Text Size


Tag » Quantum Theory

Einstein was writing all this before modern quantum theory. Today we know that the Aether is the quantum vacuum filled with virtual particles that are off mass-shell i.e. E^2 =/= (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 Also contact forces are caused by off-mass shell virtual photons in the non-radiative near field including longitudinal polarizations absent in real photons on the mass shell (light cone). Action at a distance is in the Wheeler-Feynman classical sense confined to the photon mass shell (aka light cone) but including advanced back from the future destiny waves generalized to "confirmation" quantum de Broglie waves by John Cramer in his TI. This is in addition to the more familiar retarded history waves. de Broglie waves are faster than light in phase quantum information when m =/= 0 though slower than light in energy transport. nonlocal EPR correlations are explained by retrocausal advanced confirmation destiny waves in the Feynman zig zag (term coined by O Costa de Beauregard). On Jun 22, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote: And he said almost the same things in 1924: http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/aether.htm On 6/22/2014 7:46 PM, art wagner wrote: The Einstein Ether (1920): http://www.bonus.manualsforall.com/Educational/Albert-Einstein/Albert Einstein - Ether And The Theory Of Relativity.PDF


  2. Phys. Rev. D » Volume 87 » Issue 4
    < Previous Article | Next Article >
    Phys. Rev. D 87, 041301(R) (2013) [6 pages]
    Observing the multiverse with cosmic wakes
    No Citing Articles
    Download: PDF (724 kB) Buy this article Export: BibTeX or EndNote (RIS)
    Matthew Kleban1,*, Thomas S. Levi2,†, and Kris Sigurdson2,‡ 1Department of Physics, CCPP, New York University, New York, New York 10003, USA
    2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z1, Canada
    Received 28 January 2012; revised 26 May 2012; published 21 February 2013
    Current theories of the origin of the Universe, including string theory, predict the existence of a multiverse with many bubble universes. These bubble universes may collide, and collisions with ours produce cosmic wakes that enter our Hubble volume, appear as unusually symmetric disks in the cosmic microwave background, and disturb large scale structure. There is preliminary evidence consistent with one or more of these disturbances on our sky. However, other sources can produce similar features in the cosmic microwave background, and so additional signals are needed to verify their extra-universal origin. Here we find, for the first time, the detailed three-dimensional shape, temperature, and polarization signals of the cosmic wake of a bubble collision consistent with current observations. The polarization pattern has distinct features that when correlated with the corresponding temperature pattern are a unique and striking signal of a bubble collision. These features represent a verifiable prediction of the multiverse paradigm and might be detected by current or future experiments. A detection of a bubble collision would confirm the existence of the multiverse, provide compelling evidence for the string theory landscape, and sharpen our picture of the Universe and its origins.
    Like · · Share
    • Ram Ayana and Miriam Strauss like this.
    • Jack Sarfatti Kuch, you are not communicating intelligibly in many of your sentences.
    • William Kuch My apologies for that it's a habit Ive been trying to break.
    • Theodore Silva I like the Multiverse idea, it leaves open the concept of a kind of "natural selection" for evolving Universes -- even a kind of sexual selection, like the exchange of genes between bacteria. Universes exchanging Constants?
    • Paul Zielinski "No Z you are confused. Tegmark's Levels 1 and 2 are a simple consequence of Einstein's GR + INFLATION." No Jack I am not confused. The mainstream view is that as things stand the existence of a Tegmark Level II multiverse is a *hypothesis*, and I agree with that view.

      The anthropic conundrum is solved in the Tegmark Level II multiverse model by random generation of new universes, in a kind of cosmic Darwinian lottery -- as discussed for example by Penrose. I see nothing in contemporary physics that *requires* the existence of such a multiverse, and the observational support at this point is rather weak. All kinds of things can be derived in theory that may or may not be realized in nature.

      Of course a Tegmark Level III multiverse (a la Everett) is another issue, and is even more conjectural than Level II, since it is based on an alternate interpretation of QM, and is thus not subject to direct empirical confirmation. So I agree with you on that.
    • William Kuch The term "Multiverse" is an oxymoron, resolvable IFF all of these alternate universes are trivial. BAM.
    • Jack Sarfatti Kuch U r babbling like a loon and do not at all understand this subject. You are way out of your depth and do not know that you do not know.
    • Jack Sarfatti Z yes multiverse Level II is a hypothesis that is a "theorem" if you accept the mainstream theory of "chaotic inflation" for which actual evidence is accumulating and more decisive tests are coming. Level 1 is much more certain as it only requires Einstein's GR - this is explained in Tamara Davis's PhD. There are many "causal diamonds" we are inside one of them and they are observer-dependent.
    • William Kuch Indeed I am, with one caveat. I do not babble like a loon. I babble as one.
    • Jack Sarfatti A moment of lucid self-awareness - good for you.
    • Jack Sarfatti OK Z I think we agree Level I very probable - effectively a fact given Tamara Davis's PhD Level II less certain e.g. Penrose's qualms about chaotic inflation, Level III even less certain, I actually reject it. Level IV seems to be of no scientific value. BTW string theory is getting more testable it seems from Lenny Susskind's Stanford online videos.
    • Paul Zielinski OK Jack let's agree that GR + cosmic inflation strongly suggests the possibility of a Level II multiverse being realized in nature. But let's also acknowledge that the inflation model is still itself hypothetical in character. So yes if you are committed to the inflation model then it is reasonable to take the existence of a Level II multiverse seriously.
  3. Like · · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 24, 2013, at 5:27 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

      problem is that it does no work so we cannot apply it to fly an airplane or a space ship there always seems to be a Catch 22 preventing a useful application :

