible to define new kinds of causality-violating
four-dimensional Lorentz-invariant commutation relations by using the
new function D' that has constructive interference of the advanced and
retarded waves in addition to the new "tachyonic" mass shell
k^2 = kx^2 + ky^2 + kz^2 - |m|^2
The point k = 0 is not a fixed point under Lorentz transformations.
But the condition square root of kx^2 + ky^2 + kz^2 = |m|^2 has
frame-invariant meaning. It is a signature topological phase
transition critical point in causality-violating relativistic quantum
field theory. In each frame, do we integrate with imaginary energy k
or do we go to Hawking's imaginary time switching signature from
Lorentz -+++ to Euclidean ++++ in which there is no light cone barrier?
This is what I am working on.
Note the D' function above is not to be confused with Pauli's "D1"
function which still uses the subluminal mass shell. The idea here is
that both exotic matter and dark matter require the new
causality-violating field theory. The spin-statistics connection will
be reversed here so that spin 0 quanta are fermions and spin 1/2 quanta
are bosons. This is a prediction of my new theory.
End of Advanced Digression
Now I return to ST’s classic paper.
He generalizes the frame-dependent Schrodinger equation to a
Lorentz-invariant equation.
In the interaction picture
{Integral dxdydz H12(U1 V1,U2 V2) + (hbar/i)&/&t}PSI’ = 0 (14)
t defines a frame-dependent spacelike surface. It is a global time.
ST starts with the Dirac (1933) many-time formalism from many-particle
quantum mechanics. Dirac studied N charged particles. He first used
the unitary operator infinitesimally generated by the Hamiltonian of
the free electromagnetic field. Dirac then makes a unitary
transformation on the electromagnetic vector potential and on the wave
function PSI.
In the next stephe introduces a new many-time function PHI with as many
local time variables as there are particles. Each particle carries its
own local clock. The new multiple-time wave function PHI includes
timelike separated quantum connections as well as spacelike ones. The
result is N simultaneous Schrodinger equations. The key point which
involves microcausality is that these N simultaneous equations (eqs 20
in ST’s paper) require N^2 conditions
(Hn Hn’ - Hn’ Hn)PHI = 0 (22)
A sufficient condition for a solution is when the N events forming the
arguments of PHI are all relatively spacelike separated for all
possible pairings if we use microcausality which forbids controllable
spacelike actions-at-a-distance. But is this sufficient condition also
necessary? My new programe for causality-violating quantum field
theory can be wrecked at this stage.
Tomonaga uses the functional derivative to generalize Dirac’s discrete
finite many-time to continuous infinite number of local times one for
each space point. Define the function t(xyz). We then have a
functional PHI’[t(xyz)]. Define the variation density &dt(xyz)/dxdydz
which differs from zero only in a small region R in the neighborhood of
the space point (xyz). Define the functional derivative
&PHI’/&t(xyz) = Lim R->0 Lim &dt(xyz)/dxdydz -> 0 of
{PHI’[t(xyz) + &dt(xyz)/dxdydz] - PHI’[t(xyz)]}/Integral dxdydz
&dt(xyz)/dxdydz eq. (25).
Tomonaga’s main result is then the Lorentz-invariant Schrodinger
functional differential equation for the relativistic quantum field
{H12 + (hbar/i)&/&t(xyz)}PHI’ = 0 (26)
which can be solved with the microcausal invariant commutation rules.
“Thus, our system of equations (26) is integrable when the surface
defined by the equations t = t(xyz), considering t(xyz) as a function
of x,y and z, is spacelike. ... The dependent variable surface ... can
be of any (spacelike) form in the spacetime world, and we need not
presuppose any Lorentz frame to define such a surface. Therefore, this
PHI’[t(xyz)] is a relativistically invariant concept. ... It is not
necessary ... to admit also time-like surfaces for the variable surface
as was required by Dirac ...”
It may be that for causality-violating field theory we interchange the
role of spacelike and timelike. That is require commutators of the
tachyon fields to commute for timelike separations? Another clue is
that Dirac used timelike surfaces in addition to spacelike ones so we
should go back to his 1933 paper in an obscure Soviet journal to see if
there are any other clues. Any Russians out there on the World Wide
Web - take a look and r
eport back please. :-)
The problem now is to make a Hamilton-Jacobi theory for many-times so
that Bohm's theory need not be non-Lorentz invariant in the individual
case.
Larry Adams
Netscape, one of the best Web browsers out there, supports news. And it
implements news reading very well. I use it, and if Dr. Sarfatti uses
something similiar, WHAT THE HELL IS IT TO YOU!!!
Jack Sarfatti
physicist on Stapp and his theory of PK. Stapp’s reply follows in
another post. The entire issue will be explored in detail on World
Wide Web pages http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr in the next few days.
Stapp, like Harvard psychiatrist, John Mack, who studies UFO
abductions, is under serious peer pressure (e.g. head of LBL where
Stapp works) to supress his fringe research. This is a new threat to
academic freedom in our elite universities.
“I have a serious concern that I would like to present to the physics
community at large. It appears to me that there is a small but
dedicated group of scientists-some with quite respectable
reputations—who nevertheless dabble in things that most of us would not
call science. (The terms "pseudoscience" and "pathological science"
come to mind.) Occasionally attempts are made to dress up this type of
work and anoint it with the trappings of "real science" and then usher
it into publication in prestigious journals along with mainstream
material—giving it the mantle of undeserved legitimacy.
For example, in the 1 July 1994 issue of Physical Review A there
appeared an article by Henry P. Stapp, "Theoretical Model of a
Purported Empirical Violation of the Predictions of Quantum
Theory.''(1) This paper develops an acausal theoretical model of
nonlinear quantum mechanics that is loosely based on work by Steven
Weinberg. It is clear that this article was specifically created to
explain the apparently anomalous results found in experiments designed
to establish the physical reality of supposed paranormal phenomena:
Stapp's reference (8) is to the telekinesis experiments of Helmut
Schmidt, published in the Journal of Parapsychology.(2) Schmidt claims
to have demonstrated that human beings are able to use psychic powers
to retroactively alter the decay rate of naturally occurring
radioactive isotopes months before the actual expenment took place.
Schmidt's conclusion— which Stapp has tried to model theoretically in
PRA—is that the test subjects used their psychic powers to alter the
laws of quantum mechanics and Einstein causality.
Several scientific investigations have dismissed previous paranormal
experiments by Schmidt as statistically and scientifically unsound, at
the very least.(3) The latest expenments—summarized in reference (2)—
have not been reproduced. At the very least, these acausal
"telekinesis" experiments seem too controversial and pseudoscientific
for there to be theories appearing in Physical Review A purporting to
explain them. It's one thing for the physics community to be
open-minded but entirely another for us to be supporting parapsychology
and promoting pseudoscience. You can be sure that Schmidt, in his
future publications in the Journal of Parapsychology, will reference
Stapp's paper and claim that a theory that explains all his
experimental data has been published in the flagship journal of the
American Physical Society.
There is another interesting point. When you read Schmidt's paper (2)
you find that it is not itself a report of an experimental result but
rather a summary and statistical analysis of five experimental
results—all by Schmidt—published in the Journal of Parapsychology from
1986 to 1993. Each of those experiments tested "psychic" subjects for
their ability to acausally and telekinetically alter the generation in
the past of random numbers based on the decay of radioisotopes. Each
of Schmidt's five corresponding papers reports data that, although
suggestive, are not statistically significant. In the summarizing
paper(2)—the one that Stapp actually refers to—Schmidt averages the
results of his previous five experiments. Upon doing so he finds a
statistically significant indication of acausal telekinetic activity.
Each of the five experiments was camed out with Schmidt as principal
investigator and first author, with the names of one or two
coinvestigators appearing as second or third author. For the fifth
experiment, published immediately preceding Schmidt's summarizing paper
(2) in the same issue of the Journal of Parapsychology, Schmidt's
coauthor and coexperimenter is none other than Stapp.(4) Hence Stapp's
theory paper in PRAI is in fact a theoretical explanation for Stapp's
own experiment. It seems odd that this connection was nowhere
mentioned by Stapp in his PRA article.
The Physical Review editorial board has informed me that some changes
have been made in the guide to authors and referees to reduce the
possibility of such papers' being published in the future. However, it
is not clear to me that this solves the problem, or even that the
physics community at large is even aware that there is a problem.
Should we take the extreme "open-minded" position and let such papers
appear, rather than be accused of censorship? Or should we put our
foot down and say, "Articles dealing with parapsychology should not be
published in PRA— period." (I'm not advocating that papers like Stapp's
not be published at all, but there are more appropriate forums, for
example, the Journal of Parapsychology.) In any case, only we as
physicists can decide this. I hope that this missive will stimulate
interesting public debate on this topic. One might argue that a more
appropriate approach for criticizing an article in PRA would be to
submit an official comment to PRA. In fact, I and four coauthors are
preparing such a comment. We will discuss our concerns about the
physical theory of Stapp as well as the experiments of Schmidt. The
purpose of this letter is not to discuss the nuts and bolts of a
particular physical problem but to bring out into the open my concerns
about the philosophy and direction of physics as a whole.
References
1. H. P. Stapp, Phys. Rev. A 50, 18 (1994).
2. H. Schmidt, J. Parapsychol. 57, 351 ( 1993).
3. C. E. M. Hansel, The Skeptical Inquirer, Spring 1981, p. 26. R.
Hyman, ibid., p. 34. J. E. Alcock, Science and Supernature, Prometheus,
Buffalo, N. Y. (1990), pp. 81-181. 4. H Schmidt, H. P. Stapp,
J. Parapsychol. 57, 331(1993).
JONATHAN P. DOWLING
US Army Missile Command
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama”
Brian Zeiler
Scientific Fundamentalism. The treatment of telepathy in general, much
less the inverted intertemporal causation that has been researched (or
whatever the official name is), reminds me of the way the Salem witches
were only proven innocent of witchcraft if they drowned, but were guilty
and burned if they survived a plunge into the lake.
I can't even believe telepathy hasn't been fully accepted by the
scientific community. How many times does statistical significance with
p=.0000001 need to be demonstrated with skeptics present before this is
accepted?
--
Brian Zeiler
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's one thing for the physics community to be open-minded but entirely
another for us to be supporting parapsychology and promoting
pseudoscience."
JONATHAN P. DOWLING
Jack Sarfatti
by accepting a challenge to examine purely physical facts created under
highly controlled conditions. Indeed, to refuse to look at such
physical evidence on ideological grounds would be pseudoscience.
Let me describe the special circumstances that led me to submit my
theory paper to the Physical Review. I was approached during a
conference by Helmut Schmidt, who asked me why in view of my
long-standing interest in the apparent nonlocality associated with
Bell's theorem, I never referred to his experiments, which seem to
indicate the existence of a similar kind of effect. I replied,
frankly, that the results he claimed seemed to me so astounding that I
would sooner believe in the occurrence of a procedural flaw, or even
outright fraud, than in the reality of the claimed effect; since I
lacked the expertise and time to do confirming experiments myself
I simply remained silent.
He answered that there was a very simple procedure that I could carry
out in my own office, involving only printed numbers and no dealings
with human subjects, that should allow me to confirm the reality of the
claimed effects (which are backed up by the claims of other "psi"
researchersl) without my having to make any assumptions at all about
his competency or integrity. I listened, and we eventually set up a
protocol that satisfied me, and I agreed to carry out the specified
procedure.
I received by mail (in batches) a set of thick cardboard sheets. Each
sheet had a set of rows, with each row consisting of a pair of short
strips of black tape. After receiving a batch I waited for at least a
week, and on a day prescribed by the fixed protocol, I extracted from
the weather table of The New York Times, by a fixed recorded procedure
known only to me, a pair of "random numbers" that I then used as seed
numbers in a computer program devised by myself and divulged to no one
(until after the experiment was completed). This program generated
from the seed numbers a set of pairs of (pseudo) random signs (sigmali,
sigma2i), with one pair of signs for each row i. The sign sigmali
specified, according to the preestablished protocol, which one of the
two black strips in row i I would peel off. Under the removed strip in
row i was a (signed) number ni, which I multiplied by the sign sigma2i.
I then computed, by a standard, preestablished procedure, taken from a
statistics book, the "positive bias" of the sequence of numbers sigma2i
ni. Since I had multiplied each incoming number ni by a randomly
selected sign sigma2i that I had generated independently, I expected no
statistically significant positive bias, and that is what I found.
I then sent the set of signs sigma2i to Schmidt, and some months later,
after receiving a go-ahead from Schmidt, I removed the remaining strips
of black tape (in the batch) and computed, by the same preestablished
procedure, the positive bias of the sequence sigma2i ni' formed from
the newly revealed numbers ni'. I expected, for the same reasons as
before, to find no statistically significant positive bias, and that is
what I found.
During the interval between the time I sent to Schmidt the signs
sigma2i and my uncovering of the numbers ni' Schmidt supposedly had his
subjects trying by mental effort to positively bias the numbers sigma2i
ni'. On the basis of four earlier experiments of a generally similar
kind, Schmidt predicted that I would find the sequence of numbers
sigma2i ni', unlike the control sequence sigma2i ni, to be positively
biased to about three standard deviations or more—something that would
be expected to occur by chance only once in about a thousand trials.
Schmidt and I had agreed beforehand that the result would be published
regardless of whether the outcome confirmed his expectations or not,
and hence my negative result was duly published in Jonathan Dowling's
reference (4). That reference described also what Schmidt had done; I
myself had no involvement in any aspect of the experiment beyond what I
did in my office, which I have described above.
The procedure that I myself carried out was purely a "physics
experiment." Since all the relevant numbers were in my possession and
were stored in a secret and secure place, there was, according to
orthodox physical ideas, no way for Schmidt to produce a systematic
positive bias in the set of numbers sigma2i ni'. I described my
physics experiment in detail in the original version of the paper I
sent to the Physical Review but was forced by the referee and editors
to exclude that part of my paper from the published version.
It was within the specific context of simple and clean physical
experiments of this particular kind that I put forth my quantum
mechanical model of how results of the kind predicted by Schmidt could
be explained by merely making a small change in the Schrodinger
equation that would produce no observable effects in any purely
physical experiment heretofore performed by physicists. Because of the
existence of this model we cannot rationally rule out the possibility
that the “Schmidt effect" exists merely on the grounds that this effect
is incompatible with what we already know about the laws of nature.
I believe it would now be useful to perform additional experiments of
the kind described here to resolve the discrepancy between the null
result that I obtained and the positive combined result of the five
experiments reported by Schmidt. From the physicist's point of view
the entire system of human beings and physical devices that are
producing the cardboard sheets is simply a black box, and no
assumptions about its properties are required to draw the conclusion,
if the positive bias predicted by Schmidt were to occur systematically,
that some aspect of our orthodox understanding of the laws of physics
is seriously incorrect. Hence if a significant number of physicists of
established high repute were to obtain results in line with the
combined results reported by Schmidt, and the effect were to hold up, a
finding of first magnitude importance in physics would be obtain
ed. On the other hand, a negative result would provide direct
empirical evidence in support of the widespread view among scientists
that experiments that purport to show the existence of "psi" phenomena
will fail when sufficiently rigorous conditions are enforced.
