Text Size


This is essentially the fractal trick used in cell phone antennas. Of course General Relativity needs to be fractalized - it's too smooth. Need fractional dimensions. Some French guy did it it in 1970's - was it Notalle?

We may need fractal event horizons? This should affect the hologram idea?  Susskind showed that Bohm hidden variable paths must be fractal lines as I recall - maybe he did not use Bohm's picture however?

Can we make fractal graphene sheets that are also metamaterials?

On Sep 28, 2011, at 1:44 PM, art wagner wrote:

See important comments by Uncle Al under the article:  http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27202/?p1=blogs

Sep 28
The Lifeboat-affiliated attendees are:

Athena Andreadis, Jason Batt, Elizabeth Bear, Gregory Benford, Kevin M.
Berry, James Blodgett, Ian A. Crawford, Eric W. Davis, Kathryn Denning,
Mark R Edwards, Marsal Gifra, Martin Halbert, Joe Haldeman, Roger
Handberg, Eva-Jane Lark, Claudio Maccone, Greg Matloff, Mike McCulloch,
Philip Metzger, Michael A.G. Michaud, Jeff Nosanov, Moira O'Keeffe,
Marko Peljhan, Jack Sarfatti, Robert J. Sawyer, Dirk Schulze-Makuch,
Daniel Sheehan, Amalie Sinclair, Milos Stanic, Allen Steele, Emil
Vinterhav, Michael Waltemathe, Christian Weidemann, and David Weiss.

Their presentations are:

James Blodgett       Fri 1:30 pm   Ethical Economics
Moira O'Keeffe       Fri 1:30 pm   Science Fiction and the Big Questions
Amalie Sinclair      Fri 1:30 pm   A 100 Year World View
Milos Stanic         Fri 1:30 pm   Fusion Propulsion Comparison
Emil Vinterhav       Fri 1:30 pm   Where's The ___?
David Weiss          Fri 1:30 pm   Creating Materials for the Starship
Athena Andreadis     Fri 3:25 pm   Making Aliens
Jeff Nosanov         Fri 3:25 pm   The 34-Year Starship
Gregory Benford      Fri 5:00 pm   Science Fiction Writers Panel
Robert J. Sawyer     Fri 5:00 pm   Science Fiction Writers Panel
Allen Steele         Fri 5:00 pm   Science Fiction Writers Panel
Ian A. Crawford      Sat 9:45 am   Target Selection & Scientific
Roger Handberg       Sat 9:45 am   Building a Bridge to the Stars
Michael A.G. Michaud Sat 9:45 am   Long-Term Implications of Interstellar
Marko Peljhan        Sat 9:45 am   The Culturisation of Space as a Corner
                                   Corner stone in the Space/Society
Eric W. Davis        Sat 11:00 am  Faster-Than-Light Space Warps, Status
                                   and Next Steps
Greg Matloff         Sat 11:00 am  Light Sailing to the Stars
Philip Metzger       Sat 11:00 am  Nature's Way of Making Audacious Space
                                   Projects Viable
Dirk Schulze-Makuch  Sat 11:00 am  Colonization of Mars via Initial One-
                                   Way Mission
Daniel Sheehan       Sat 11:00 am  Heat Recyclers
Amalie Sinclair      Sat 11:00 am  The Longest Journey
Mark R. Edwards      Sat 12:50 pm  Algae 360 Microfarms
Marsal Gifra         Sat 12:50 pm  Strategic Roadmap for the Development
                                   of an Interstellar Space Program
Martin Halbert       Sat 12:50 pm  Org. of Long-Tern Interstellar
                                   Distributed Digital Preservation
Claudio Maccone      Sat 12:50 pm  Sun Focus Comes First, Interstellar
                                   Comes Second
Mike McCulloch       Sat 12:50 pm  Quantized Inertia and FTL
Jack Sarfatti        Sat 12:50 pm  Low Power Warp Drive
Michael Waltemathe   Sat 12:50 pm  A Religious Vision for Interstellar
Christian Weidemann  Sat 12:50 pm  Did Jesus Die for Klingons Too?
Kevin M. Berry       Sat 2:45 pm   Starship Repairs
Eric W. Davis        Sat 2:45 pm   PANEL DEBATE: Can Exotic Science Lead
                                   to Starship Propulsion?
Kathryn Denning      Sat 2:45 pm   Inertia Of Past Futures
Eva-Jane Lark        Sat 2:45 pm   Investment Financing of Voyages of
                                   Discovery and Settlement -
                                   Historical Examples and Building
                                   Foundations for Future Starships
Elizabeth Bear       Sat 5:00 pm   Science Fiction Writers Panel
Joe Haldeman         Sat 5:00 pm   Science Fiction Writers Panel
Jason Batt           Sun 9:00 am   Organizations Panel