      "perpetual motion"? fir
      st thought "crackpot"

      second thought: "Wilczek's time crystal"

      Rotating Casimir systems: magnetic field-enhanced perpetual motion, possible realization in doped nanotubes, and laws of thermodynamics
      M. N. Chernodub
      CNRS, Laboratoire de Mathematiques et Physique Theorique, Universite Francois-Rabelais Tours,
      Federation Denis Poisson, Parc de Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France and
      Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Gent, Krijgslaan 281, S9, B-9000 Gent, Belgium
      (Dated: August 24, 2012)

      Recently, we have demonstrated that for a certain class of Casimir-type systems ("devices") the energy of zero-point vacuum fluctuations reaches its global minimum when the device rotates about a certain axis rather than remains static. This rotational vacuum effect may lead to the emergence of permanently rotating objects provided the negative rotational energy of zero-point fluctuations cancels the positive rotational energy of the device itself. In this paper, we show that for massless electrically charged particles the rotational vacuum effect should be drastically (astronomically) enhanced in the presence of a magnetic field. As an illustration, we show that in a background of experimentally available magnetic fields the zero-point energy of massless excitations in rotating torus-shaped doped carbon nanotubes may indeed overwhelm the classical energy of rotation for certain angular frequencies so that the permanently rotating state is energetically favored. The suggested "zero-point driven" devices, which have no internally moving parts, correspond to a perpetuum mobile of a new, fourth kind: They do not produce any work despite the fact that their equilibrium (ground) state corresponds to a permanent rotation even in the presence of an external environment. We show that our proposal is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.
      PACS numbers: 03.70.+k, 42.50.Lc, 42.50.Pq

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Jun 24, 2013, at 2:05 PM, art wagner wrote:

    • Dean Radin rebuts the failure to replicate Bem's "Feeling the Future" done on line without proper controls Radin says - bogus rebuttal
    • Jack Sarfatti From: Dean Radin
      Subject: Re: Possible nuclear detonation detected by anomalous mental phenomena
      Date: June 24, 2013 5:02:48 PM PDT
      ...See More
    • Jack Sarfatti From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>
      Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Reality of Possibility
      Date: June 25, 2013 11:08:05 AM PDT
      To: Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
      Reply-To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics <exoticphysics@mai
      ...See More
      This paper is dedicated to three great thinkers who have insisted that the world is not quite the straightforward affair that our successes in describing it mathematically may have seemed to suggest: Niels Bohr, whose analyses of the problem of explaining life play a central role in the following di...
    • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:27 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

      On Jun 24, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

      See Chapter 7 of my book. One can see the usual subject/object dichotomy as the absorption/emission dichotomy in TI, and can think of 'qualia' as the subjective aspects of any absorption event.

      This is strange. You seem to say that in the simplest Feynman diagram ---< --- = photon < = scattered electron

      there is a conscious experience?

      I think you go too far. First of all quantum electrodynamics is built upon linear unitary Born probability rule orthodox quantum theory with signal locality "passion at a distance" (A. Shimony), no perfect cloning of an unknown quantum state etc. built in. David Deutsch has correctly argued that consciousness is not possible in orthodox quantum theory.

      Basically your distinction is equivalent to Bohm's simply a change of nouns in my opinion.

      Your "possibility" = Bohm's "quantum potential" Q = Wheeler's BIT = Stapp's "thought like" field = David Chalmers "intrinsic mental field"

      Your "actuality" = Bohm's not so "hidden variables" i.e. material particles/classical EM-gravity field configurations that are piloted by Q i.e. "beables."

      Valentini's recent claim that Q is unstable leading to deviations from Born probability rule where it shouldn't of course needs to be addressed. Basil Hiley did so.

      As you will see in Lecture 8 of Michael Towler's http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

      The no-signal theorems of Adrian Kent et-al only apply in the approximate limit where the generalized action-reaction principle of Einstein's relativity is violated.

      In other words, no stand-alone entanglement signaling (without a classical signal key to decrypt the coded message) depends upon lack of a direct back-reaction of Q on the beables it pilots. This is equivalent to Antony Valentini's "sub-quantal thermal equilibrium" of the beables.
      Indeed, orthodox quantum theory is not background independent to make an analogy of Q with space-time geometry. Q is not itself a dynamical field (in configuration space) it has no sources! This violates Einstein's relativity principle in a very deep sense of no absolute fields in physics. Any field that acts on another field must have back-reaction. Now of course we have test particles in the gravity & EM fields that are not sources. But we all understand that is an approximation. Orthodox quantum theory depends upon beables being test particles, i.e. not sources of the Q BIT field in configuration space. Therefore, orthodox quantum theory is an approximation of a more general theory, e.g. something like Valentini's, and is not complete. The most obvious breakdown of orthodox quantum theory is living matter.