Reference
1. D. L. Radin, R. D. Nelson, Found. Phys. 19, 1499 ( 1989).
HENRY P. STAPP
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Berkeley, California
Physics Today, July 1995
Bryan King Parker
->I can't even believe telepathy hasn't been fully accepted by the
->scientific community. How many times does statistical significance with
->p=.0000001 need to be demonstrated with skeptics present before this is
->accepted?
Just once as far as I'm concerned, if I'm the skeptic present when it
happens!
Jack Sarfatti
3. Theoretical Model
This section describes a relatively simply theoretical model that could
account for the reported phenomena.
In order to retain the mathematical structure of quantum theory almost
intact, I shall exploit the ideas of von Neumann (9) and Pauli (10),
according to which the von Neumann process number 1 (reduction of the
wave packet) is physically associated with the mental process of the
observer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarfatti Commentary
Henry uses the traditional Copenhagen interpretation. Is his
identification of mental process with collapse of the wave function
stuck to that interpretation? It would appear so because there is no
collapse in the many-worlds interpretation and also it is not in the
Bohm nonlocal hidden variable interpretation. If Stapp is right , his
idea provides a test of the Copenhagen interpretation.
My own idea is different. My idea is stuck in the Bohm interpretation.
It says that mental process is beyond quantum mechanics and requires
the very kind of violation of the statistical predictions of orthodox
quantum mechanics that Stapp actually models for "intention" below. In
Bohm's picture, this violation is caused by a feedback-control loop
between living matter and its quantum wave function. Dead matter does
not have this loop which is a kind of nonlocal quantum "elan-vital" or
"the Ghost in the Machine" sort of idea. The difference is that it is
not a supernatural idea but is part of "post-modern physics".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting that two of our most rigorous-minded mathematical
physicists should both be inclined to favor an idea that is so contrary
to our common-sense idea of the nature of the physical world. Most
physicists have, I think, preferred to accept the common-sense idea
that the world of macroscopic material properties is factual: e.g.,
that the Geiger counter either fires or not fire independently of
whether any observer has witnessed it; and that the mark on the
photographic plate is either there or not there, whether or not anyone
observes it. Yet it is difficult to reconcile this common-sense
intuition with the mathematical formalism of quantum
theory. For there is in that mathematical representation no natural
breakpoint in the chain of events that leads from the atomic event that
initiates the chain to the eventual brain event that corresponds to the
resulting conscious experience. From the perspective of the
mathematical physicist any imposition of a breakpoint at any purely
physical level is arbitrary and awkward: it breaks the close connection
between mathematics and the physical world in a way that is
mathematically unnatural, and that moreover lacks any empirical or
scientific justification. From a purely mathematical perspective it
seems preferable to trust more the uniformity of nature's link between
mathematics and the physical world than to inject, without any logical
reason, our notoriously fallible intuitions about the nature of
physical reality.
Following, then, the mathematics, instead of intuition, I shall adopt
the assumption that the Schroedinger equation holds uniformly in the
physical world. That is, I shall adopt the view that the physical
universe, represented by the quantum state of the universe, consists
merely of a set of tendencies that entail statistical links between
mental events.
This point of view is, in fact, not incompatible with the Copenhagen
interpretation, which, although epistemological in character rather
than ontological,(11) rests on the central fact that in science we
deal, perforce, with connections between human observations: the rest
of science is a theoretical imagery whose connection to reality must
remain forever uncertain.
According to this point of view, expressed however in ontological
terms, the various possibilities, in regard to the detections of the
radioactive decays, remain in a state of "possibility", or
"potentiality", even after the results are recorded on magnetic tape,
and the numbers are typed onto the sheets of cardboard: no reduction of
the wave packet occurs until some pertinent mental event occurs.
Adopting this non-common-sense point-of-view shifts the problem from
that of accounting for an influence of willful thoughts occurring at
one time upon radio-active decays occurring months earlier to the
simpler problem of explaining a biasing of the probabilities for the
occurrence of the willful thoughts themselves, i.e., a biasing relative
to the probabilities predicted by orthodox quantum theory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarfatti Commentary
The above paragraph is very important. I do not understand it very
well. But it appears that Henry is trying to save Einstein causality.
I thought the claim is that the irreversible records of the actual
radio active decays do not obey the standard exponential decay
statistics. Is Henry's idea that due to the limited sample we are
seeing fluctuations away from the mean exponential and that somehow
these fluctuations in the present capture or entrain or "correlate" the
probability for the observer to "will" a +1 or a -1 or a particular
color etc., whatever the protocol may be? In this case free will is an
illusion and the observer-participator is a passive terminal
channeling, so to speak in New Age terms, external causes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This latter problem is quite manageable: Weinberg (5) has devised a
nonlinear quantum mechanics that is very similar to quantum theory, but
that can produce probabilities that are biased, relative to the
probabilities predicted by linear quantum mechanics. Gisin (6) has
already pointed out that Weinberg's theory can lead to causal
anomalies.
According to our interpretation of quantum theory the mechanical
registrations of the detections of the radio-active decays produces a
separation of the physical world into a collection of superposed
"channels" or "branches": the physical world, as represented by the
wavefunction of the universe, divides into a superposition of channels,
one for each of the different possible recorded (but unobserved)
results. When the skeptic observes the control sequence {Cn^ = Cn
sigma n} there is a projection onto those channels that are compatible
with these observations. But, contrary to common-sense, the typed
numbers under the remaining pieces of black tape are not yet fixed.
Later on, when the "observer" looks at the device, the state of his
brain will separate into a superposition of channels corresponding to
the various alternative macroscopic possibilities, in the way alrea
dy described by von Neumann.(9) Eventually, the state of the universe
will be reduced by a projection onto those brain states that are
compatible with the conscious experience of the observer. (12)
If the probabilities associated with the various alternative
possibilities for the brain state are those given by orthodox quantum
theory then there can be no systematic positive bias of the reported
kind: the probabilities will necessarily, according to von Neumann's
theory, agree with those that were determined earlier from the
probabilities of the alternative possible detections of ratio-active
decays, and there could therefore be no biasing of those probabilities
due to the willful intent of the observer.
A generalization of Weinberg's nonlinear quantum mechanics allows the
probabilities for the possible reductions in the brain state to be
biased by the will of the conscious observer. Indeed, it allows part
of the total probability to be shifted away from those possibilities to
which the observer assigns negative "desire" or "value" and toward the
possibilities to which he assigns positive "desire" or "value". We
turn, therefore, to a description of Weinberg's theory, in the context
of the present problem of the shifting of the probabilities away from
those predicted by orthodox quantum theory, and toward those defined by
a "desire" represented physically in the brain of the observer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarfatti Commentary
Stapp now makes a profound seemingly simple remark. He is not simply
saying that any free field can be decomposed into independent simply
oscillating normal modes. He uses the term "a general quantum system".
Is this Stapp's original contribution or is it Steven Weinberg's? I
think it is Weinberg's from my dim memory of glancing at his papers.
It as novel and surprising a way of looking at quantum mechanics as was
Richard Feynman's with the amplitude equal to the exponential of the
classical action along the path and all indistinguishable paths adding
coherently. This is about to become self-evident below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Weinberg's nonlinear quantum is rooted in the fact that the quantum
mechanical equations of motion for a general quantum system are just
the classical equations of motion for a very simple kind of classical
system, namely a collection of classical simple harmonic oscillators.
Thus a natural way to generalize quantum theory is to generalize this
simple classical system.
To describe this connection of quantum theory to classical simple
harmonic oscillators let pn and qn, for n = 1,2..., be the classical
canonical variables for a collection of simply harmonic oscillators.
Define the dimensionless parameters
xn = qn(mw/2hbar)^1/2 (1.a)
and
yn = pn(1/2hbarmw)^1/2 (1.b)
Then the collection of pairs
zn = xn + iyn
and
zn* = xn - iyn
is an equivalent set of variables, and the classical Hamiltonian can be
written (with hbar =1) as
h(z,z*) = zn*Hnmzm = (z|H|z) (3)
.. repeated indices are .. summed. The function h(z,z*) is bilinear:
it is a linear function of each of its two (vector) arguments z and z*.
The matrix Hnm is independent of z and z*: it is a diagonal matrix
with positive elements, in the original basis. However (3) is written
in a basis-independent way, and in the general representation Hmn is
Hermitian, Hnm = (Hmn)*. The basis-independent quantity h is real:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarfatti Commentary
The elegant notation looks quantum mechanical, but Henry, at first at
least appears to be doing classical Hamiltonian theory here. So it
should be possible to rewrite it as a Hamilton-Jacobi theory. Quantum
mechanics is suddenly slipped in eq. (8) by what appears at first to be
a Magician's trick.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The canonical classical equation of motion for a function f(z,z*) is
df/dt = {f,h}PB (5)
Here the right-hand side {..}PB is the classical Poisson bracket, which
can be written in the form
{f,h}PB = -i(&f/&zn &h/&zn* - &h/&zn &f/&zn*) (6)
To obtain quantum mechanics as a special case one restricts the
observables to bilinear forms:
f(z,z*) = zn*Fnm zm = (z|F|z) (7)
where F is independent of z and z*. Them
df(z,z*)/dt = {f,h} = -i(z|[F,H]|z) (8)
where [F,H] is the commutator. The variables zn and zn* can then be
identified with the components PSIn = <n|PSI> and PSIn* = <psi|n> of
the general quantum system.
To pass to Weinberg's nonlinear quantum theory one allows the
observables including the Hamiltonian to be real non-bilinear functions
of z and z*, i.e., of PSI and PSI*, but imposes the condition that
every observable be homogeneous of degree one in each of the variables
z and z*:
zn&f/&zn = zn*&f/&zn = f (9)
This condition allows one to write
f(z,z*) = zn* &^2f(z,z*)/&zn*&zm zm = zn* Fnm zm = (z|F|z) (10)
where the Fnm are now no longer necessarily independent of z and z*.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarfatti Commentary
When this theory is written in Hamilton-Jacobi form, maybe what happens
is that the dependence of Fnm on z and z* causes a non-unitary source
term in the conservation of current equation that accompanies the
Hamilton-Jacobi equation with the quantum potential. The source term
should explicitly depend upon the actual nonlocal hidden variable "n'"
of the Bohm theory. For example, if we are doing non-relativistic
nonlinear quantum mechanics of a single particle, n' is x' the actual
position of the actual particle, where z = <x|PSI>. This source term
is "back-reaction" of the actual hidden variable on the quantum
potential. That is, the nonlocal quantum potential not only "pilots"
the particle but is also affected directly by the motion of the
particle in a self-consistent feedback-control loop which causes
deviations away from the statistical predictions of the linear theory.
In other words, is Weinberg's nonlinearity in the Copenhagen
interpretation equivalent to Bohm's back reaction? This may a wrong
approach because at the end of Stapp's paper it becomes clear that
non-Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian is what really matters.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The reality condition f(z,z*) = f(z,z*)* is equivalent to
Fnm = (Fmn)* (11)
The matrix elements Hnm are defined in an analogous way, and
df/dt = - i(z|[F,H]|z) (12)
This equation looks the same as the orthodox equation (3). Now,
however, the operator parts cannot be separated from the state-vector
parts, z and z*, because F and H can depend upon z and z*.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarfatti Commentary
Is this where the "strange loop" of Godelian self-reference comes in?
The clean separation between the active transformer and the passive
transformed is mended. No longer is the state vector the passive
victim. It fights back. :-) Is this fusion between the operator and
the state vector completes the self-referential feedback control
circuit and is the mechanism of free will?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We now apply this formalism to our situation. Let the general wave
function PSI be written as
PSI = Sum(i) ai PHIi CHIi (13)
where the CHIi denote states of the brain, and the PHIi are a set of
mutually orthogonal states of the rest of the universe. Suppose, for
simplicity, that at t = 0 the state PSI has the form
PSI = (a PHI+ + b PHI-) CHIo (14)
where PHI+ and PHI- are two macroscopically different states: suppose
PHI+ corresponds to a world in which the recorded numbers have a
positive bias, and PHI- corresponds to a state in which the recorded
numbers have a negative bias. Suppose the state CHIo is represented
for simplicity, by a compactly supported wave function in momentum
space (say in one variable p) and that the interaction Hamiltonian is
H = (|PHI+><PHI+| + |PHI-><PHI-|) Xop (15)
where Xop is the generator of translations in the variable p. Under the
action of this Hamiltonian the state (14) evolves into
PSI(t) = aPHI+ CHI+(t) + bPHI- CHI-(t), (16)
where the states CHI+(t) and CHI-(t), expressed in momentum space, are
displaced in opposite directions by an amount proportional to t.
Note that if F+ = |PHI+><(PHI+| and F- = |PHI-><(PHI-| then
f+(t) = <PSI(t)|F+|PSI(t)>
and
f-(t) = <PSI(t)|F-|PSI(t)>
are both independent of t: the probability of finding the system in the
positively (or negatively) biased state is not influenced by the action
of the "measurement" process generated by the H specified in (15).
This constancy of f+(t) and f_(t) is a general consequence of the fact
that the evolution is generated by a hermitian H that has no matrix
elements connecting the states |PHI+> and |PHI-> More generally, if the
Fi, i = 1,...,N, are a set of projection operators onto orthogonal
states |PHIi> in PHI space, and H has no diagonal elements connecting
any two different states |PHIi>, and if
PSI = Sum (i = 1 to N) aiPHIi CHIi
then
dfi(t)/dt = <PSI+(t)|[F,H]|PSI+(t)> = 0
the probabilities fi(t) remain constant.
If the different states |PHIi> represent macroscopically different
configurations (e.g., states in which different numbers are typed onto
cardboard sheets) then it would be unreasonable to allow H to have any
(significantly) nonzero matrix elements connecting them.
This argument is not altered by passing over to the nonlinear version
of the equation of motion represented by (12). As long as H has no
matrix elements connecting the macroscopically distinct states |PHIi>
there will be no transitions between these states, and hence no change
in the associated probabilities fi(t).
This argument apparently shows that Weinberg's theory by itself is not
sufficient to produce the reported phenomena. To model this effect we
take h(z,z*) = h'(z,z*) + ih"(z,z*), with h' and h" real. This
generalization of Weinberg's theory is examined next.
From the homogeneity condition (9) one obtains, as before (see (10)),
h(z,z*) = zn*Hnmzm (17)
but now with
Hnm = Hnm' + iHnm"
where
Hnm' = (Hmn')* (18a)
and
Hnm" = (Hmn")* (18b)
Weinberg's equation of motion for zn is
dzn/dt = -i (&^2h/&zn*&zm) zm = -iHnm zm (19)
Hence
dzn*/dt = iz*(Hmn' - iHmn") (20)
Consequently, the equation of motion for a real function f(z,z*)
becomes
df/dt = (d/dt)<z|f|z> = -I <z|[F, H']|z> + <z|{F,H"}|z> (21)
Where {F,H"} is the quantum anti-commutator FH" + H"F. This
anti-commutator term can contribute to df/dt even if H" is diagonal in
(PHI+, PHI-).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarfatti Commentary
Here is Stapp's original contribution beyond Weinberg's nonlinear
theory. It is not the nonlinearity of Weinberg's theory that is the
mechanism of "intentional" PK(i.e., psychokinetic) distortion of the
statistical predictions of orthodox quantum mechanics, but, rather it
is the new unorthodox anti-commutator {F,H媒 in the equation of motion
(in addition to the orthodox commutator [F,H綻) of the quantum
probabilities that comes from an explicit breaking of the symmetry of
unitarity. No longer can we assume that the transition probabilities
are frame-independent in Hilbert space because the generator of time
evolution is not Hermitian. The historical transformations for living
matter are, in this post-modern view of physics, essentially
nonunitary. This lack of conservation of total probability is the
quantitative measure of creative intelligence. Unitarity restricts
us to less than monkeys typing random word salad on the keyboard of the
cosmic computer.