Eric Klien
Lifeboat Foundation
 Motl's blog notes:
> Anna has suggested that their GPS-based timing device may have
> neglected that the electromagnetic waves are moving slower than c
> through the atmosphere: if the collaboration did an error in this
> subtlety, they get an error of exactly the same magnitude to explain
> the "signal". The index of refraction of the air is 1.0003, so light
> needs to penetrate a 10-km layer of the atmosphere as it would need
> to get through 10.003 km of the vacuum which would exactly produce
> the 3-meter delay. Make the atmosphere a bit thicker because the
> satellites are not right above your head; add the delays from both
> directions and you may already produce those 18 meters of error (or
> most of it).>
> I blame frame-dragging myself... :)
> Damien
On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:52 PM, nick herbert wrote:

I seem to recall that a lab in Japan detected neutrinos from a supernova but
could not say whether it arrived FTL. With a baseline of hundreds of light years
one would have expected the neutrinos to arrive long before the supernova light.

Nick Herbert

Of course, we don't know for sure yet. My bet is that the result is not real. I hope I'm wrong of course - but that's my inclination at the present time.

Sep 23
thanks for the technical paper
On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Amara D. Angelica wrote:


(Submitted on 22 Sep 2011)
The OPERA neutrino experiment at the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory has measured the velocity of neutrinos from the CERN CNGS beam over a baseline of about 730 km with much higher accuracy than previous studies conducted with accelerator neutrinos. The measurement is based on high-statistics data taken by OPERA in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Dedicated upgrades of the CNGS timing system and of the OPERA detector, as well as a high precision geodesy campaign for the measurement of the neutrino baseline, allowed reaching comparable systematic and statistical accuracies. An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 \pm 6.9 (stat.) \pm 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 \pm 0.28 (stat.) \pm 0.30 (sys.)) \times 10-5.


No. This is a very complicated experimental paper. I can't judge it. It need a team of specialists in the field to go over it carefully like the FAA analysing a plane crash.

Carlos Castro has a theory.

On Sep 22, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Carlos Castro wrote:

Dear Colleagues :
We explore the many novel physical consequences of Born’s reciprocal Relativity
theory in flat phase-space and to generalize the theory to the curved phase-space
scenario. We provide with six specific novel physical results resulting from
Born’s reciprocal Relativity and which are not present in Special Relativity.
These are : momentum-dependent time delay in the emission and detection of
photons; energy-dependent notion of locality; superluminal behavior; relative
rotation of photon trajectories due to the aberration of light; invariance of
areas-cells in phase-space and modified dispersion relations. We finalize by
constructing a Born reciprocal general relativity theory in curved phase-spaces
which requires the introduction of a complex Hermitian metric, torsion and

Superluminal behavior was one of the consequences found in the article

"The Many Novel Physical Consequences of Born's Reciprocal Relativity in Phase-Spaces" Int. J. Mod. Phys. A vol. 26, no. 21 (2011) 3653-3678;

Also in the article with Matej Pavsic
Progress in Phys. vol 1, (April 2005) 31-64.

Best wishes


Carlos needs to try to calculate the numbers in his theory that would describe the actual data. That would test his theory. This is not an easy task.

Sep 22

On Sep 22, 2011, at 4:29 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Good point Z - will have to put in the numbers.

That goes back to our earlier discussion only a short while ago - Ray Chiao's goi gravimagnetism effect of Earth's rotation. My first half-baked guess is that it would be too small but maybe not.

On Sep 22, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

If it's not measured in a free fall frame, why would it be exactly c? Couldn't the tiny deviations -- if they are not statistical artifacts -- be due to variations in the earth's gravitational field?

Jack: only if it's g0i =/= 0.