      Orthodox Quantum Theory is simply John Archibald Wheeler's


      It is incomplete because it does NOT have direct back-reaction

      BIT FROM IT.
    • Jack Sarfatti Consciousness is, in my view, an emergent property of very complex highly entangled many-particle pumped open-systems which are Prigogine's "dissipative structures" corresponding to Tony Valentini's "sub-quantal non-equilibrium". The big defect in Valentini's theory is that he does not properly address pumping of the system. He only really includes closed systems relaxing to thermal equilibrium.

      Consciousness is imprinting of information directly from the classical IT material degrees of freedom, e.g. CLASSICAL Fuv = Au,v - Av,u on their (super) pilot field Q, which is intrinsically mental.



      in a creative self-organizing loop of a nonlinear non-unitary post-quantum theory.

      We need the "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) Higgs-Goldstone spontaneous breakdown of ground state symmetry to get the Glauber coherent states that obey a nonlinear nonunitary Landau-Ginzburg equation in ordinary space - not configuration space - that replaces the linear unitary Schrodinger-Dirac equations. This is why 't Hooft's S-Matrix for black hole horizons may fail. This is why Tegmark's Level 3 may fail as well.


      In particular, as I note in the book, the 'Now' (with its attendant qualia) is a primal, irreduceably local phenomenon, defined relative to an absorption resulting in an actualized transaction. Biological organisms are very sophisticated absorption systems. Note that my model does not presume that the physical entities are mind-free Cartesian matter, so allows for a subjective component within the interacting systems, although the model is not observer-dependent.


      From: adastra1@me.com
      Subject: Re: Reality of Possibility
      Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:26:50 -0700

      It's much more than that. I have a clear picture of qualia. What's yours?

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Jun 24, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

      You're depending on the Bohmian model here. I'm working with a different model, so these arguments don't apply.

      Subject: Re: Reality of Possibility
      Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:34:05 -0700
      To: rekastner@hotmail.com

      I don't think u can have consciousness qualia without signal nonlocality violating quantum theory.

      Sure free will is simply the piloting of matter by Bohm's Q. However, you cannot have qualia imprinted on Q from the matter Q pilots. Quantum theory violates the generalized action-reaction principle.

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Jun 24, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Ruth Kastner wrote:


      Thanks for the feedback.
      My interpretation of the quantum realm as physical possibility certainly leaves room for the theory to apply to consciousness and biological systems. For example, I don't go into this in detail in my book, but 'offer waves' (i.e. the entities described by quantum states) are excitations of the relevant fields. The creation of these entities (involving 'creation operators' in QFT) is inherently unpredictable. This leaves room for things like volition and creativity within the standard theory.
      So I disagree that one needs a Valentini-type model i.e., going beyond standard QM, for these things.

      I welcome thoughts on my guest post on George Musser's Sci Am blog (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/06/21/can-we-resolve-quantum-paradoxes-by-stepping-out-of-space-and-time-guest-post/)


      From: adastra1@me.com
      Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:07:52 -0700
      Subject: Reality of Possibility

      To: rek

      Ruth, I disagree with your basic thesis that orthodox quantum theory is complete.
      This would deny Antony Valentini's sub-quantal non-equilibrium with signal nonlocality for example.
      My basic thesis is that orthodox quantum theory is incomplete. That it cannot explain biology and consciousness.
      Both the latter depend upon signal nonlocality in strong violation of orthodox quantum theory.

      1) linear Hermitian operators for all observables

      2) orthogonal eigenfunctions for all observables

      3) unitary time evolution

      4) linear superposition of quantum states

      5) Born probability interpretation

      6) consciousness

      are incompatible

      I also accept retro-causation in mind/brain data as a working hypothesis, i.e. Libet, Radin, Bierman, Bem.
      Next month will be the 100th anniversary of Bohr's model of the atom, one of the foundations of the theory of quantum mechanics. And look where ...
  2. A crisis for Bohm's version of quantum theory
    Like · · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti re: http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1306.1576.pdf

      Where is the flaw in Valentini's argument that the Born rule is so unstable in it, that orthodox quantum theory would not even work for inanimate simple systems like spectroscopy and scattering where in fact it works so well? It seems "too cheap" (Einstein to Bohm, 2952) that de Broglie's p = gradS works and dp/dt = - grad(V + Q ) does not. Q has such beautiful properties explaining spooky quantum weirdness.

      Will coupling to a gauge field help?

      p = gradS - (e/c)A ?

      even though the field harmonic oscillators are also unstable just like the hydrogen atom electron - perhaps when coupled to sources "a miracle happens"? I don't have much hope for that at the moment.