Stapp gives an explicit example in equations (23) to (24) in which the
nonunitarity (i.e., H") causes df+/dt to be positive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
.. Hence the probability associated with the state |PHI+> will build
up, relative to the value |a|^2 prescribed by orthodox quantum theory.
This example shows that the reported phenomena, although contrary to
orthodox ideas about causality, can be modeled within a Weinberg-type
of nonlinear quantum theory if the Hamiltonian function h(PSI,PSI*) is
allowed to be nonreal.
If there are in nature nonlinear contributions of the kind indicated in
Eq. (23) then it seems likely that biological systems would develop in
such a way as to exploit the biasing action. The biasing states,
illustrated in the model by the state |CHI+>, could become tied, in the
course of biological evolution, to biological desiderata, so that the
statistical tendencies specified by the basic dynamics would be shifted
in a way that would enhance the survival of the organism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarfatti Commentary
The above remark is precisely the position advocated by Brian Josephson
in his Mind-Matter Unification Project at Cambridge University. Like
Stapp, Josephson has also been attacked for his unorthodox ideas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Weinberg nonlinearities were initially introduced in the present
context because of Gisin's result, which showed that these
nonlinearities could lead to causal anomalies of the EPR kind. However,
the considerations given above indicate that those nonlinearities alone
cannot produce anomalies of the kind reported in ref. 8: a nonreal h is
apparently needed to obtain an effect of that kind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarfatti Commentary
This is strange. Weinberg's nonlinearity, according to Gisin, is
sufficient to allow causal anomalies on the nonlocal quantum
connection, but it is not enough to permit the controlled intentional
PK intentional controlled distortion of quantum statistics. What does
Gisin mean by "causal anomalies"? Weinberg, says his theory permits
use of the nonlocal quantum connection as a communication channel which
is why he rejected it. The fact that an atomic physics experiment did
not show the nonlinearity is not relevant because the present claim is
that the new effects can only be seen in living matter. How can there
be such violation of Eberhard's theorem without nonunitarity of t
he type modelled by Stapp?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Because the nonlinear aspect is not obviously needed, one could try to
revert to a linear theory. Yet it is important to recognize that in
the modeling of acausal effects one has available the more general
nonlinear framework. If the purported acausal phenomena is a real
physical effect and is explainable in terms of a nonreal h that arises
solely in conjunction with nonlinear terms, as in the model given
above, then orthodox quantum theory could become simply the linear
approximation to a more adequate nonlinear theory.
References
l. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780
(1935).
2. J.S. Bell, Physics 1, 195-200 (1964).
3. H.P. Stapp, Phys. Rev. A47, 847-853 (1993); Phys. Rev. A46,
6860-6868 (1992); Bell's theorem in an indeterministic universe,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-29836 (1993) (with D. Bedford)
Submitted to Synthese.
4. P. Eberhard, Nuovo Cim. 46B, 392-418 (1978).
5. S. Weinberg Ann. Phys. (NY) 194, 336-386 (1989).
6. N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A 143, 1-2 (1990).
7. H. Schmidt, J. Am. Soc. Psy. Res. 38, 267-291 (1976). R. Jahn, Y.
Dobyns, and B. Dunne, Soc. of Sci. Expl. 5, 20S-232 (1991).
8. H. Schmidt, Observation of a psychoScinetic effect under highly
controlled conditions, Soc. of Sci. Exp.
9. J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,
Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1955. Ch EII.
10. W. Pauli, quoted in Mind, Matter and Pauli, Chap. 7 of ref. 12.
11 H. P. Stapp, Amer. J. Phys. 40, 1098-1116, (1985).
12. H.P. Stapp, Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin and Heidelberg, 1993.
Steven Howard
>Well, it looks like we have yet another burning at the cross of
>Scientific Fundamentalism. The treatment of telepathy in general, much
>less the inverted intertemporal causation that has been researched (or
>whatever the official name is), reminds me of the way the Salem witches
>were only proven innocent of witchcraft if they drowned, but were guilty
>and burned if they survived a plunge into the lake.
Huh? That's not Salem you're thinking of, it's medieval Europe. The
Salem witches were convicted in courts of law, based on sworn
testimony. And then they were hanged, not burned. The big joke in
Salem was that if you confessed, and agreed to testify against
other "witches", they'd usually let you go, whereas if you
maintained your innocence, they'd try and convict you. Get your
witch hunts straight.
>I can't even believe telepathy hasn't been fully accepted by the
>scientific community. How many times does statistical significance with
>p=.0000001 need to be demonstrated with skeptics present before this is
>accepted?
An indefinite number of times. This is what is meant, in science, by
replication. No matter how many times the experiment is performed,
the "expected" result should obtain. Of course, even ONCE would be
a good start.
--
==========
Steven Howard
bl...@qedbbs.com
Brian Zeiler
>Of course, even ONCE would be
>a good start.
You are grossly inaccurate. It's been done, replicated, and validated.
--
Brian Zeiler
Halibut
: I can't even believe telepathy hasn't been fully accepted by the
: scientific community. How many times does statistical significance with
: p=.0000001 need to be demonstrated with skeptics present before this is
: accepted?
Isn't that a function of the number of times telepathy
experiments are done with NO results that are statistically significant? :)
Brian Zeiler
professional academic peer-reviewed journals, try the academic-maintained
Parapsychology FAQ at
http://eeyore.lv-hrc.nevada.edu/~cogno/para1.html
You can find the references I believe on the second page or so. I don't
think this is "paranormal". It's just unexplained by our present state
of knowledge. I feel it is probably some neurochemical process related
to the physics of consciousness that somehow transcends the physical
boundaries of space and time. There is plenty of proof out there.
Nobody even debunks it anymore.
Telepathy probably has survival value, but it was extinguished as we grew
intelligent. That's why, as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", as we
all learned in introductory psychology, children are known to have better
telepathy skills than adults.
You can find experiments with individuals affecting normal distributions
with significance in terms of random number generators and randomly
falling marbles, and in terms of precognitive abilities in guessing
cards, pictures, shapes, and so on.
--
Brian Zeiler
Robert A. Decker
<bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> I can't even believe telepathy hasn't been fully accepted by the
> scientific community. How many times does statistical significance with
> p=.0000001 need to be demonstrated with skeptics present before this is
> accepted?
>
I'm not sure what experiments you're referring to. All I can say is that
no reported positive results have reproduced. In fact, when the methods of
researchers in this area have been examined (this has occurred on several
occasions) they were found to be flawed (i.e., the person running the
experiment knew what the results should be... other problems too, but I
can't remember what... look in one of the recent issues of the Skeptical
Inquirer).
When they changed the experiments to remove the bias the results were
insignificant. The paranormal researchers cried foul and said that when
studying something like paranormal activity you can't use normal
scientififc methods. This, of course, precludes the data being accepted by
the scientific community and brings us right back to your question. So the
answer is, it will be accepted by the sciientififc community when it's
scientific.
rob
Brian Zeiler
Check the sources in the web page I posted somewhere in this thread.
Many studies are cited in academic journals.
--
Brian Zeiler
Jack Sarfatti
simplest case of Bohm's theory it is the equation:
dx/dt = (1/m)grad S (1)
where S is the phase of the wavefunction psi = Re^iS (hbar = 1).
One needs one initial condition x(0). The initial velocity dx(0)/dt
is computed from the above equation.
Newton's second law is
d^2x/dt^2 = -(1/m)grad (V + Q) (2)
where V is the classical potential and Q is the nonlocal quantum
potential which depends only on R.
This distinction must be borne in mind in extending to the quantum
gravity problem.
That is, the evolution of our universe in physical time
&gij(x,t)/&t = &iNj + &jNi + 2NGijkl &S/&gkl (1')
is the analog in Bohm's version of quantum gravity, with functional
derivatives & replacing ordinary derivatives d and the point of
superspace gij (3-geometry) replacing x in eq 1 - the proper analog is
not (2).
The main metaphysical spiritual point is that if the wave function of
the universe is Hawking's "Mind of God". S is the phase of that
wave function. It is part of the solution of the Wheeler-Dewitt
equation which operates outside of physical time, but we see that it
projects down into the physical time evolution of our universe in eq.
(1'). The phase S of the Mind of God moves space in time but is not
moved by the space it moves. It is the un-moved mover -- at least in
the approximation that is orthodox quantum mechanics. We propose a
theory beyond this one in which we creatures stuck inside spacetime can
directly act back on the Mind of God. This is the Qabalistic Secret of
what the Old Testament means about "Talking with God". In conventional
theory we can hear GOD but GOD is deaf to us. Not so in the theory I
propose.
Jack Sarfatti
Sarfatti ) writes:
>not (2).
>
>The main metaphysical spiritual point is that if the wave function of
>the universe is Hawking's "Mind of God". S is the phase of that
>wave function. It is part of the solution of the Wheeler-Dewitt
>equation which operates outside of physical time, but we see that it
>projects down into the physical time evolution of our universe in eq.
>(1'). The phase S of the Mind of God moves space in time but is not
>moved by the space it moves. It is the un-moved mover -- at least in
>the approximation that is orthodox quantum mechanics. We propose a
>theory beyond this one in which we creatures stuck inside spacetime
>can directly act back on the Mind of God. This is the Qabalistic
>Secret of what the Old Testament means about "Talking with God". In
>conventional theory we can hear GOD but GOD is deaf to us. Not so in
>the theory I propose.
There is an interwsting analogy here. When Moses went up on the
Mountain and had a conversation with GOD he found the people
worshipping the Calf of God. The worlship of the Old Idols is sort of
like orthodox quantum mechanics in which Man is a passive servant of
the generally Cruel Gods. But when we put in the feedback of the
particle on its wave function - that is the source of our Freedom.
We are no longer Slaves of Destiny.
Jack Sarfatti
This is the correction:
>In <40jqkv$6...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> sarf...@ix.netcom.com (Jack
>Sarfatti ) writes:
>
>
>
>There is an interesting analogy here. When Moses went up on the
>Mountain and had a conversation with GOD, on his return he found the
>people worshipping the Calf of Gold. The worship of the Old Idols is
Johan Wevers
>I can't even believe telepathy hasn't been fully accepted by the
>scientific community. How many times does statistical significance with
>p=.0000001 need to be demonstrated with skeptics present before this is
>accepted?
If you want to convince me, don't play with statistics but sent me
telepathically a clear message. Then I will believe it is possible.
--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers || The only nature of reality is physics.
joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl || http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
Finger joh...@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key. PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1
Johan Wevers
>think this is "paranormal". It's just unexplained by our present state
>of knowledge. I feel it is probably some neurochemical process
Influence of specially designed EM fields, maybe generated by other brains,
on the brain I could believe in if it were not for the fact that the
measurement of EM fields generated by the brain showed that those fields
are very weak and can't have any influence on other brains.
>related to the physics of consciousness that somehow transcends the physical
>boundaries of space and time.
This is nonsense. "Consciousness" is nothing but a coordinating function of
the brain. It has nothing special about it, only some people seem to think
so. There is even proof that consciousness as we know it is related to our
linguistic skills: humans growing up without "exposure" to spoken language
seem unable to make a clear distinction between fantasy and reality. Of
course, there are some difficulties testing this rigorously.
>There is plenty of proof out there.
Where? The only "proof" I see are some messy statistics. Maybe fine for
parapsylologisys but not for me.
>Nobody even debunks it anymore.
I do. And I'm not the only one.
>Telepathy probably has survival value, but it was extinguished as we grew
>intelligent.
I don't take this. Telepathically using an arrow is much more efficient to
kill a prey than using a bow.
If you want people to take this stuff seriously you'll have to come up
with more than messy statistics.
David Longley
joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl "Johan Wevers" writes:
>
> This is nonsense. "Consciousness" is nothing but a coordinating function of
> the brain. It has nothing special about it, only some people seem to think
> so. There is even proof that consciousness as we know it is related to our
> linguistic skills: humans growing up without "exposure" to spoken language
> seem unable to make a clear distinction between fantasy and reality. Of
> course, there are some difficulties testing this rigorously.
>
I'd be grateful for any references you can provide on the point made in your
second sentence.
--
David Longley
Ken Watson
>--
>David Longley
Hope you don't mind me butting in on this discussion. Actually, I'm
not sure it's relevant to this discussion group, but here goes:
try "the Psychology of Human Thought" (Edited by Robert J.Sternberg
and Edward E. Smith; publisher: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
Particularly chapter 8, Language & Thought. Amongst other insights, it
discusses the differences in perception/thought that arise from
differences in language of various peoples in the world.
If you're looking for a completely new and fascinating theory on the
development of consciousness in humans, try Julian Jayne's "The origin
of Consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind" (Houghton
Mifflin, 1976 & 1990)
Ken Watson
Reeuwijk, The Netherlands
Jack Sarfatti
<Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <302e03c3.5...@vulcan.xs4all.nl>
> joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl "Johan Wevers" writes:
>>
>> This is nonsense. "Consciousness" is nothing but a coordinating
>>function of the brain.
Fine, but the problem is in the details. What is the physical structure
of your "coordinating function" other than the name you just gave it?
It has nothing special about it, only some people seem to think so.
Indeed, that's true. Take William James for a start.
>There is even proof that consciousness as we know it is related to our
>> linguistic skills:
No one doubts that - but that is not the point.
Jack Sarfatti
(Johan Wevers) writes:
>
>Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>>I can't even believe telepathy hasn't been fully accepted by the
>>scientific community. How many times does statistical significance
with
>>p=.0000001 need to be demonstrated with skeptics present before this
is
>>accepted?
>
>If you want to convince me, don't play with statistics but sent me
>telepathically a clear message. Then I will believe it is possible.
>
>--
A valid point.
Jack Sarfatti
state of knowledge. I feel it is probably some neurochemical process
>
>Influence of specially designed EM fields, maybe generated by other
brains, on the brain I could believe in if it were not for the fact
that the measurement of EM fields generated by the brain showed that
those fields are very weak and can't have any influence on other
brains.
Agreed it is probably not near field effects of brain on brain -- but
that possibility cannot be excluded and experiments should be made if
they can be thought of.
>
>>related to the physics of consciousness that somehow transcends the
physical boundaries of space and time.
>
>This is nonsense.
It's not nonsense. Stapp and others have shown how a plausible
modification of quantum mechanics can permit information transfer
between widely separated entangled quantum systems. Orthodox quantum
mechanics does not permit it.
Brian Zeiler
>If you want to convince me, don't play with statistics but sent me
>telepathically a clear message. Then I will believe it is possible.