But then it would have to be universal for all particles.
Sep 22

Faster than light neutrino measured at CERN?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
"There has been evidence for more than a decade from the endpoint
of the energy spectrum of tritium decay that the neutrino might
be a tachyon: (JW)


The neutrino would have to have imaginary rest mass

E^2 = (pc)^2 - (mc^2)^2  on mass shell

phase speed E/p of quantum wave is slower than light

group dE/dp & signal speed? faster than light

zero energy E at finite momentum p has infinite group & signal? speed


Obviously of extreme interest. Too soon to know if it's not an error of some kind.

Check out specific impulse of tachyon beam rocket propulsion.

"The higher the specific impulse, the less propellant is needed to produce a given thrust during a given time. In this regard a propellant is more efficient if the specific impulse is higher. This should not be confused with energy efficiency, which can even decrease as specific impulse increases, since propulsion systems that give high specific impulse require high energy to do so.[3] ...

In rocketry, where the only reaction mass is the propellant, an equivalent way of calculating the specific impulse in seconds is also frequently used. In this sense, specific impulse is defined as the thrust integrated over time per unit weight-on-Earth of the propellant:[2]
Isp is the specific impulse measured in seconds
ve is the average exhaust speed along the axis of the engine in (ft/s or m/s)
g0 is the acceleration at the Earth's surface (in ft/s2 or m/s2)
In rockets, due to atmospheric effects, the specific impulse varies with altitude, reaching a maximum in a vacuum. It is therefore most common to see the specific impulse quoted for the vehicle in a vacuum; the lower sea level values are usually indicated in some way (e.g. 'sl').[citation needed]
Energy efficiency

For rockets and rocket-like engines such as ion-drives a higher Isp implies lower energy efficiency: the power needed to run the engine is simply:

where Ve is the actual jet velocity.
whereas from momentum considerations the thrust generated is:

Dividing the power by the thrust to obtain the specific power requirements we get:

Hence the power needed is proportional to the exhaust velocity, with higher velocities needing higher power for the same thrust, causing less energy efficiency per unit thrust.
However, the total energy for a mission depends on total propellant use, as well as how much energy is needed per unit of propellant. For low exhaust velocity with respect to the mission delta-v, enormous amounts of reaction mass is needed. In fact a very low exhaust velocity is not energy efficient at all for this reason; but it turns out that neither are very high exhaust velocities.

Theoretically, for a given delta-v, in space, among all fixed values for the exhaust speed the value ve = 0.6275Δv is the most energy efficient with respect to the final mass, see Tsiolkovsky rocket equation.



On Sep 22, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

Your opinion for the record?

Thank you!

Should shake up the community if true.

Does this imply a second metric?


On Sep 21, 2011, at 6:24 PM, GNPellegrini@aol.com wrote:
I took a brief look before (I'll look more later) and remember that you get a total probability of > 1. 


You deduce from this a breakdown of the Born rule


and show an observable may be modulated across an entangled state. Is that right?

I don't show it explicitly, but I am quite sure it can be modulated in several different ways - will show it explicitly soon in more than one way.

The key points that are the reasons the no-entanglement signaling theorem works in all its variations are:

1)  the orthogonality of the base states of the sender.

2) the fact that any unitary change of base states will not change the orthogonality property

3) the overcomplete Glauber base states are non-orthogonal.

4) Therefore, there is no unitary change of base states that will map sharp number Fock base states to minimum uncertainty wave-packets in number and phase Glauber base states. (Similarly for squeezed variations on the Glauber coherent states).

This is the essence of P.W. Anderson's "More is different" Higgs-Goldstone spontaneous symmetry breakdown of the ground state of complex systems in an emergent phase transition to Bohm's new orders of wholeness. In terms of Feynman diagrams you need to sum an infinity of them of a special class to get the ODLRO macroscopic eigenvalue of a single particle or single pair state.

I don't know if you made any errors,

One can force my probabilities to add to one by ad-hoc renormalization, but that is a new rule assuming what needs to be tested empirically. Basically, an experiment needs to be done.

but it seems to me that if you are correct and you derive a violation of the Born rule without adding anything new to orthodox QM, it shows there must a fundamental inconsistency within orthodox QM (i.e., Born rule cannot be postulated as a condition of the theory).