      Of course, I rejoice that the Born probability rule should be unstable - but not too unstable. It should be meta-stable to allow signal nonlocality - post-quantum voodoo "magick without magic" as in http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049 Valentini still seems to believe in that as well, but not with Q. What's wrong with this picture?
Jack Sarfatti
Sunday via Twitter
  • quantum heretic | research and creative discovery | Clemson University http://t.co/6695ZinRX9
    quantum heretic
    In the warm winter sunshine, a distinguished man stands on the curb outside a local bank, wearing a casual jacket, his dark, curly hair stranded with silver
  • Jack Sarfatti agreed
    his effective Hamiltonian for 4-port passive devices (beam splitters, interferometers) and for active devices like parametric down converters for making EPR pairs is useful - note formal analogy with BCS superconductivity effective Hamiltonian a
    1a2 + a1*a2* except in light bosons, in BCS fermions.

    ps the new Valentini paper claiming that Bohm's Q dynamics violates observation - but de Broglie's dynamics still OK is important.

    of course instability of Born rule collapsing no-signaling glass ceiling is what I am after - actually so is Valentini

    Life is that in my opinion.



    On Jun 10, 2013, at 10:12 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

    Thanks, Jack.
    A review of quantum optics
    of astonishlng depth and breadth.
    Who is Ulf Leonhardt?
    Decendent of the Vikings
    who ran the place in the old days?

    On Jun 9, 2013, at 2:08 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

  • Jack Sarfatti It seems that special relativity won't save "Bohm dynamics" in Valentini's sense either.

    Valentini et-al write:

    "This is in sharp contrast with de Broglie's dynamics, where efficient relaxation to equilibrium implies that one should expect to see equilibrium at later times (except, possibly, for very long-wavelength modes in the early universe (Valentini 2007, 2008b, 2010; Colin and Valentini 2013)). It is then reasonable to conclude that, while de Broglie's dynamics is a viable physical
    theory, Bohm's dynamics is not. ...

    It might be suggested that Bohm's dynamics is only an approximation, and that corrections from a deeper theory will (in reasonable circumstances) drive the phase-space distribution to equilibrium. Such a suggestion was in fact made by Bohm (1952a, p. 179). While this may turn out to be the case, the fact remains that Bohm's dynamics as it stands is unstable and therefore (we
    claim) untenable.

    In our view Bohm's 1952 Newtonian reformulation of de Broglie's 1927 pilot wave dynamics was a mistake, and we ought to regard de Broglie's original
    formulation as the correct one. Such a preference is no longer merely a matter
    of taste: we have presented concrete physical reasons for preferring de Broglie's dynamics over Bohm's."

    "The above results provide strong evidence that there is no tendency to relax to
    quantum equilibrium in Bohm's dynamics, and that the quantum equilibrium
    state is in fact unstable. It is then reasonable to conclude that if the universe
    started in a nonequilibrium state { and if the universe were governed by Bohm's
    dynamics { then we would not see quantum equilibrium today. The Born rule
    for particle positions would fail, momenta would take non-quantum-mechanical values, and there would be no bound states such as atoms or nuclei. ... the same instability appears if one applies Bohm's dynamics to high-energy field theory. ... Similar results would be obtained for the electromagnetic field, for example, resulting in unboundedly large electric and magnetic field strengths even in the vacuum. This is grossly at variance with observation"

    On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:48 AM, Basil Hiley wrote:

    "Colin and Valentini are not addressing Bohmian non-commutative dynamics that I wrote about in arXiv 1303.6057
    They are considering what Bohm and I called the stochastic interpretation of QM. [see our paper "Non-locality and Locality in the Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Phys. Reports 172, 93-122, (1989).] That was based on the earlier work of Bohm "Proof that Probability Density Approaches |Ψ|2 in Causal Interpretation of the Quantum Theory", Phys. Rev., 89, no. 2, 458-406, (1953) and the work in Bohm and Vigier, Model of the Causal Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of a Fluid with Irregular Fluctuations, Phys. Rev. 96, no. 1, 208-216, (1954). These approaches add a new stochastic 'sub-quantum' field to 1952 model in order to explain the quantum probability P=|Ψ|^2 as an equilibrium condition in this stochastic background. It should be noted that de Broglie supported these approaches and conclusions in his book "Non-linear Wave Mechanics: a Causal Interpretation", Elsevier, Amsterdam, ch XIII, (1960). All these authors including de Broglie, concluded that under the right assumptions the distribution approaches quantum distribution. Bohm and I gave a brief summary of the essentials that lead to that conclusion. I have not had time to study why Colin and Valentini arrive at a contrary conclusion.

    One of the conclusions of our Phys. Reports paper was that because the stochastic model adds the possibility of new features arising beyond those given by the standard QM approach. For example, in sufficiently fast processes, results different from those given by the equilibrium Ψ could result and that further investigation could potentially be useful in giving rise to new physics. We failed to find any new physics that agreed with experiment and therefore abandoned the stochastic approach.

    I find it very surprising that Colin and Valentini set up de Broglie v Bohm in view of what de Broglie himself wrote in his book "Non-linear Wave Mechanics". Just read the book!