That is an absurd fallacy. Not everybody has the skill, and not
everybody can control it. I like your proof-by-convenience; since when
do you reject the notion of significance testing under controlled
procedures?
--
Brian Zeiler
Gilgamesh
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Check the sources in the web page I posted somewhere in this thread.
>Many studies are cited in academic journals.
I have enocuntered Rob in this category before, I'm sure you will have better
luck than I did, trying to show some of the Scientific implications
of PK abilities and such.
I pointed to the Canadian Archaeology Association, and how the president of
this group strongly urged the use of psychics in finding and dating and
understanding the use of certain artifacts. How some of these psychics, or
whatever they might be called, could relate to others some of the more
uncommon charchteristics of past societies, in some cases, though mundane,
hair styles and dress would be reported on by these psychics, with great
accuracy mind you.
BTW- Did you ever post something, Brian, about the Disney Video?
I thought I saw a related thread??
Brian Zeiler
>BTW- Did you ever post something, Brian, about the Disney Video?
>I thought I saw a related thread??
Not explicitly yet. I'll try later this week. I've been trying to get a
hold of the elusive producer of the film. It is an OBVIOUS propaganda
attempt, and Disney has done this before in 1953. If this show were
hyped in a big way and shown on Sunday night prime time, it would be
curtains for the cover up, I think. Most of it is what I always talk
about here -- documents, Mexico, etc. Great film. After I move I'll
probably post a Disney recap and get to work digitizing some AVI's of
the Mexico footage with permission. That way we can stop marketing it
verbally and show people what's REALLY on the tape.
--
Brian Zeiler
Anthony Potts
On 11 Aug 1995, Brian Zeiler wrote:
> Well, it looks like we have yet another burning at the cross of
> Scientific Fundamentalism. The treatment of telepathy in general, much
> less the inverted intertemporal causation that has been researched (or
> whatever the official name is), reminds me of the way the Salem witches
> were only proven innocent of witchcraft if they drowned, but were guilty
> and burned if they survived a plunge into the lake.
>
> I can't even believe telepathy hasn't been fully accepted by the
> scientific community. How many times does statistical significance with
> p=.0000001 need to be demonstrated with skeptics present before this is
> accepted?
>
> --
If you can give a few examples of cases in which this is achieved, and
which are open to testing, then I am willing to listen and believe. I am
the archetypal mainstream physicist, and the only reason that I do not
believe in subjects such as as the paranormal yet is that I have not seen
any papers written and properly presented on the subject. Perhaps the
journals are not allowing them, but I can't believe that a true psychic
could not put on a demonstration for someone like CBS, and then show the
world what is happening.
Anthony Potts
Hauke Reddmann
: Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
: ->I can't even believe telepathy hasn't been fully accepted by the
: ->scientific community. How many times does statistical significance with
: ->p=.0000001 need to be demonstrated with skeptics present before this is
: ->accepted?
: Just once as far as I'm concerned, if I'm the skeptic present when it
: happens!
For me, if I can buy a Japanese telepathic-controlled TV-set!
--
Hauke Reddmann fc3...@rzaixsrv2.rrz.uni-hamburg.de
<:-EX8
Lawrence R. Mead
: Well, it looks like we have yet another burning at the cross of
: Scientific Fundamentalism. The treatment of telepathy in general, much
: less the inverted intertemporal causation that has been researched (or
: whatever the official name is), reminds me of the way the Salem witches
: were only proven innocent of witchcraft if they drowned, but were guilty
: and burned if they survived a plunge into the lake.
: I can't even believe telepathy hasn't been fully accepted by the
: scientific community. How many times does statistical significance with
: p=.0000001 need to be demonstrated with skeptics present before this is
: accepted?
: --
: Brian Zeiler
Once; but of course this has not happened yet in a repeatable fashion.
--
Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu)
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www.usm.edu/usmhburg/sci_tech/phy/mead.html
Johan Wevers
>>If you want to convince me, don't play with statistics but sent me
>>telepathically a clear message. Then I will believe it is possible.
>That is an absurd fallacy. Not everybody has the skill, and not
>everybody can control it.
Well then let someone who claims to have the skill sent me a message.
>I like your proof-by-convenience; since when do you reject the notion of
>significance testing under controlled procedures?
The problem is that the only "results" from paranormal research are some
statistics who claim to find something which is just a very little bit more
than to be expected from pure random succes. And every time someone who
claims to have found something paranormal is investigated thorough by people
who know much more of statistics than I do, they find that there is really
nothing found, the method was flawed in a non-trivial way or it was just
downright fraud like the case with the polywater. This makes me _VERY_
suspicious of _EVERY_ paranormal claim, and so you need to do a lot better
than unclear statistics to convince me.
Patrick Juola
Lawrence R. Mead <lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>Brian Zeiler (bdze...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
>: I can't even believe telepathy hasn't been fully accepted by the
>: scientific community. How many times does statistical significance with
>: p=.0000001 need to be demonstrated with skeptics present before this is
>: accepted?
>
Do I need to point out the fallacy in this statement? If it only
needs to happen once, then repetability doesn't matter.
Standards of evidence of course vary from person to person -- in hard
sciences as well as the softer versions.... There's a research group
here at CU that's trying to determine whether gravity really does
fall off as 1/r^2 and have confirmed that the 2 is accurate to about
one part in a billion. Most of the rest of us use the 2 as though it
were completely accurate.
I think a better description of the standards that most of us would
use is any single experimental design, if it's something that can be
built and used anywhere, by anyone, would be convincing. I've not yet
seen a published experiment that a skeptic could reproduce and confirm
from the journal articles.
Oh, and skeptics "present" buys nothing. Stage magicians *always* have
skeptics present in the audience. I want something that I can perform
on stage *myself*....
Patrick
Jack Sarfatti
fc3...@rzaix02.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann) writes:
>
>Bryan King Parker (par...@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
>: Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>: ->scientific community. How many times does statistical
significance with
>: ->p=.0000001 need to be demonstrated with skeptics present before
this is
>
>: Just once as far as I'm concerned, if I'm the skeptic present when
it
>: happens!
>
>For me, if I can buy a Japanese telepathic-controlled TV-set!
>
Richard Caldwell
In article <40o0dn$k...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, <ju...@suod.cs.colorado.edu>
writes:
> Standards of evidence of course vary from person to person -- in hard
> sciences as well as the softer versions.... There's a research group
> here at CU that's trying to determine whether gravity really does
> fall off as 1/r^2 and have confirmed that the 2 is accurate to about
> one part in a billion. Most of the rest of us use the 2 as though it
> were completely accurate.
What a joke! The inverse square law has nothing to do with gravity in
particular. It is a result of the geometry of anything that radiates
spherically from a point source. The surface area of a sphere increases with
the square of the radius, so the flux density of anything radiating uniformly
from a point source must decrease with the square of the distance from the
source.
The only way this could not be true is if something (like gravity) doesn't
radiate uniformly in all directions. This is true when you're very close to a
large body of irregular shape and irregular density. That's why they can use
variations in gravimetric readings to predict vocanic eruptions.
Richard
Gilgamesh
sarf...@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti ) wrote:
>>For me, if I can buy a Japanese telepathic-controlled TV-set!
>>
>You will. You will. :-)
They have out now, or soon, a device that works for software on your computer.
You strap your finger into this velcro strap, that rests on your desk, that is
connected to your computer. Your finger sits there and you think the moves,
and the computer will move your little Mario Around! Serious.
They'll be in the stores soon at will cost $150.
Now we, as a race will never fully develope PK abilities, this computer
machine will be helping us now. Or will it improve our dormant PK abilities?
Jack Sarfatti
writes:
It should. It should. :-)
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
That's not quite that simple. If you've a force propagated by massive bosons
(i.e. particles with a finite lifetime) the force drops faster than inverse
square, in spite of spherical symmetry. If you prefer to think in terms of
field lines and flux, think about a situation in which each field line, instead
of extending indefinitely, has a finite probability per unit length to be
terminated. Clearly Gauss' Law isn't exactly fulfilled under this
circumstances. Better yet, imagine light radiated by a point source in an
absorbing medium. At any given distance the distribution is spherically
symmetric. Nevertheless, the intensity drop is faster than inverse square.
Beyond this, I think that the previous poster also has a small misunderstanding.
The statement "the power is 2 to within one part in a billion" doesn't mean "it
is not really 2, but it is close". What it does mean is "to within the
accuracy to which we can measure (which happens to be one part in a billion),
we see no contradiction to the claim that the power is 2". Therefore, it is
misleading to say "Most of the rest of us use the 2 as though it were
completely accurate". It is completely accurate, at the moment, to the level to
which we can measure, and that's the most one can ever say about the accuracy
of a physical value.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Johan Wevers
>I'd be grateful for any references you can provide on the point made in your
>second sentence.
I've my information from a Dutch book "Hersenen en Gedrag" (Brain and
Behaviour) from Yves Christen and Kenneth Klivington, ISBN 90 70 157 89 6.
I do know there exists an French edition and I think also an English one.
Anthony Potts
On Mon, 14 Aug 1995, Richard Caldwell wrote:
>
> What a joke! The inverse square law has nothing to do with gravity in
> particular. It is a result of the geometry of anything that radiates
> spherically from a point source. The surface area of a sphere increases with
> the square of the radius, so the flux density of anything radiating uniformly
> from a point source must decrease with the square of the distance from the
> source.
>
> The only way this could not be true is if something (like gravity) doesn't
> radiate uniformly in all directions. This is true when you're very close to a
> large body of irregular shape and irregular density. That's why they can use
> variations in gravimetric readings to predict vocanic eruptions.
>
> Richard
>
Richard, I am sorry to disillusion you here, but your arguments are
wrong. Forces only drop off as inverse square if they are mediated by
massless bosons, giving them a potential which is like
1/r
If you have massive vector bosons (as in the weak force), then you get a
Yukowa potential, which is like
e^(k.r)
-------
r
Which gives you the propagator in the feynman diagrams of
F(q) = 1
-------
q^2+m^2
And most definitely NOT 1/r^2.
I understand that this is pretty specific stuff, but it is well within
undergraduate level, and you do yourself no favours by starting off your
statement with "What a joke!", perhaps you could be a little less
insulting in future when you want to educate someone. It is perfectly
valid to probe the inverse square law for gravity. It is the same as
trying to measure the mass of the graviton.
Anthony Potts.
Patrick Juola
>>In article <40o0dn$k...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, <ju...@suod.cs.colorado.edu>
>>writes:
>>
>>> Standards of evidence of course vary from person to person -- in hard
>>> sciences as well as the softer versions.... There's a research group
>>> here at CU that's trying to determine whether gravity really does
>>> fall off as 1/r^2 and have confirmed that the 2 is accurate to about
>>> one part in a billion. Most of the rest of us use the 2 as though it
>>> were completely accurate.
>>
>>
>
>misunderstanding.
As the previous poster, I stand by my statement.
>The statement "the power is 2 to within one part in a billion" doesn't mean
>"it is not really 2, but it is close". What it does mean is "to within the
>accuracy to which we can measure (which happens to be one part in a billion),
>we see no contradiction to the claim that the power is 2". Therefore, it is
>misleading to say "Most of the rest of us use the 2 as though it were
>completely accurate". It is completely accurate, at the moment, to the level
>to which we can measure, and that's the most one can ever say about the
>accuracy of a physical value.
Except that with any measured quantity comes an explicit uncertainty,
measured in the form of "error bars," which represent explicitly the
amount of inaccuracy that would not be noticed by the experiment at hand.
Failure to take into account the expected range of error is bad science.
Very few physicists, or scientists of any stripe, actually take into
account the (known) potential inaccuracy in the square, preferring instead
to treat it as an exact value -- e.g. "use the 2 as though it were
completely accurate." Given the fact that the inaccuracy is on the
order of a ten-millionth of a percent, that's a reasonable approximation
for calculations with significantly higher "errors" elsewhere -- but it
also completely dominates, for example, our uncertainty in the value
of pi and might have significant effects on a hypothetical graviton
detector.
Patrick
SPHINX Technologies
Gilgamesh <gil...@primenet.com> wrote:
>They have out now, or soon, a device that works for software on your computer.
>You strap your finger into this velcro strap, that rests on your desk, that is
>connected to your computer. Your finger sits there and you think the moves,
>and the computer will move your little Mario Around! Serious.
>They'll be in the stores soon at will cost $150.
>Now we, as a race will never fully develope PK abilities, this computer
>machine will be helping us now. Or will it improve our dormant PK abilities?
You folks should get acquainted with the research of Prof. Robert E. Jahn,
former Dean of Engineering at Princeton University. Last I heard, his lab
had a Fabry-Perot interferometer hooked up to a strain gauge, and many of
his lab subjects are able to think at it and cause interference fringes to
appear. Anybody have any recent info on Jahn's research?
-John Sangster
Wellesley Hills, MA
SPHINX Technologies
Johan Wevers <joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>The problem is that the only "results" from paranormal research are some
>statistics who claim to find something which is just a very little bit more
The same, EXACTLY the same, can be said for radar returns which are generally
accepted as proving that radar contact has been made with... the planet
Venus. (No, REALLY, I *MEAN* the *REAL* planet Venus!)
>... And every time someone who
>claims to have found something paranormal is investigated thorough by people
>who know much more of statistics than I do, they find that there is really
>nothing found, the method was flawed in a non-trivial way or it was just
>downright fraud like the case with the polywater. This makes me _VERY_
>suspicious of _EVERY_ paranormal claim, and so you need to do a lot better
>than unclear statistics to convince me.
This seems to conflict with growing evidence that "remote viewing" is
becoming accepted in military circles as a useful operational tool.
A lot of progress in applying it has evidently been made since Puthoff
and Targ published their article in the March, 1976 issue of Proceedings
of the IEEE and since Prof. Robert E. Jahn, former Princeton Dean of
Engineering, published his survey of the field in the November? 1982 issue
of the same engineering journal. See for example, Howard Blum's account of
the Navy's alleged AQUARIUS project in his book "Out There". Acc. to Blum,
this project is an offshoot of Puthoff's and Targ's work.
Jack Sarfatti
Technologies) writes:
>
>
>>... And every time someone who
>>claims to have found something paranormal is investigated thorough by
people who know much more of statistics than I do, they find that there
is really nothing found, the method was flawed in a non-trivial way or
it was just downright fraud like the case with the polywater. This
makes me _VERY_suspicious of _EVERY_ paranormal claim, and so you need
to do a lot better than unclear statistics to convince me.
>
>This seems to conflict with growing evidence that "remote viewing" is
>becoming accepted in military circles as a useful operational tool.
>A lot of progress in applying it has evidently been made since Puthoff
>and Targ published their article in the March, 1976 issue of
Proceedings of the IEEE and since Prof. Robert E. Jahn, former
Princeton Dean of Engineering, published his survey of the field in
the November? 1982 issue of the same engineering journal. See for
example, Howard Blum's account of the Navy's alleged AQUARIUS project
in his book "Out There". Acc. to Blum, this project is an offshoot of
Puthoff's and Targ's work.
>
>-John Sangster
> Wellesley Hills, MA
Yes, the late Harold Chipman, a former Station Chief CIA and one of
my funders in the mid-80's told me that he directed a covert operation
during the Cold War that used remote viewing quite successfully.