    On 10 Jun 2013, at 17:32, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

    11 hours ago via Twitter
    quantum heretic
    Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter · Share

    [1306.1576] Instability of quantum equilibrium in Bohm's dynamics

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu>
Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Basil Hiley's update on current state of work in Bohm's ontological picture of quantum theory
Date: November 25, 2012 12:36:53 PM PST
To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>, Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
Reply-To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>

In this approach I still don't see a clear answer to the question 'what is a particle,' unless it is that particles are projection operators.
In PTI a 'particle' is just a completed (actualized) transaction. PTI deals with both the non-rel and relativistic realms with the same basic model, which testifies to the power of that model. It is straightforwardly realist: quantum states describe subtle (non-classical) physical entities.
It seems to me that approaches dealing with conceptual problems in terms of abstract algebras are intrinsically non-realist or even anti-realist. Physics is the study of physical reality. Algebra is purely formal. Unless one wants to say that reality is purely formal,i.e. has no genuine physical content, I don't see how appealing to an abstract algebra as the fundamental content of quantum theory can provide interpretive insight into reality.
Put more simply, a physical theory may certainly contain formal elements, but those elements need to be understood as *referring to something in the real world* in order for us
to understand what the theory is describing or saying about the physical world. That is, it is the physical world that dictates what the theory's mathematical content and
structure should be, because of the contingent features of the physical world. Saying that a theory has a certain mathematical structure or certain formal components does not specify what the theory is saying about reality. I think an interpretation of a theory should be able to provide specific physical insight into what a theory is telling us about the domain it mathematically describes.


Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@PacBell.net>
Subject: [Starfleet Command] Basil Hiley's update on current state of work in Bohm's ontological picture of quantum theory
Date: November 25, 2012 11:58:26 AM PST
To: Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
Reply-To: SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com

On Nov 25, 2012, at 2:55 AM, Basil Hiley <b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk> wrote:


As I dig deeper into the mathematical structure that contains the mathematical features that the Bohm uses, Bohm energy, Bohm momentum, quantum potential etc. are essential features, as you imply, of a non-commutative phase space; strictly a symplectic structure with a non-commutative multiplication (the Moyal-star product).  This product combines into two brackets, the Moyal bracket, (a*b-b*a)/hbar and the Baker bracket (a*b+b*a)/2.  The beauty of these brackets is to order hbar, Moyal becomes the Poisson and Baker becomes the ordinary product ab.

Time evolution requires two equations, simply because you have to distinguish between 'left' and 'right' translations.  These two equations are in fact the two Bohm equations produced from the Schrödinger equation under polar decomposition in disguised form.  There is no need to appeal to classical physics at any stage. Nevertheless these two equations reduce in the limit order hbar to the classical Liouville equation and the classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation respectively. This then shows that the quantum potential becomes negligible in the classical limit as we have maintained all along.  There are not two worlds, quantum and classical, there is just one world.  It was by using this algebraic structure that I was able to show that the Bohm model can be extended to the Pauli and Dirac particles, each with their own quantum potential.  However here not only do we have a non-commutative symplectic symmetry, but also a non-commutative orthogonal symmetry, hence my interests in symplectic and orthogonal Clifford algebras.

In this algebraic approach the wave function is not taken to be something fundamental, indeed there is no need to introduce the wave function at all!.  What is fundamental are the elements of the algebra, call it what you will, the Moyal algebra or the von Neumann algebra, they are exactly the same thing.  This is algebraic quantum mechanics that Haag discusses in his book "Local Quantum Physics, fields, particles and algebra".  Physicists used to call it matrix mechanics, but then it was unclear how it all hung together.  In the algebraic approach there is no collapse of the wave function, because you don't need the wave function.  All the information contained in the wave function is encoded in the algebra itself, in its left and right ideals which are intrinsic to the algebra itself.  Where are the particles in this approach?  For that we need Eddington's "The Philosophy of Science", a brilliant but neglected work.  Like a point in geometry, what is a particle?  Is it a hazy general brick-like entity out of which the world is constructed, or is it a quasi-local, semi-autonomous feature within the total structure-process?  Notice the change, not things-in-interaction, but structure-process in which any invariant feature takes its form and properties from the structure-process that gives it subsistence. If an algebra is used to describe this structure-process, then what is the element that subsists?  What is the element of existence?  The idempotent E^2=E has eigenvalues 0 or 1: it exists or it doesn't exist.  An entity exists in a structure-process if it continuously turns itself into itself.  The Boolean logic of the classical world turns existence into a permanent order: quantum logic turns existence into a partial order of non-commutative E_i!  Particles can be 'created' or 'annihilated' depending on the total overall process. Here there is an energy threshold, keep the energy low and it is the properties of the entity that are revealed through non-commutativity, these properties becoming commutativity to order hbar.  The Bohm model can be used to complement the standard approach below the creation/annihilation threshold.  Raise this threshold and then the field theoretic properties of the underlying algebras become apparent.

All this needs a different debate from the usual one that seems to go round and round in circles, seemingly resolving very little. Basil.

On 24 Nov 2012, at 19:10, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

What is the ontology of "possibility"? In Bohm's picture it is a physical field whose domain is phase space (Wigner density) and whose range is Hilbert space. They are physically real, but not classical material.

The basic problem is how can a non-physical something interact with a physical something? This is a contradiction in the informal language. Only like things interact with unlike things. Otherwise, it's "then a miracle happens" and we are back to magick's "collapse". We simply replace one mystery by another in that case.