The US Army has funded this sort of thing for some time which is
why the attack on Stapp in Physics Today is a bit fishy - the fellow
may be trying to debunk Stapp to keep his own project under cover.
Richard Caldwell
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950815122056.1062F-100000@cms4>, <po...@cern.ch>
writes:
> Richard, I am sorry to disillusion you here, but your arguments are
> wrong. Forces only drop off as inverse square if they are mediated by
> massless bosons, giving them a potential which is like
>
> 1/r
>
> If you have massive vector bosons (as in the weak force), then you get a
> Yukowa potential, which is like
>
> e^(k.r)
> -------
> r
>
> Which gives you the propagator in the feynman diagrams of
>
> F(q) = 1
> -------
> q^2+m^2
>
> And most definitely NOT 1/r^2.
>
> I understand that this is pretty specific stuff, but it is well within
> undergraduate level, and you do yourself no favours by starting off your
> statement with "What a joke!", perhaps you could be a little less
> insulting in future when you want to educate someone. It is perfectly
> valid to probe the inverse square law for gravity. It is the same as
> trying to measure the mass of the graviton.
>
> Anthony Potts.
I started off with "What a joke!" just in case it was a troll. I often make
the mistake of taking trolls too seriously. Call me gullible (Andrea did ;-).
As to the propagation of forces using massive bosons and other forces like the
weak and strong nuclear forces, I agree that they don't obey the inverse
square law.
If your original post meant that they were testing the nature of gravitons
(massive bosons vs. massless bosons) by measuring how closely it obeys the
inverse square law, I have no problem with that.
Or, if they were testing to see if space follows Euclidian or non-Euclidian
geometry, I can accept that.
But, it seemed to imply that the researchers were testing the accuracy of the
power of 2 in the inverse square law itself. This is obviously a joke since
it is not based on some characteristic of gravity, EMR, or any other physical
phenomenon, but on the simple geometric equation for the surface area of a
sphere. Geometry, being abstract and not hobbled by the messiness of reality,
has simple equations with exact values like 2, and totally inexact values like
pi.
So, no offense intended, maybe I misunderstood the intent of the experiment as
you described it. It wouldn't be the first time.
Richard
Lawrence R. Mead
: joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl (Johan Wevers) wrote:
: >If you want to convince me, don't play with statistics but sent me
: >telepathically a clear message. Then I will believe it is possible.
: That is an absurd fallacy. Not everybody has the skill, and not
: everybody can control it. I like your proof-by-convenience; since when
: do you reject the notion of significance testing under controlled
: procedures?
When it is not repeatable *on demand* by anyone who wishes to investigate
the "phenomenon". Furthermore, the controlled procedures you extoll turn
out more often than not to *not* be controlled (see Skeptical Enquirer
on this point from experts on the subject).
York H. Dobyns
>For outstanding references to statistically significant results in
>professional academic peer-reviewed journals, try the academic-maintained
>Parapsychology FAQ at
>
>http://eeyore.lv-hrc.nevada.edu/~cogno/para1.html
>
>You can find the references I believe on the second page or so. I don't
>of knowledge.
This, of course, is exactly what "paranormal" was intended to mean when
it was first coined: "unexplained by present knowledge."
Unfortunately its meaning has shifted so that for many it seems to
connote "supernatural, impossible, or preposterous." Hence the tendency
of some (yours truly included) to avoid the term and look for vocabulary
that doesn't carry the same emotional loading. Of course, in the long
run it seems that any term for the currently unexplained gets tarred
with the same brush; there are just too many people who seem to think
that because we know so much, anything we can't currently explain must
be superstition.
--
York Dobyns ydo...@phoenix.princeton.edu
Honest skeptics must be willing to question *their own* beliefs, as
well as those of people with whom they disagree.
York H. Dobyns
>In article <40epq2$h...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, Brian Zeiler
><bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I can't even believe telepathy hasn't been fully accepted by the
>
> I'm not sure what experiments you're referring to. All I can say is that
>no reported positive results have reproduced. In fact, when the methods of
>researchers in this area have been examined (this has occurred on several
>occasions) they were found to be flawed (i.e., the person running the
>experiment knew what the results should be... other problems too, but I
>can't remember what... look in one of the recent issues of the Skeptical
>Inquirer).
And so, one of the favorite urban legends of the skeptical community is
revived for another round. Since the original poster speaks only of
"telepathy", I will limit myself to citing the January 1994
_Psychological Bulletin_ article by Daryl Bem and Charles Honorton.
The experimental design used in those experiments was that proposed in
the mid-1980's in a joint paper by Honorton and the well-known and vocal
skeptic Ray Hyman, to answer objections that had been raised about
earlier experiments. The experiment reported by Bem and Honorton showed
highly significant positive results, making it the latest in a long
series of successful replications. Hyman himself has reluctantly
admitted that the experiments answered "most" of his concerns, although
as far as I know he has in fact failed to come up with any specific
objection that was *not* answered.
> When they changed the experiments to remove the bias the results were
>insignificant.
Again, simply false. The Bem-Honorton experiments closed off several
sources of _potential_ (not demonstrated) bias or sensory leakage
identified by Hyman and Honorton in earlier ganzfeld work, but a
strongly significant effect nevertheless persisted. (About a 33% hit
rate, with 25% being expected by chance, over several hundred trials.)
>The paranormal researchers cried foul and said that when
>studying something like paranormal activity you can't use normal
>scientififc methods.
Again, false. Honorton, his colleague Dean Radin, who has been involved
in (thus far unpublished) replications of his work at Edinburgh and
UNLV, and various other researchers in the same or related fields,
employ rigorous scientific methodology throughout. If there is a
departure from "normal scientific methods," it is that they have to be
even *more* careful than researchers in less controversial fields.
Parapsychologists tend to "cry foul", with cause, when they see
themselves as victims of the moving target syndrome: the last round of
objections is met, a new experiment is designed, it produces positive
results--and instead of being accepted as a confirming replication, new
and more stringent standards of proof are erected so as to disallow the
new result.
As Bem and Honorton point out, the autoganzfeld results surpass in both
statistical significance *and scale of effect* the now-famous study of
the effects of regular small doses of aspirin on heart attack incidence.
And yet, even though it now seems to be accepted as common knowledge
that aspirin can reduce your risk of a heart attack, most commentators
seem to reject as intrinsically absurd, regardless of the weight of
supporting evidence, the notion that one person can know something about
what another person in a separate, soundproof room is perceiving without
some contact through the currently known senses.
>This, of course, precludes the data being accepted by
>the scientific community and brings us right back to your question. So the
>answer is, it will be accepted by the sciientififc community when it's
>scientific.
It is already scientific; the methodology and analysis of most recent
work are in accord with the best standards of experimental science.
Despite that, it is rejected by most (though not all) of the scientific
community.
Doug Merritt
>But, it seemed to imply that the researchers were testing the accuracy of the
>power of 2 in the inverse square law itself. This is obviously a joke since
>it is not based on some characteristic of gravity, EMR, or any other physical
>phenomenon, but on the simple geometric equation for the surface area of a
>sphere. Geometry, being abstract and not hobbled by the messiness of reality,
>has simple equations with exact values like 2, and totally inexact values like
>pi.
You're *still* missing a point. This is the same issue as
non-Euclidean geometry, from a different angle.
Look at it the other way around; if the actual exponent turned out
to be 2.000000000000007915, then you'd have an argument that space
had a fractal geometry (which is certainly non-Euclidean).
Your "obvious joke" and the "simple geometric equation" etc are
all based on assumptions about which mathematical systems apply
to the universe. Those assumptions could be quite wrong (outside
the limits where they've been tested so far).
And in fact it has not infrequently been argued that space might
indeed have a fractal geometry of some sort. Other kinds of arguments have
also been put forth in a few papers for why the exponent might not be
exactly two.
So you're still too quick to assume what is possible versus ludicrous.
You'd be on stronger ground just to take Ockham's razor: there is
as yet no particularly compelling reason to think it *isn't* exactly two,
that's all. But who knows.
Doug
--
Doug Merritt do...@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow
Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
john baez
>In article <40o0dn$k...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, <ju...@suod.cs.colorado.edu>
>writes:
>> Standards of evidence of course vary from person to person -- in hard
>> sciences as well as the softer versions.... There's a research group
>> here at CU that's trying to determine whether gravity really does
>> fall off as 1/r^2 and have confirmed that the 2 is accurate to about
>> one part in a billion. Most of the rest of us use the 2 as though it
>> were completely accurate.
>What a joke! The inverse square law has nothing to do with gravity in
>particular. It is a result of the geometry of anything that radiates
>spherically from a point source. The surface area of a sphere increases with
>the square of the radius, so the flux density of anything radiating uniformly
>from a point source must decrease with the square of the distance from the
>source.
>The only way this could not be true is if something (like gravity) doesn't
>radiate uniformly in all directions.
It ain't no joke. If you study general relativity you'll see that
the inverse square law is only appromximately true. However, the
deviations are only predicted for large masses. The research team
at CU certainly must know about general relativity, and I suspect the
deviations they are looking for are of a different sort. To take
a rather kludgey example, if one took linearized general relativity,
which is the theory of a massless spin-2 field, usually called the
"graviton", and gave the graviton a small mass, there would be
an approximately exponential correction factor to the inverse square
law. This is not a very pretty theory, but my point is that the
inverse square law is not an a priori fact about nature; one can (and
has) come up with theories in which it doesn't hold, so it makes
sense for people to go out there and look to see how well it really
does hold.
In particle physics one expects inverse square laws to hold for
forces that are carried by a massless particle, so one expects it
to hold for electromagnetism, which is carried by the (presumably!)
massless photon. Conversely, in the *linearized* (i.e. approximate)
version of general relativity gravity satisfies an inverse square
law and thus one expects it to be carried by a massless particle,
the graviton (which however has not yet been seen; it'd be too
wimpy for present experiments to see anyway). But forces carried
by massive particles, such as the weak nuclear force, do not satisfy
inverse square laws. The strong nuclear force is evern more
subtle, but it doesn't satisfy an inverse square law either.
Johan Wevers
>Agreed it is probably not near field effects of brain on brain -- but
>that possibility cannot be excluded and experiments should be made if
>they can be thought of.
That's very easy. Very weak fields already disturb measurements outside the
skull of the EM fields generated by the brain severe. If telepathic messages
would be sent by these fields you would also feel influences from other EM
fields, or feel something when those fields are screened. Becasue this
doesn't happen I think we can safely exclude them.
>It's not nonsense. Stapp and others have shown how a plausible
>modification of quantum mechanics can permit information transfer
>between widely separated entangled quantum systems. Orthodox quantum
>mechanics does not permit it.
That is not the point. I don't doubt that such a modification is possible,
but how could the brain use it?
Richard Caldwell
> You're *still* missing a point. This is the same issue as
> non-Euclidean geometry, from a different angle.
> Look at it the other way around; if the actual exponent turned out
> to be 2.000000000000007915, then you'd have an argument that space
> had a fractal geometry (which is certainly non-Euclidean).
>
> Your "obvious joke" and the "simple geometric equation" etc are
> all based on assumptions about which mathematical systems apply
> to the universe. Those assumptions could be quite wrong (outside
> the limits where they've been tested so far).
>
> And in fact it has not infrequently been argued that space might
> indeed have a fractal geometry of some sort. Other kinds of arguments have
> also been put forth in a few papers for why the exponent might not be
> exactly two.
>
> So you're still too quick to assume what is possible versus ludicrous.
> You'd be on stronger ground just to take Ockham's razor: there is
> as yet no particularly compelling reason to think it *isn't* exactly two,
> that's all. But who knows.
No, I didn't miss the point. As I said, if the experiment is to test whether
the inverse square law is valid when applied to the real universe or to some
specific effect, like gravity, then it is certainly not a joke. As I said,
the inverse square law is based on abstract geometric reasoning.
If it is to test the validity of the law itself, then I'm sure you agree that
it's a waste of time to test something which has been defined in such a
careful mathematical way that it cannot be false, which is why it is called
the "inverse square LAW" and not the "inverse square THEORY". The compelling
reason to *know* it is exactly 2 is that it is defined that way.
I think the crux of our argument comes from my misunderstanding of the purpose
of the experiment as you first described it. You put it in layman's terms
which were not specific enough to make it clear to me which of the three
things you were testing:
1. Is 2 the correct value for the exponent in the inverse square law
equation? - The joke.
2. Does real space actually conform to Euclidean geometry, which is
required to make the inverse square law a valid model for
describing real radiation? - Not a joke and far reaching in its
implications.
3. Assuming the inverse square law is a valid model for some things,
does gravity fall into the class of things which conform to that
model, like EM radiation, or is it an exception, like the weak
and strong nuclear forces? - Definitely not a joke but more limited
in its implications.
Subsequent postings on your part make it apparent that the intent is to test
either #2 or #3, so I apologise for the misunderstanding.
Richard
Owen Poole
>here at CU that's trying to determine whether gravity really does
>fall off as 1/r^2 and have confirmed that the 2 is accurate to about
>one part in a billion. Most of the rest of us use the 2 as though it
>were completely accurate.
>
so it is no wonder that you have found that 1/r^2 is just a good approximation.
The same is true of electrostatic potential and probably most other inverse
power laws. Probably the whole of science is an approximation in that regard.
Owen Poole
Johan Wevers
>The same, EXACTLY the same, can be said for radar returns which are generally
>accepted as proving that radar contact has been made with... the planet
>Venus.
I assume that those results are at least _reproducable_. If they are not you
can hardly claim them to be scientific.
>>who know much more of statistics than I do, they find that there is really
>>nothing found, the method was flawed in a non-trivial way or it was just
>>downright fraud like the case with the polywater. This makes me _VERY_
>>suspicious of _EVERY_ paranormal claim, and so you need to do a lot better
>>than unclear statistics to convince me.
>This seems to conflict with growing evidence that "remote viewing" is
>becoming accepted in military circles as a useful operational tool.
What type of remote viewing? You mean using camera's? Then I see nothing
strange about it. If the US military really try to use psi's they are less
clever than I thought.
Johan Wevers
>Fine, but the problem is in the details. What is the physical structure
>of your "coordinating function" other than the name you just gave it?
Untill we can determine the function of the brain from the wiring the
answer to that question lies outside the boundaries of our knowledge.
Of course, it _does_ have a philosophical meaning. If you know this you
look different to conciousness than someone who still believes in souls.
Richard Caldwell
> It ain't no joke. If you study general relativity you'll see that
> the inverse square law is only appromximately true. However, the
> deviations are only predicted for large masses. The research team
> at CU certainly must know about general relativity, and I suspect the
> deviations they are looking for are of a different sort. To take
> a rather kludgey example, if one took linearized general relativity,
> which is the theory of a massless spin-2 field, usually called the
> "graviton", and gave the graviton a small mass, there would be
> an approximately exponential correction factor to the inverse square
> law. This is not a very pretty theory, but my point is that the
> inverse square law is not an a priori fact about nature; one can (and
> has) come up with theories in which it doesn't hold, so it makes
> sense for people to go out there and look to see how well it really
> does hold.
No argument. In a non-Euclidian geometry, the inverse square law, like
Newtonial mechanics, is no longer a perfectly valid model in all cases.
> In particle physics one expects inverse square laws to hold for
> forces that are carried by a massless particle, so one expects it
> to hold for electromagnetism, which is carried by the (presumably!)
> massless photon. Conversely, in the *linearized* (i.e. approximate)
> version of general relativity gravity satisfies an inverse square
> law and thus one expects it to be carried by a massless particle,
> the graviton (which however has not yet been seen; it'd be too
> wimpy for present experiments to see anyway). But forces carried
> by massive particles, such as the weak nuclear force, do not satisfy
> inverse square laws. The strong nuclear force is evern more
> subtle, but it doesn't satisfy an inverse square law either.
Again agreed. As I have said in another post, I thought the purpose was to
test the value of 2 as the exponent in the inverse square equation for
accuracy. Since the inverse square law is *defined* with an exponent of 2, it
is by definition exactly correct.
However, the inverse square law obviously does not apply to all forms of
radiation (massive bosons) and may not apply to real space at all. In that
case, we need a new law, with a new equation, or set of equations, and that
law (or theory) will not be the "inverse square law".
I got the impression from the original description that they were testing a
truism, which, as you know, is a joke. It wouldn't be the first time I
misunderstood another poster. Mea culpa 8-(
Richard
Halibut
: >>who know much more of statistics than I do, they find that there is really
: >>nothing found, the method was flawed in a non-trivial way or it was just
: >>downright fraud like the case with the polywater. This makes me _VERY_
: >>suspicious of _EVERY_ paranormal claim, and so you need to do a lot better
: >>than unclear statistics to convince me.
As I recall, polywater wasn't fraud, jsut scientists swweating
too much. Sort of like the original and subsequent "cold fusion"
experiments, which proved only that even in 1990, no matter how many
degrees one has, one still can have problems setting up a simple experiment.
SPHINX Technologies
York H. Dobyns <ydo...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>"telepathy", I will limit myself to citing the January 1994
>_Psychological Bulletin_ article by Daryl Bem and Charles Honorton.
> ... strongly significant effect nevertheless persisted. (About a 33% hit
>rate, with 25% being expected by chance, over several hundred trials.)
OUTSTANDING! Thanks for pointing this out. Now, according to "Shannon
Theory" - so named after its inventor, Claude E. Shannon, of MIT's EE Dept
(emeritus, tho), such a hit rate and a (presumably nonbinary or "q-ary")
symbol alphabet together determine a CHANNEL CAPACITY for information
transmission over a telepathy channel. And acc. to Shannon's pioneering
and very counterintuitive results, as long as you are willing to send data
at a rate below that channel capacity, you can REDUCE THE ERROR RATE
to AS LOW A VALUE epsilon as you choose, by constructing a suitable
error-correcting code!!!!
OK, skeptics, here is the test. YOU want to show it's a crock. So
YOU go round up a few (few hundred? ... watch out, I'm setting you up for
a "light bulb" joke...) coding theorists and have them agree on a code
which should provide ABSOLUTELY DEAD RELIABLE TRANSMISSION, say probability
of error less than 10 to the -6 or -9 or pick your figure, over the channel
the PSI freaks claim is there. Give them a message to transmit. Set up
ANY SAFEGUARDS YOU LIKE to prevent fraud. Let 'em go to work transmitting
the message over their alleged "channel". If they are right, a rock-solid
copy of the original message should emerge from your own decoding process,
using the selected ECC. If they are wrong, you will have the pleasure of
showing them up royally for all to see. How 'bout it, folks?
Skeptics, YOU pick the code, based on the stated error rate and symbol
alphabet. ESP Believers, YOU review the chosen code parameters to verify
that it should give the desired error probability after decoding. Then do
the experiment publicly, with the media present. Bring "Randi" along, too,
if you wish.
If you like, you could even hook up a light switch at one end and use it
to control, via the ESP channel, a light bulb at the other end. With
suitable error-control coding for the error statistics of the raw channel,
the light bulb should go on and off, after a predictable delay for coding
and decoding, just as reliably as the one over your front porch. Unless
of course the light bulb failed and you didn't have enough coding theorists
(or skeptics) to replace it. Or unless the skeptics are RIGHT and there
really isn't anything to the claimed communication path.
C'mon, skeptics. There's an experimental demonstration here that either
will work -- like the light switch/light bulb setup described above --
and PROVE that there's a channel there, or WON'T work, and will prove
there is NOT a channel there. What do you have to lose, if you are an
honest skeptic?
-John Sangster
Wellesley Hills, MA USA
>Honest skeptics must be willing to question *their own* beliefs, as
>well as those of people with whom they disagree.
I couldn't agree more.
Halibut
: C'mon, skeptics. There's an experimental demonstration here that either
: will work -- like the light switch/light bulb setup described above --
: and PROVE that there's a channel there, or WON'T work, and will prove
: there is NOT a channel there. What do you have to lose, if you are an
: honest skeptic?
Nothing.
However, you forget one thing. That many/most/all of the
proponents of paranormal bilities usually say that "putting people in
experimental situations reduces or eliminates their ability to
demonstrate powers". What a nice catch-22. How Con-VE-nient.
John Wade
>From: Richard Caldwell <richard....@mhs.oklaosf.state.ok.us>
>Subject: Re: Stapp, PK & Physics Today
>Date: Mon, 14 Aug 95 15:42:46 PDT
>In article <40o0dn$k...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, <ju...@suod.cs.colorado.edu>
>writes:
>
There's a research group
>> here at CU that's trying to determine whether gravity really does
>> fall off as 1/r^2 and have confirmed that the 2 is accurate to about
>> one part in a billion. Most of the rest of us use the 2 as though it
>> were completely accurate.
>What a joke! The inverse square law has nothing to do with gravity in
>particular. It is a result of the geometry of anything that radiates
>spherically from a point source. The surface area of a sphere increases with
>the square of the radius, so the flux density of anything radiating uniformly
>from a point source must decrease with the square of the distance from the
>source.
Well said.
Does ignorance obey the inverse square law????
How about the strength of telepathic messages (the orginal topic of this
thread that seems almost out of place in this Newsgroup)?????
John Wade
>From: jw...@mindspring.com (John Wade)
>Subject: Re: Stapp, PK & Physics Today
>Well said.
I turned off my bulb too quickly.
Apologies.
Patrick Juola
SPHINX Technologies <sph...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <40ql7f$j...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
>York H. Dobyns <ydo...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>_Psychological Bulletin_ article by Daryl Bem and Charles Honorton.
>>rate, with 25% being expected by chance, over several hundred trials.)
>
>Theory" - so named after its inventor, Claude E. Shannon, of MIT's EE Dept
>(emeritus, tho), such a hit rate and a (presumably nonbinary or "q-ary")
>symbol alphabet together determine a CHANNEL CAPACITY for information
>
>Skeptics, YOU pick the code, based on the stated error rate and symbol
>alphabet. ESP Believers, YOU review the chosen code parameters to verify
>that it should give the desired error probability after decoding. Then do
>the experiment publicly, with the media present. Bring "Randi" along, too,
>if you wish.
>
>
>C'mon, skeptics. There's an experimental demonstration here that either
>will work -- like the light switch/light bulb setup described above --
>and PROVE that there's a channel there, or WON'T work, and will prove
>there is NOT a channel there. What do you have to lose, if you are an
>honest skeptic?
Well, nothing, except the experiment as you described won't prove
a damned thing. If the demo is successful, it doesn't rule out
a covert channel that Randi didn't find, and if the demo isn't
successful, then it simple demonstrates, once again, that psy
isn't necessarily reproducible across experiments -- which should
surprise no one in the biological sciences. And the experimental
setup you describe isn't cheap in terms of time and possibly
equipment... so there's another "loss."
If you *really* want to make a convincing case for psy, then I suggest
you just shrinkwrap a "Telepathy Experiment in a Box" and publish it
somewhere -- so that I can get four of my friends together, we all
read the paper, and can duplicate the experiment without having to rely
on potential shills. That's the standard of reproducibility to which
other science is held (remember cold fusion?), after all.
And what does this have to do with AI?
Patrick
Roger D. Nelson
>
>You folks should get acquainted with the research of Prof. Robert E. Jahn,
>former Dean of Engineering at Princeton University. Last I heard, his lab
>had a Fabry-Perot interferometer hooked up to a strain gauge, and many of
>his lab subjects are able to think at it and cause interference fringes to
>appear. Anybody have any recent info on Jahn's research?
>
>-John Sangster
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) lab, instituted by
Prof. Jahn, maintains a mailing list of professional researchers and
others interested in the experimental work. For those interested in
reading research reports, a publication list is available on request via
email. Reprints and technical reports listed can be sent to a postal
address.
--
Roger D. Nelson, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)
C-131 E-Quad, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
voice: 609 258-5370 fax: 609 258-1993
email: rdnelson@.princeton.edu
Johan Wevers
>As I recall, polywater wasn't fraud, jsut scientists swweating too much.
I've read that the assistant of the prof falsified the results.
>Sort of like the original and subsequent "cold fusion"
>experiments, which proved only that even in 1990, no matter how many
>degrees one has, one still can have problems setting up a simple experiment.
That's forgivable. Trying to get to the press merely shows that the US
funding policies are somewhat incompatible with performing good science
research.
Hauke Reddmann
: In <40omlr$e...@nnrp3.primenet.com> gil...@primenet.com (Gilgamesh)
: writes:
: >
: >In article <40o2ak$q...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
: > sarf...@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti ) wrote:
: >
: >>>For me, if I can buy a Japanese telepathic-controlled TV-set!
: >>>
: >>You will. You will. :-)
: >
: >They have out now, or soon, a device that works for software on your
: computer. You strap your finger into this velcro strap, that rests on
: your desk, that is connected to your computer. Your finger sits there
: and you think the moves, and the computer will move your little Mario
: Around! Serious. They'll be in the stores soon at will cost $150.
: >
: >Now we, as a race will never fully develope PK abilities, this
: computer machine will be helping us now. Or will it improve our
: dormant PK abilities?
: It should. It should. :-)
I just tried to imagine cartain people on sci.phys have
psychokinetic abilities too.
Au wai! Au wai!
--
Hauke Reddmann fc3...@rzaixsrv2.rrz.uni-hamburg.de
<:-EX8
tom capizzi
precisely the format for spectral analysis by means of Walsh functions.
These are a set of orthogonal waveforms which are the fastest way to get
a spectrum from a set of data points. It is at least an order of magni-
tude faster to compute than a fast Fourier transform. The Walsh functions
are square waves that are easily generated from a simple binary counter.
This permits the mathematical process of finding a spectrum to be imple-
mented in analog hardware for even faster results. The process of finding
a spectrum involves multiplying a sample waveform by one of the reference
square waves. In the case of a Fourier spectrum, it means 4 quadrant
analog multiplication. This is quite tedious in analog hardware, and also
cumbersome in digital hardware. Since the reference wave in a Walsh spec-
trum is a square wave with a value of +1 or -1, multiplying the sample
involves only the sign of the sample. This is easily accomplished with
linear hardware, and reduces the complexity of the software algorithm as
well. Since only the sign bit is involved, there are no multiplications
required. There are n log n additions/subtractions needed to perform the
spectral decomposition. I don't believe any process is more efficient at
obtaining a spectrum.
Each square wave in the set is characterized by the number of
zero-crossings of the waveform. The product of any two square waves is
just another waveform in the set. There are log n primaries which are 50%
duty cycle octaves of some fundamental frequency. All the other waves in
a set are composed of products of these primaries. The content of a Walsh
frequency can be determined by taking the gray code of the frequency. It
involves taking the exclusive or of the frequency number and half the num-
ber. The resulting 1-bits represent the primary factors. Gray code is a
cyclic operator which returns to the original value after 2^n operations.
It has very interesting number theory relations to pi and the trig func-
tions. It is also used in digital positioning schemes because consecutive
number pairs differ by only a single bit. With ordinary counters there can
be carry errors, since so many bits must change simultaneously. With gray
code, only one bit 'carries' at a time. So if there is any uncertainty in
a gray code reader, it means that it is precisely on a transition of the
square wave from plus-to-minus or minus-to-plus.
So far we have been looking at the one dimensional case - a string
of samples of some source with respect to time. We specified Walsh func-
tions of time. We could just as easily define them as functions of space
in one dimensional analysis. To expand a Fourier analysis into three dimen-
sions is a rather messy triple integral. Using Walsh functions it makes no
difference in computing effort to be one dimensional or three dimensional.
Of course, there is a limited number of ways the one dimensional waveform
can be bent and twisted into a three dimensional waveform, and these are
related by symmetry operations. As long as the sample sequence number is
mapped to the proper location in the x-y-z grid, the spectral analysis is
transparent to the number of dimensions. Another unique feature of a Walsh
spectrum is the property of being auto-inverse. To recover a data set from
a spectrum merely repeat the identical operation on the spectra. Other
kinds of spectra also have inverses, but none are auto-inverse, that I'm
aware of.
In order to make use of the Walsh functions it is necessary to
have a real-time input. The simplest I have found uses a standard game
port on a PC. It's useful for biofeedback experiments, and consists of
probes made out of a string of common 1N914 diodes. It takes about 8
diodes in series to bias the game port input to about 50%. At this level
of current through the diode string a high resistance results. Small
changes in current produce significant changes in voltage. Similarly, a
very small change in temperature results in a significant shift in the
operating point of the diode junction. In addition to temperature, the
sensor can be used to measure ambient fields. Paranormal events are fre-
quently associated with temperature 'chills' which would be detectable.
There are claims that capacitors pick up charge from gravity and other
fields. If a large number of these detectors were in use. There is a
way of combining all their results so as to reveal any geographic pat-
terns using the Walsh functions in two dimensions.
It would be interesting to see if ufo sightings could be cor-
related to the spectral readings. It would also be quite interesting
to detect unconscious esp or to register paranormal appearances. The
detector hardware is very cheap and software is simple. Volunteers?
Tom Capizzi
John R. Freckleton
> The null results of esp experiments have frustrated attempts to
> scientifically document a phenomenon many believe in anyway. Some years
> ago a friend told me about experiments conducted at MIT which may shed
> some light on the negative results.
> It was a rather simple set-up. A sender and a receiver were lo-
> cated on opposite sides of a foundation wall made of many feet thick
> granite blocks. In the room with the sender was an electric light. The
> receiver was supposed to record whether the light was on or off. When
> the receiver data was correlated with the sender, no pattern was found.
> However, there was a statistically significant correlation with the eeg
> waves of the receiver. So, perhaps this is the reason it is so hard to
> prove esp, especially, it seems, in the presence of skeptics. If a sub-
> ject is only receiving information unconsciously, the slightest distrac-
> tion may prevent the conscious perception of that data. However, a device
> could monitor the electrical activity and reliably show a paranormal con-
> nection.
> I was not present at the experiment, so I cannot give any more
> detail, regrettably. On the other hand, it would be rather trivial to
> repeat the experiment. In fact, I urge anyone with the appropriate equip-
> ment to do just that - repeat the experiment. Report your results and
> compare notes. If anyone gets the same results, we can try to duplicate
> their experiments exactly and compare results again. Perhaps we are just
> wasting time looking for conscious esp, if it's an unconscious action.