On Nov 24, 2012, at 5:59 AM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

Yes. It serves as a probability distribution because it is an ontological descriptor of possibilities.

From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 1:56 AM
To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics

Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Asher Peres's Bohrian epistemological view of quantum theory opposes Einstein-Bohm's ontological view. Commentary #2

On Nov 23, 2012, at 9:24 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com<mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com>> wrote:

Did it ever occur to anyone in this field that the quantum wave amplitude plays a dual role, first as an ontological descriptor,
and second as probability distribution?

This I think is consistent with Bohm's ideas. When there is sub-quantal thermal equilibrium (A. Valentini) the Born probability rule works, but not otherwise.

It seems reasonable to suppose that the wave interference phenomena of quantum physics reflect an underlying objective
ontology, while the probability distributions derived from such physical wave amplitudes reflect both that and also our state
of knowledge of a system.

That a classical probability distribution suddenly "collapses" when the information available to us changes is no mystery.

The appearance of collapse is explained clearly in Bohm & Hiley's Undivided Universe. See also Mike Towler's Cambridge Lectures. I will provide details later.

So the trick here I think is to disentangle the objective ontic components from the subjective state-of-knowledge-of-the-observer
components of the wave function and its associated probability density -- to "diagonalize" the conceptual matrix, so to speak.

However, other than Bohm it looks like no one in foundations of quantum physics has yet figured out a way to do that.


My favorite example is an apple orchard at harvest, the trees having fruit with stems of randomly varying strength. Let's suppose
there is an earthquake and a seismic wave propagates along the ground. The amount of shaking of the trees at any given time
and place will be proportional to the intensity of the seismic wave, given by the square of the wave amplitude, and therefore the
smoothed density of fallen apples left on the ground after the earthquake will naturally be derivable from the square seismic wave
amplitude (since that determines the energy available for shaking the trees). However, when we see that a particular apple has fallen,
the derived probability density (initially describing *both* the intensity of the seismic wave *and* our state of knowledge about the
likelihood of any particular apple falling to the ground) suddenly "collapses", but in this example such "collapse" is purely a function
of our state of knowledge about a particular apple, and does not have any bearing on the wave amplitude from which it was
initially derived. In this example, it is quite clear that the probability distribution applying to any particular apple can "collapse" due
to an observation being made of any particular apple, even while the wave amplitude from which it was initially derived is entirely
unaffected by the observation of the state of any particular apple.

My question is, why is wave mechanics any different? Isn't this also a "Born interpretation" of the seismic wave?

On Nov 23, 2012, at 10:25 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu<mailto:kafatos@chapman.edu>> wrote:

I disagree, if one insists on just one view (realism) being the only possibility. We have to ask what do we mean by "real"? What kind of "space" does that wave function reside in? What are its units if not in Hilbert space referring to the Born interpretation?

There are numerous attempts to ontologize the wave function (see Kafatos and Nadeau, "The Conscious Universe", Springer 2000). The hidden metaphysics is to assume axiomatically that an external reality exists independent of conscious observers. This ultimately leads to an increased number of theoretical constructs without closure of anything (e.g. the multiverse).

Moreover, in the matrix mechanics the wave function is not needed. If psi were real, shouldn't it have been discovered long ago? Unless one argues that the theory of QM didn't exist until the 20th century so we couldn't have "discovered" it which case it gets us back to a description of nature dependent on observers!

It is OK to ontologize anything but in that case, please follow the hidden metaphysics that is implied. And state this metaphysics.

In a practical way to conduct science, we should remember how specific scientific constructs were developed. It didn't happen that somehow scientists like Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Born, etc. stumbled on a physical quantity called the wave function psi. It was developed as part of wave mechanics which was complementary to Heisenberg's matrix mechanics.

The other ontology is that consciousness is real. This one naturally follows from orthodox quantum theory and leads to a pragmatic view of the cosmos. Two ontologies, take your pick for specific science to do. One leads to many worlds interpretation and ultimately to, perhaps, an infinity of universes, one of a few (or only one?) that happens to be "right" one (including having something called the wave function) to have conscious observers; the other leads to one universe that is self-driven by itself.

Can the two views/ontologies be reconciled? Yes, in a generalized complementarity framework, although one would negate the other in specific applications. What is "real" in this view is generalized principles applying at all levels and whatever science one works with. One deals with an objective view of the universe. The other with a subjective view of the universe (which relies on qualia).

I won't go any further. See also a series of articles by Chopra, Tanzi and myself in the last several months in Huffington Post and San Francisco Chronicle.

Menas Kafatos

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 24, 2012, at 1:53 PM, "JACK SARFATTI" <sarfatti@pacbell.net<mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net><mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net>> wrote:

Yes, I agree with Ruth. I think Peres is fundamentally mistaken. However, there are some important insights in his papers nevertheless.