>
> Tom Capizzi
>
>
(A few ^Z's deleted)
>
>
I wonder if the EEG and the lights were on the same circuit.
--
JRF
tom capizzi
Halibut
: Halibut <hal...@cnct.com> wrote:
: >As I recall, polywater wasn't fraud, jsut scientists swweating too much.
: I've read that the assistant of the prof falsified the results.
Oh, well, then. I sit corrected.
: >Sort of like the original and subsequent "cold fusion"
: >experiments, which proved only that even in 1990, no matter how many
: >degrees one has, one still can have problems setting up a simple experiment.
: That's forgivable. Trying to get to the press merely shows that the US
: funding policies are somewhat incompatible with performing good science
: research.
Although, one would think that, after a while, someone would be
able to set it up correctly.
Jack Sarfatti
fc3...@rzaix07.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann) writes:
>
>I just tried to imagine cartain people on sci.phys have
>psychokinetic abilities too.
>Au wai! Au wai!
>
Yes, I do, I do! :-)
--
"The hostility of my critics is the customary human reaction when confronted with innovation--apractise refined by the Chinese emperors, who used to execute messengers bringing bad news." Marshall McLuhan http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr WARP the e-zine of Post-Futurism, advertise your business with us.
Matt McIrvin
Gilgamesh <gil...@primenet.com> wrote:
>They have out now, or soon, a device that works for software on your computer.
>You strap your finger into this velcro strap, that rests on your desk, that is
>connected to your computer. Your finger sits there and you think the moves,
>and the computer will move your little Mario Around! Serious.
>They'll be in the stores soon at will cost $150.
>
>Now we, as a race will never fully develope PK abilities, this computer
>machine will be helping us now. Or will it improve our dormant PK abilities?
Now that speech recognition works well enough to be sort of useful on
Power Macs, I'm hoping it will improve my dormant ability to call
things into being by verbal command. Let there be an alias for that
icon! Tell me a joke! Fiat Lux! Put That Away! Huzzah!
--
Matt 01234567 <-- Indent-o-Meter
McIrvin ^ Tab damage as window on reality!
York H. Dobyns
[...proposal for experiment deleted...]
> However, you forget one thing. That many/most/all of the
>proponents of paranormal bilities usually say that "putting people in
>experimental situations reduces or eliminates their ability to
>demonstrate powers". What a nice catch-22. How Con-VE-nient.
Let me echo your "How Con-VE-nient" with regard to your own behavior--in
this case, choice of deletions from preceding post. You seem --
*conveniently* -- to have overlooked the fact that the poster you quoted
was himself quoting *an experimental result* that described a 33% hit
rate under circumstances where random guessing would yield 25%.
Roger D. Nelson
>
>: C'mon, skeptics. There's an experimental demonstration here that either
>: will work -- like the light switch/light bulb setup described above --
>: and PROVE that there's a channel there, or WON'T work, and will prove
>: there is NOT a channel there. What do you have to lose, if you are an
>: honest skeptic?
>
>
> However, you forget one thing. That many/most/all of the
>proponents of paranormal bilities usually say that "putting people in
>experimental situations reduces or eliminates their ability to
>demonstrate powers". What a nice catch-22. How Con-VE-nient.
Sangster probably didn't forget this, he ignored it in favor of a
realistic proposition, nicely posed as informed skeptical perspective.
Indeed the article to which he responded was quite clear about the
experimental nature of the research that indicated the viability of the
purported anomalous communication channel.
In contrast to the urban strawman (a combination urban legend and
logical strawman) you urge, Sangster's proposition is a legitimate
challenge. There are, of course, practical considerations having to do
with effect size, statistical power, required equipment and personnel,
research space, and funding sponsorship for the duration of the project.
It may or may not be the case that Sangster, or any other skeptic or group
would have the interest and resources to proceed with actual support of
such a project, but it is my guess that scientific parapsychologists and
other researchers knowledgeable of the professional literature would
agree that Sangster's proposal is sensible, in principle. It is less
clear that it is practical, as suggested in the foregoing; the research
reported by Bem and Honorton required a multi year and well funded
effort, and it was not designed for encoding secondary, error-corrected
messages.
Johan Wevers
>Although, one would think that, after a while, someone would be
>able to set it up correctly.
If it can be done. If noone can duplicate the results after an extensive
search I doubt that.
Johan Braennlund
: phenomenon, but on the simple geometric equation for the surface area of a
: sphere. Geometry, being abstract and not hobbled by the messiness of
: reality, has simple equations with exact values like 2, and totally
: inexact values like pi.
What do you mean? pi is just as exact as the number 2, or any other number.
Last time I checked, it began something like 3.141592653589793... Of course,
if you try to physically measure pi, you won't get an exact result, but
that's something different.
Johan Braennlund
m94...@student.tdb.uu.se
Halibut
: [...proposal for experiment deleted...]
: > However, you forget one thing. That many/most/all of the
: >proponents of paranormal bilities usually say that "putting people in
: >experimental situations reduces or eliminates their ability to
: >demonstrate powers". What a nice catch-22. How Con-VE-nient.
: Let me echo your "How Con-VE-nient" with regard to your own behavior--in
: this case, choice of deletions from preceding post. You seem --
: *conveniently* -- to have overlooked the fact that the poster you quoted
: was himself quoting *an experimental result* that described a 33% hit
: rate under circumstances where random guessing would yield 25%.
I'm having a bad IQ day. What is your point?
My point was that as long as bad results are explained away as
being due to "non-performance due to experimental situation", everything
just becomes a matter of faith. If one hasa bad result, it doesn't
matter. If one hasa good result, great. Tails the pro-ESP faction doesn't
lose, and heads it wins.
Richard Caldwell
The 2 is an integer and, therefore, a rational number whose value is know
exactly. Pi is an irrational number. Therefore, although we can calculate it
to any desired precision, it is not an exact value like a rational number is.
Richard
Carl J Lydick
=> What do you mean? pi is just as exact as the number 2, or any other number.
=> Last time I checked, it began something like 3.141592653589793... Of course,
=> if you try to physically measure pi, you won't get an exact result, but
=> that's something different.
=
=The 2 is an integer and, therefore, a rational number whose value is know
=exactly. Pi is an irrational number. Therefore, although we can calculate it
=to any desired precision, it is not an exact value like a rational number is.
No, it's just as exact as is 2. It's just that it can't be represented in a
finite number of places. That doesn't make it inexact. The approximations we
generally use for it aren't exactly pi, but pi itself is no less exact than is
2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Patrick Juola
>> : reality, has simple equations with exact values like 2, and totally
>> : inexact values like pi.
>>
>
>The 2 is an integer and, therefore, a rational number whose value is know
Um, I think this is a thoroughly meaningless and bogus distinction.
I don't think you have any idea of the actual word that you want to use,
but "exact" is not the one you want. There is definitely an exact
value for pi, which can be constructed by several methods in a finite
number of steps (n.b. you need more than a ruler/compass set of tools).
By this definition, pi is no less "exact" than 2, or the square root of
two, for that matter.
More formally, there's a well-defined Dedekind cut that defines an
exact value for pi, just as there's a well-defined cut that defines
2. There are even several exact closed-form symbolic solutions that
define pi.
Patrick
Richard Caldwell
In article <41ab5b$q...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, <ju...@anchor.cs.colorado.edu>
writes:
The only destinction I was trying to make is that the value of 2 (in the
inverse square law) is defined by the geometric equation itself, as an
abstract thing. Not calculated from anything else.
Pi on the other hand is defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle
to its diameter and its actual value must be calculated.
I didn't mean to imply that Pi is some kind of approximation or vaguely
defined number.
Richard
Carl J Lydick
=What's pi in base-pi? 1.0. Pi appearing to be inexact, or as an
=irrational number is base-10 is just a failing in our symbology,
=that's all.
=
=1/3 is just as irrational as pi, but is it inexact? No. We are just
=lucky to be able to denote its value in some form of base 10.
Since 1 and 3 are integers, 1/3 is, by definition, rational.
David Hikaru Norman
>In article <NEWTNews.809021971.1...@oufan.oklaosf.state.ok.us>, Richard Caldwell <richard....@mhs.oklaosf.state.ok.us> writes:
>=> What do you mean? pi is just as exact as the number 2, or any other number.
>=> Last time I checked, it began something like 3.141592653589793... Of course,
>=> if you try to physically measure pi, you won't get an exact result, but
>=> that's something different.
>=
>=The 2 is an integer and, therefore, a rational number whose value is know
>=exactly. Pi is an irrational number. Therefore, although we can calculate it
>=to any desired precision, it is not an exact value like a rational number is.
>No, it's just as exact as is 2. It's just that it can't be represented in a
>finite number of places. That doesn't make it inexact. The approximations we
>generally use for it aren't exactly pi, but pi itself is no less exact than is
>2.
Pi is a value, same as 2 is. An erroneous belief that one is more exact than the
other is the result of physiological preconditioning.
However, I speculate that in most conceivable environments, it will be highly
unlikely that lifeforms arise that have a number of digits that is equal to pi
or some multiple of pi, and hence it is unlikely that in some alien number
system pi will have a value that is represented by a finite number of symbols
that compose that system. A symbol external to the number system, such as "pi",
would almost certainly be necessary. It seems that such erroneous beliefs will
continue to persist everywhere.
David Norman - " 'Course, I see things like this " - from the Young Ones
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~dnor01/
Patrick Juola
Richard Caldwell <richard....@mhs.oklaosf.state.ok.us> wrote:
>
>In article <41btu8$8...@net.auckland.ac.nz>, <dno...@cs.aukuni.ac.nz> writes:
>
>> >No, it's just as exact as is 2. It's just that it can't be represented in
>a
>> >finite number of places. That doesn't make it inexact. The approximations
>we
>> >generally use for it aren't exactly pi, but pi itself is no less exact than
>is
>> >2.
>
>marbles. You reach in a pull out exactly Pi marbles. Let's see how exact you
>can be with that one ;-)
Neat trick. Now, without using any extra marbles, pull out and hand me
-3 marbles. As soon as you do that, I'll see what I can do with pi.
[snip]
>It seems that erroneous beliefs also come from a simple lack of understanding
>the definitions of common mathematical terminology. Instead of Pi, I could
>just as easily have picked on "2.0" which is the floating point equivalent of
>2, but is not an integer, but unlike Pi, is a rational number.
>try looking up "imaginary". That one's reserved for numbers like the square
>root of -1. Think about that for a while.
Um, well, you're wrong. 2.0 *is* an integer since it's identical to the
integer 2. That's one of the big fallacies of computer science, that
real numbers and integers are somehow different. Integers are simply
a subset of the rationals, which in turn are a subset of the reals, &c.
What does the marble argument have to do with anything? Yes, you can't
use the integers to represent real numbers. For that matter, you can't
use the integers to represent the rationals except by ratios, but this
doesn't mean that the real numbers aren't exact. You just need to use
them in an appropriate context.
I guess the fundamental question I would like to ask here is a) what
does all this have to do with AI, and b) what kind of a definition are
you using for "exact?" Within the realm of abstract mathematics, any
real number is as exact as any other -- they both define exactly one
point on the number line. Within the realm of construction geometry,
some reals are constructable using different tool sets, but I don't think
this is what you're after. If you want to argue that only numbers
that can be counted as whole numbers are "exact," then I think you're
using a non-standard definition.
Patrick
Jack Sarfatti
(Patrick Juola) writes:
>
>In article
<NEWTNews.809103968.6...@oufan.oklaosf.state.ok.us>,
>Richard Caldwell <richard....@mhs.oklaosf.state.ok.us> wrote:
>>
>>In article <41btu8$8...@net.auckland.ac.nz>, <dno...@cs.aukuni.ac.nz>
writes:
>
>>> >generally use for it aren't exactly pi, but pi itself is no less
exact than
>>is
>>> >2.
>>
>>Fine. I have a bucket of marbles. I will reach in a pull out
exactly 2
>>marbles. You reach in a pull out exactly Pi marbles. Let's see how
exact you
>>can be with that one ;-)
>
>
--
Jack Sarfatti, The Singing Visionary Physicist, sarf...@ix.netcom.com
"I'm completely ready to junk any statement I've ever made about any subject
if .... I discover it isn't contributing to an understanding of the problem."
Marshall McLuhan -- Advertise your business on our WEB pages at
http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr
WARP the e-zine of Post-Futurismo.
Plug in and play with us Dancing Wu Li Web Masters.
Richard Caldwell
In article <41cq12$s...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, <ju...@suod.cs.colorado.edu>
writes:
> Richard Caldwell <richard....@mhs.oklaosf.state.ok.us> wrote:
> >Fine. I have a bucket of marbles. I will reach in a pull out exactly 2
> >marbles. You reach in a pull out exactly Pi marbles. Let's see how exact
you
> >can be with that one ;-)
>
> Neat trick. Now, without using any extra marbles, pull out and hand me
> -3 marbles. As soon as you do that, I'll see what I can do with pi.
So, you give up on my challenge and answer it by stating an equally impossible
one. I agree that I, nor you, can pull -3 marbles from the bucket. That just
means that -3 is another abstract mathematical concept, like Pi. Math is not
the real world, it *represents* the real world.
> >It seems that erroneous beliefs also come from a simple lack of
understanding
> >the definitions of common mathematical terminology. Instead of Pi, I could
> >just as easily have picked on "2.0" which is the floating point equivalent
of
> >2, but is not an integer, but unlike Pi, is a rational number.
> >try looking up "imaginary". That one's reserved for numbers like the
square
> >root of -1. Think about that for a while.
>
> Um, well, you're wrong. 2.0 *is* an integer since it's identical to the
> integer 2. That's one of the big fallacies of computer science, that
> real numbers and integers are somehow different. Integers are simply
> a subset of the rationals, which in turn are a subset of the reals, &c.
Wrong. In a physics experiment, if I measured a variable to be 1.999999....,
as far as my instrument could measure, I could say the value was 2.0 for all
intents and purposes. If on the other hand, I was counting individual
droplets (remember the old Millican Oil Drop Experiment) I could have 1 drop
or 2 drops or 3 drops, but never 2.5 drops.
> What does the marble argument have to do with anything? Yes, you can't
> use the integers to represent real numbers. For that matter, you can't
> use the integers to represent the rationals except by ratios, but this
> doesn't mean that the real numbers aren't exact. You just need to use
> them in an appropriate context.
I think that, instead of "exact", I should have used the word "discreet".
Integers can have only discreet values.
> I guess the fundamental question I would like to ask here is a) what
> does all this have to do with AI, and b) what kind of a definition are
> you using for "exact?" Within the realm of abstract mathematics, any
> real number is as exact as any other -- they both define exactly one
> point on the number line. Within the realm of construction geometry,
> some reals are constructable using different tool sets, but I don't think
> this is what you're after. If you want to argue that only numbers
> that can be counted as whole numbers are "exact," then I think you're
> using a non-standard definition.
The original argument was over the value of the "2" in the equation for the
Inverse Square Law (ISL), where the flux density of spherical radiation from a
point source is proportional to 1/R^2.
Someone said that an experiment was being carried out to test the accuracy of
the value of the "2" in the equation for gravitational force: F = G(M*m)/R^2
I misunderstood the intent to be to test the value of "2" in the ISL instead
of testing whether gravity obeys the ISL or if it doesn't, like the weak and
strong nuclear forces don't. I said that the value was fixed at the integer
"2" by the definition of the ISL and that it wasn't some value to be measured
or calculated.
The original poster then clarified the intent of the experiment (I think) and
I apologised for any offense given.
I then stated (much to my chagrin) that the ISL was based on geometry, which
is abstract and can have "exact" values like 2 instead of "totally inexact"
values like Pi. This unfortunate wording on my part started this whole
pecadillo about Pi vs. 2. For that, I accept the blame.
What I was trying to say is that we know the value of 2 exactly, because it is
an integer, and that, although we can calculate the value of Pi to any degree
of precision, we can never know the final, exact value of Pi, because it is an
"irrational number" (math definition) and doesn't have one, i.e. it is an
unending and unrepeating series which cannot be expressed as a ratio of 2
integers.
Honest, I have nothing against Pi. In fact, it's one of my favorite numbers.
It is certainly a more interesting number than 2, althought it doesn't have a
great name, like Avagadro's Number ;-)
Richard
Steve Stevenson
: In article <41ar5u$r...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
: >From: ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
: >Subject: Re: Stapp, PK & Physics Today
: >Date: 21 Aug 1995 20:43:42 GMT
: Doesn't "rational", as applied to numbers, derive from the fact that any
: rational number can be expressed as a ratio of two integers, while irrational
: and/or transcendental numbers, such as pi, cannot?
No. This goes way back to the Pythagoreans. Their whole world of numbers
was fractions: music, philosophy, etc. They believed that this was the
rational way for things to be. The discovery of the irrationality of
pi did in their universe.
Where these numbers were offically tagged "rational" and "irrational" I
don't know.
--
Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson st...@hubcap.clemson.edu
Department of Computer Science, (803)656-5880.mabell
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906
Wanted: Sterbenz, P. Floating Point Computation
Patrick Juola
Bob Casanova <c...@ops1.bwi.wec.com> wrote:
>In article <NEWTNews.809116926.3...@oufan.oklaosf.state.ok.us> Richard Caldwell <richard....@mhs.oklaosf.state.ok.us> writes:
>>In article <41cq12$s...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, <ju...@suod.cs.colorado.edu>
>>writes:
>>> Richard Caldwell <richard....@mhs.oklaosf.state.ok.us> wrote:
>>> >Fine. I have a bucket of marbles. I will reach in a pull out exactly 2
>>> >marbles. You reach in a pull out exactly Pi marbles. Let's see how exact
>>you
>>> >can be with that one ;-)
>>>
>>> Neat trick. Now, without using any extra marbles, pull out and hand me
>>> -3 marbles. As soon as you do that, I'll see what I can do with pi.
>
>>So, you give up on my challenge and answer it by stating an equally impossible
>>one. I agree that I, nor you, can pull -3 marbles from the bucket. That just
>>means that -3 is another abstract mathematical concept, like Pi.
That's why I asked for him to hand me the -3 marbles. I don't have
three marbles in my hand to be taken away.
And, what does this have to do with AI?
Patrick
M.D. O'Leary
Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>They have out now, or soon, a device that works for software on your
>computer. You strap your finger into this velcro strap, that rests on
>your desk, that is connected to your computer. Your finger sits there
>and you think the moves, and the computer will move your little Mario
>Around! Serious. They'll be in the stores soon at will cost $150.
>>
>>Now we, as a race will never fully develope PK abilities, this
>computer machine will be helping us now. Or will it improve our
>dormant PK abilities?
>
Don't mistake what sounds like a simple feedback loop on skin resistance
measurement for "PK abilities". One of the very few electronics gadgets I've
ever built from scratch was a skin resistance measurer that attached to the
finger by velcro, although the feedback was through the pitch of a tone from a
connected speaker, and not, say, from the postion of a mario on a screen: after
a bit of practice, I could play (very very slowly!) tunes on this thing. It
certainly only worked as a "lie detector" (its supposed purpose) for the first
few questions a new "victim" was asked...
M.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark O'Leary, md...@le.ac.uk
Leicester Antibody Group. "Is all that we see or seem
(anti-KDEL & ABP1) But a dream within a dream?"
VMM
>> Anyone else states:
>> >Fine. I have a bucket of marbles. I will reach in a pull out exactly 2
>> >marbles. You reach in a pull out exactly Pi marbles. Let's see how exact
>you
>> >can be with that one ;-)
>>
>> Neat trick. Now, without using any extra marbles, pull out and hand me
>> -3 marbles. As soon as you do that, I'll see what I can do with pi.
>
Why don't you sick to this:
I have a bucket of marbles with exactly Pi marbles inside.
Someone comes while I'm not aware and puts about (34 - 23i) extra marbles (blue ones) on the bucket.
I ask you to go ahead and take two of them.
You do so, and take two magnificent red pieces of hardware.
I look inside de bag (expecting to find .... Pi-2 ? marbles) and ...
.. surprise ! There are about F(x^2)*G(x/(1-23)^x) marbles.
The answer is 42 ! Why ?
VMM
>>> Anyone else states:
>
>>> >Fine. I have a bucket of marbles. I will reach in a pull out exactly 2
>>> >marbles. You reach in a pull out exactly Pi marbles. Let's see how exact
>>you
>>> >can be with that one ;-)
>>>
>>> Neat trick. Now, without using any extra marbles, pull out and hand me
>>> -3 marbles. As soon as you do that, I'll see what I can do with pi.
>>
pulling them out will ya try the Pi marbles trick ?
Dave McQuillan
>
>>> >Fine. I have a bucket of marbles. I will reach in a pull out exactly 2
>>> >marbles. You reach in a pull out exactly Pi marbles. Let's see how exact
>>you
>>> >can be with that one ;-)
>>>
>>> Neat trick. Now, without using any extra marbles, pull out and hand me
>>> -3 marbles. As soon as you do that, I'll see what I can do with pi.
Are you sure you can get exactly two marbles? To make it more obvious how
would you get exactly two clouds? How do you exactly define a marble?
Also there is a small chance of them now being frogs according to quantum
mechanics (v.small but then this is supposed to be mathematics).
I don't think we can really say that even quaternions are less real than
the integers by appealing to how the world works. Everythng might be
fuzzy and imprecise and integers the abstraction.
--
David McQuillan
Marc Sissom
Richard Caldwell <richard....@mhs.oklaosf.state.ok.us> wrote:
>
>In article <41571s$12...@columba.udac.uu.se>, <m94...@sirius.tdb.uu.se> writes:
>
>> Richard Caldwell (richard....@mhs.oklaosf.state.ok.us) wrote:
>> : phenomenon, but on the simple geometric equation for the surface area of a
>
>> : reality, has simple equations with exact values like 2, and totally
>> : inexact values like pi.
>>
>
>The 2 is an integer and, therefore, a rational number whose value is know
>
does not directly relate to precision or accuracy. Pi is exact. Its value
does not vary. The fact that you cannot produce an exact representation
of it(other than Pi or some formula) does not matter. It is just as
exact as "e" or 2. All of the numbers mentioned can be calculated and
displayed(represented) to any desired precision. The "rationalness" or
"irrationalness" has nothing to do with it. The repetitive or nonrepetitive
sequences that occur when a number is represented in base 10 have nothing
to do with it. Try to display one-third in base ten. It is a rational number
yet you cannot display its exact value except as 1/3. If on the other hand,
you choose base 3, then it is easy.
1/3(in base 10) = 1/10(in base 3) = 0.1(in base 3)
Pi has an exact value. Those that understand what the symbol "Pi"
represents, also comprehend its meaning. The fact that it is not
possible to represent it using a sequence of numerals does not affect
the actual, exact value of the number that is commonly known as "Pi".
Kenneth Willmott
: >>> Someone states:
: >> Anyone else states:
: >> >Fine. I have a bucket of marbles. I will reach in a pull out exactly 2
: >> >marbles. You reach in a pull out exactly Pi marbles. Let's see how exact
: >you
: >> >can be with that one ;-)
: >>
: >> Neat trick. Now, without using any extra marbles, pull out and hand me
: >> -3 marbles. As soon as you do that, I'll see what I can do with pi.
: >
: Why don't you sick to this:
: I have a bucket of marbles with exactly Pi marbles inside.
: Someone comes while I'm not aware and puts about (34 - 23i) extra marbles
: (blue ones) on the bucket. I ask you to go ahead and take two of them.
: You do so, and take two magnificent red pieces of hardware.
: I look inside de bag (expecting to find .... Pi-2 ? marbles) and ...
: .. surprise ! There are about F(x^2)*G(x/(1-23)^x) marbles.
: The answer is 42 ! Why ?
Are you people losing your marbles? :-)
If you reach in and pull out exactly 2 marbles, you've pulled
out exactly 8/3(PI)r**3 in glass! ;-)
--
______________________ Ken Willmott
|][] # # # [] # ## [][|
|_||_______||____## ||_| Deadheading is fun.
___(U-U-U)`------'(U-U-U)______________________________
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Bob Casanova
>Subject: Re: Stapp, PK & Physics Today
>In article <41cq12$s...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, <ju...@suod.cs.colorado.edu>
>writes:
>> Richard Caldwell <richard....@mhs.oklaosf.state.ok.us> wrote:
>> >Fine. I have a bucket of marbles. I will reach in a pull out exactly 2
>> >marbles. You reach in a pull out exactly Pi marbles. Let's see how exact
>you
>> >can be with that one ;-)
>>
>> Neat trick. Now, without using any extra marbles, pull out and hand me
>> -3 marbles. As soon as you do that, I'll see what I can do with pi.
>So, you give up on my challenge and answer it by stating an equally impossible
>one. I agree that I, nor you, can pull -3 marbles from the bucket. That just
>means that -3 is another abstract mathematical concept, like Pi.
Nope. To "pull -3 marbles from the bucket", you add 3 marbles to the bucket.
;-)
<snip>
>Richard
Bob C.
* Good, fast, cheap! (Pick 2) *
Paul Murphy
>Fine. I have a bucket of marbles. I will reach in a pull out exactly 2
>marbles. You reach in a pull out exactly Pi marbles. Let's see how exact you
>can be with that one ;-)
Easy. Prior to the bucket of marbles, you have set up a system where
each marble is equivilent to 1. So you pull out 2 marbles. I set up
a system where each marble is the equivilent of pi. So I pull out pi
marbles. Exactly pi marbles.
Muff - Spanner in the works for free.
~~~~~~
As time divides, we watch, we wait...
Paul Murphy: ne...@pipex.dial.com
Tim Sheridan
: >>"telepathy", I will limit myself to citing the January 1994
: >>_Psychological Bulletin_ article by Daryl Bem and Charles Honorton.
: >> ... strongly significant effect nevertheless persisted. (About a 33% hit
: >>rate, with 25% being expected by chance, over several hundred trials.)
: >
: >OUTSTANDING! Thanks for pointing this out. Now, according to "Shannon
: >Theory" - so named after its inventor, Claude E. Shannon, of MIT's EE Dept
: >(emeritus, tho), such a hit rate and a (presumably nonbinary or "q-ary")
: >symbol alphabet together determine a CHANNEL CAPACITY for information
: >transmission over a telepathy channel. [snip]
: >What do you have to lose, if you are an
: Well, nothing, except the experiment as you described won't prove
: a damned thing. If the demo is successful, it doesn't rule out
: a covert channel that Randi didn't find, and if the demo isn't
: successful, then it simple demonstrates, once again, that psy
: isn't necessarily reproducible across experiments
: If you *really* want to make a convincing case for psy, then I suggest
: you just shrinkwrap a "Telepathy Experiment in a Box" and publish it
: somewhere -- so that I can get four of my friends together, we all
: read the paper, and can duplicate the experiment without having to rely
: on potential shills.
What a great idea for a game by...hasborough or milton bradely..
"It's PsiWrestleing The new- everyone must try it- rage"
But then again it would be nice to be able to test it for one's self.
But how bout a web site where you answer the questions
1 are you a skeptic of psi phenominon?
2 What is the correct number between 0 and 9?
: And what does this have to do with AI?
Computers that read your mind and tell you what games you want to buy.
Tim Sheridan
be that there is a limited amount of " non causal" energy that might
occurr in a system that would manifest it's self as "knowledge without
cause".
But since we are not all omniescient and all knowledgable my guess is
that there are very few bit's per event.. Perhaps there is even some
standard measure of "entropy leakage" which produces a steady effect for
large scale events.
Maybe only a fraction of a bit per kg of massenergy per second..
This unit of bit/kg/sec is interesting because it relates to the creation
of matter which is simply kg/sec. But them in our universe bit's per
unit energy is constant.. so there should be a relationship between the
information dencity and psy. This being the case higher information
dencities would produce greater psy effects. This occurrs at the end of
the universe in a big crunch or in close proximity to a black hole.
Well this if course is just idle speculation naturally but.. gee you
never know.
Unless it is true.. in which case you sometimes do know..
Hmm..
Gregory T Stevens
Richard Caldwell <richard....@mhs.oklaosf.state.ok.us> writes:
>In <41cq12$s...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
>> Richard Caldwell <richard....@mhs.oklaosf.state.ok.us> wrote:
>>>Fine. I have a bucket of marbles. I will reach in a pull out exactly 2
>>>marbles. You reach in a pull out exactly Pi marbles. Let's see how exact
>>>you can be with that one ;-)
>> Neat trick. Now, without using any extra marbles, pull out and hand me
>> -3 marbles. As soon as you do that, I'll see what I can do with pi.
>So, you give up on my challenge and answer it by stating an equally impossible
>one. I agree that I, nor you, can pull -3 marbles from the bucket. That just
>means that -3 is another abstract mathematical concept, like Pi.
But your original statement which spurred on this debate was that pi
is "inexact" whereas 2 is "exact." Whether pi is "an abstract mathematical
concept" is an entirely different debate. People have been trying to tell
you that pi is just as *exact* as two, even if we can't write it out
on paper exactly. You have as "evidence" that it is not exact that you can't
draw pi marbles out of a bag. The response was intended to show that by
your reasoning, -3 is also "inexact." Now, either you must support
the conclusion that -3 is "inexact" or you must give a *different* explanation
for why you consider pi less "exact" than 2.
--
Greg Stevens
gr...@umich.edu
Gregory T Stevens
>>>>>Fine. I have a bucket of marbles. I will reach in a pull out exactly
>>>>>2 marbles. You reach in a pull out exactly Pi marbles. Let's see how
>>>>>exact you can be with that one ;-)
>>>> Neat trick. Now, without using any extra marbles, pull out and hand me
>>>> -3 marbles. As soon as you do that, I'll see what I can do with pi.
Dave McQuillan (dm...@dsbc.icl.co.uk) wrote:
> Are you sure you can get exactly two marbles?...
> I don't think we can really say that even quaternions are less real than
> the integers by appealing to how the world works. Everythng might be
> fuzzy and imprecise and integers the abstraction.
Nonetheless it bring up the interesting point that mathematics is, to
an extent, empirical.
--
Greg Stevens
gr...@umich.edu