On Nov 23, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu<mailto:rkastner@umd.edu><mailto:rkastner@umd.edu>> wrote:

Concerning this statement by Peres and Fuchs in what is quoted below:

"Here, we must be careful: a quantum jump (also called collapse) is something that happens in our description of the system, not to the system itself. "

How do they know that? That is just an anti-realist assumption; that is, it presupposes that quantum states and processes do not refer to entities in the world but only to our knowledge (i.e. that quantum states are epistemic). This view has come under increasing criticism (e.g. via the PBR theorem which disproves some types of 'epistemic' interpretations). I present a contrary, realist view in my new book on TI, in which measurements are clearly accounted for in physical terms and quantum states do refer to entities, not just our knowledge. Quantum 'jumps' can certainly be considered real and can be  understood as a kind of spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Details on that?

In my view, quantum theory is not just about knowledge or epistemic probability; it is about the real world. There is no need to give up realism re quantum theory. Prior realist interpretations simply have not been able to solve the measurement problem adequately, because they neglect the relativistic level in which absorption and emission are acknowledged as equally important physical processes.


ExoticPhysics mailing list

Reply via web post                            Reply to sender                             Reply to group                            Start a New Topic               Messages in this topic (1)                       RECENT ACTIVITY:
Visit Your Group
These are the logs of the starship NCC-1701-280Z.  Its five-year mission to seek out new minds, new quantum realms.  To boldly explore physics where no physicist  has gone before (in physical, virtual, or quantum worlds)!

Starmind(tm) -- Your daily journal to the industry's brightest stars.  You get infinite knowledge only with Starmind:

All hits.  All Physics. All the time.  And now in parallel and diverging universes.  (Thus proving they don't exist as separate entities --But have we gotten to them yet or not?)

** Patronize any Yahoo! Group Sponsor at your own risk.

- - - - - - Message From Starfleet  - - - (Read below) - - - - - - - - - - -
To change any characteristic of your online membership access, visit via web:

Join in our ongoing discussions and theoretical science writings:

Dr. Sarfatti may be reached at his e-mail or using Internet site:

To respond or comment directly to the group's archive, reply via e-mail:

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback .

On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:41 AM, Basil Hiley <b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk> wrote:

On 27 Jul 2012, at 07:00, nick herbert wrote:

On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:50 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

1. The oft-cited remark that non-relativistic Bohmian mechanics gives the same result as conventional QM for all conceivable experiments is plain wrong. The two theories possess radically different ontologies which lead to radically different consequences.

BH: How can it be wrong?  It uses exactly the same mathematics, without the addition or subtraction of any new mathematical structure.  Its predicted expectation values found in all experiments are identical to those found from the conventional rules.  If you want to criticise it, why not simply say "It adds no new experimental predictions, so why bother with it?"  Then you can get into arguments about which interpretation is better in your opinion.  Then it is a matter of opinion not experimental science.

JS: However, Antony Valentini's extension does add new predictions consistent with my own independent investigations and also Brian Josephson's which already has observational evidence in its favor (Libet, Radin, Bierman, Puthoff-Targ, Bem)

NH: What exists in QM is a wavefunction, spread out in configuration space (and this wavefunction is "real" according to PBR). For a given quantum state all systems represented by that state have the same ontology.

BH: The ontology gives meaning to the notion of a "quantum state".  What does it mean to say "For a given quantum state  all systems represented by that state have the same ontology"?

NH: What exists in BM is an actual particle which for S-states has the remarkable property that v=0. In BM all systems represented by the same state are different--their difference (in the S-state case) being the differing positions of the static electron. A Bohmian S-state consists of an ensemble of stationary electrons each in a different position whose position pattern is given by psi squared.

It is this v=0 property of BM S-wave electrons that is used to create counterexamples to the contention that BM and QM give the same predictions.

1. Muonic Hydrogen. Like t! he electron the muon in the BM picture is stationary. Hence the muon lifetime in BM is the just the natural lifetime. However in QM the muon has a velocity distribution so the lifetime is lengthened by relativity. BM and QM predict different lifetimes for the muonic atom. One may object
that I have introduced relativity into a non-rel situation. However the QM and BM states are still non-rel.
The lifetime of the muon can be seen as a measuring device probing the ontology of the muonic hydrogen.
The probe uses a relativity effect to measure a non-rel configuration.

BH: I recall having already answered this criticism some time ago.  Time dilation is a relativistic phenomenon so you must use the relativistic Dirac theory in this case. 
JS:: Yes, Nick's error here is obvious. He appeals to the wrong equation for the problem. It's a Red Herring.

BH: In the past there I have been entirely happy with the treatment of the Bohm model of the Dirac equation that we have given.  However Bob Callaghan and myself have now obtained a new complete treatment of the Dirac equation with which I am completely happy. It uses the Clifford algebra in a fundamental way as it must to link with the known successful spinor structure.  See Hiley and Callaghan:  Clifford Algebras and the Dirac-Bohm Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi Equation.  Foundations of Physics,  42 (2012) 192-208.
 DOI:  10.1007/s10701-011-9558-z and in more detail in The Clifford Algebra Approach to Quantum Mechanics B: The Dirac Particle and its relation to the Bohm Approach,  (2010)    aXriv: 1011.4033.
Our work shows that the Bohm charge velocity of the electron is, in fact, given by v= Psi alpha Psi,  where alpha is the Dirac 4x4 matrix, which is related to the Dirac gamma matrices. (See Bohm and Hiley The Undivided Universe, p. 272 for our original treatment which is confirmed by our latest work.)  If you now look at the wave function of the ground state of the Dirac hydrogen atom which you can find in Bjorken and Drell p. 55 you will find the electron is moving in the ground state.  What is interesting is that when you take this expression and go to the non-relativistic limit you find the velocity is zero, exactly the result that the Schrödinger equation gives.  Remember the energy levels calculated from  the Schrödinger hydrogen atom are only approximations to those calculated using the Dirac hydrogen atom.

Do you have a reference to the paper that measures the lifetime of the muon in muonic hydrogen?  I can't find a good reference to a clean experiment which shows exactly how to measure the time dilation you mention.  I have recently written up the details of the calculation that I have outlined above but I would like to add a better reference to the actual measurement.

2. Electron Capture decay. Certain radioactive elements (Beryllium 7, for instance) possess an excess positive charge and do not have enough energy to decay by positron emission. Instead they capture the S-state electron which transforms a nuclear proton into a neutron and neutrino (inverse beta decay). Electron Capture (EC) is a very delicate probe of the ontology of the S-state electron. QM ontology (all electrons the same) predicts a smooth exponential decay. After many half-lifes all the Be7 is gone.
BM ontology predicts a very different outcome: exponential decay for all electrons located inside the nucleus;
infinite li! fe for stationary Bohmian electrons located outside the nucleus.

BH: You must read past the simple Bohm model introduced in chapter three of our book, "The Undivided Universe".  The first ten chapters contain a discussion of the non-relativistic Bohm model.  There we show that if you want to apply the theory to problems where the particles interact either with other particle or with fields like the electro-magnetic field, you must introduce an appropriate interaction Hamiltonian.  In section 5.3 to 5.5 we show how to deal with a very simple example of two-particle interactions.  These sections were written simply to illustrate how the mathematics work and how you can explain the results using the Bohm interpretation. NB the interpretation is only applied after we have solved the Schrödinger equation containing the interaction Hamiltonian.  You can't solve these equations exactly so you have to use perturbation theory.  Remember the maths is the same as for the standard interpretation.  It is the interpretation that is different.

What happens if the interaction Hamiltonian involves the electromagnetic potentials?  To discuss interaction with the electromagnetic field you must go to a relativistic theory.  This means you must use the Dirac equation.  Chapter 12 of our book begins to show you how to do this.  The work of Bob Callaghan and myself mentioned above takes this further.  What we have done is to discuss the free Dirac electron for simplicity.  We simply wanted to show how it worked without introducing more realistic interaction Hamiltonians. 
Now let me try to answer your question as to how we deal with electron capture.  In order to describe this capture, we have to introduce the appropriate interaction Hamiltonian.  What is the appropriate interaction Hamiltonian in this case?  To find this we have to go to a review article like "Orbital electron capture by the nucleus" [Rev. Mod Phys. 49 (1977) 77-221].  You will see that the interaction Hamiltonian is a weak electron current-hadron current interaction.  You must now put that into the Dirac equation and calculate away.  Well the calculations are all done in the Rev. Mod. Phys. paper and all we need to do is to interpret the results according to the Bohm model.

Where your analysis goes wrong is that you assume (1) the non-relativistic theory and (2)  there is no interaction between the nucleus and the electron.  You can do that to a first approximation to explain the principle of the Bohm model to, say, a first year undergraduate, but you must not say that's all there is.  It is not a true reflection of the processes that are involved!  There is an interaction between the nucleon and the electron and you must take this into account even in the Bohm model if you want to understand the physics.

If your message is simply to say that the naive Bohm model based on the Schrödinger is inadequate to deal with these problems then I totally agree with you.  Bohm and I have always recognised that the '52 work was just a first step.  Let me quote from his Causality and Chance book p. 118

“It must be emphasized, however, that these criticisms are in no way directed at the logical consistency of the model, or at its ability to explain the essential characteristics of the quantum domain.  Rather they are based on broader criteria, which suggest that many features of the model are implausible and, more generally, that the interpretation proposed in section 4 [of the ‘52 paper] does not go deep enough.”

I thought that in our book, "The Undivided Universe", we made it clear that chapter 3 was a first step.  All the remaining chapters were to show how the model was to be developed to meet many different actual situations found in nature.  Finally in chapter 15, we outlined what was going to be developed in a second volume, which would probe a much deeper structure but unfortunately Bohm died just as we were finishing the first book.

NH: If these two counter-examples to the QM/BM experimental identity conjecture have been discussed in the literature,
I! am unaware of it. But they should be.

BH: You are quite right, these points should be discussed in the literature.  Unfortunately I have been too involved in developing the ideas outlined in chapter 15 and that means going deeper into what I think really underlies quantum phenomena.  You will find some of this work in the latest publications of mine which are accessible on the net.  A good place to find a comprehensive review of my latest efforts is in my paper Process, Distinction, Groupoids and Clifford Algebras: an Alternative View of the Quantum Formalism, in New Structures for Physics, ed Coecke, B., Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 813, pp. 705-750, Springer (2011).  Unfortunately I don't think it is available on the net at present but if you are interested I can send you a copy.

Thank you for your interest in our work.


Nick Herbert