Right. However, the new element is spontaneous symmetry breaking emergence of new higher level order - a non-unitary process with c-number signal order parameters added on to the q-number quantum fields. It's the "phase rigidity" absent in micro-quantum theory that is the new physics analogous to non-zero curvature distinguishing General Relativity from Special Relativity. All the S-Matrix experiments in the LHC for example are done with simple particle beams - not with coherent beams.
On the other hand, we know Bohm's theory adds something new (an event description) and is manifestly not restricted by the Born rule.  Just my thoughts.  I would like to discuss more in Orlando.

What I am talking about in Bohm's informal language is a direct back-reaction of the Bohm hidden variable "particle" on its piloting Quantum Potential that is absent in orthodox micro-quantum theory.

I am predicting that specially-designed entangled Glauber pair states can be made such that my old idea Fig 9.1 of Kaiser's book will work.

Of course if you use the kinds of entangled states that Anton Zeilinger uses in Vienna etc. there are no nonlocal signals there, and the uncontrollable quantum randomness of incoherent individual events (no ODLRO in the low-order density matrices) will protect them as the no-cloning theorem asserts. However, if Zielinger is not careful with his laser sources he may permit Eve to hack in. 
In a message dated 9/21/2011 9:00:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

Just study my equations in the last part of this paper. It's ALL there in the mathematics INDEPENDENT of the informal language interpretation, Bohm, Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Transaction etc makes no difference
of course I may have made an error?

listen also to hour 2 of Sept 18, 2011 Coast to Coast Radio http://vaca.bayradio.com/ksfo_archives/10000.mp3  (only good for a few days)
On Sep 21, 2011, at 5:54 PM, GNPellegrini@aol.com wrote:
Hi Jack,
Regarding the light-speed signal barrier, I'm glad your bringing this issue to the table.  As we talked about I think Bohm's theory provides the formalism to break the barrier because Bohm's theory is an "individual event" description.
I think we agree, but correct me if I'm wrong.  Doesn't the light-speed signal barrier theorem in orthodox QM depend on there not being an "event" description (i.e., QM has a built-in and unavoidable randomness)?  Without this "built-in" randomness the light-speed signal barrier theorem breaks down.

corrected second draft
On Sep 19, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Kim Burrafato wrote:


Quantum entanglement from the holographic principle
Jae-Weon Lee
(Submitted on 16 Sep 2011)
It is suggested that quantum entanglement emerges from the holographic principle stating that all of the information of a region (bulk bits) can be described by the bits on its boundary surface. There are redundancy and information loss in the bulk bits that lead to the nonlocal correlation among the bulk bits. Quantum field theory overestimates the independent degrees of freedom in the bulk. The maximum entanglement in the universe increases as the size of the cosmic horizon and this could be related with the arrow of time and dark energy.
Comments:    3 page, 1 figure
Subjects:    High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as:    arXiv:1109.3542v1 [hep-th]
Submission history
From: Jae-Weon Lee Prof. [view email]
[v1] Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:50:40 GMT (53kb)
On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:09 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Yes, he is essentially saying what I have also been saying, except the horizon must be our retrocausal future event horizon not our past particle horizon.
This idea is in my Journal of Cosmology paper as well Vol 14, April 2011 as well as the archive paper with Creon Levit.
Tamara Davis's figs 1.1 & 5.1 modified - bottom shows increase of area-entropy of our future horizon explaining time's arrow.
dark energy density = hc/Lp^2(Area of our future horizon)
OK some more comments on the paper from Korea. It's a good paper, essentially correct.  I actually discussed some of these ideas last night in a brief pop way on Coast to Coast radio before seeing this paper that Kim sent this morning.
The paper's logic falls apart at the end mainly because Lee is not clear that the horizon is in our future not in our past. Also Lee talks about a black hole horizon that we are always outside of that corresponds to the AdS/CFT conjecture / < 0 (dark matter). However we are always inside our future cosmological event horizon and that requires some kind of dS/CFT relation / > 0 (dark energy).
Our future horizon must be a retrocausal hologram screen whose 2D pixels project 3D voxels "back from the future" e.g. Aharonov's "post selection" - see new paper by Maurice Alexis de Gosson de Varennes <mauricedegossonmath@gmail.com>
Lee says no signal nonlocality in Antony Valentini's sense, but I don't think that's correct of course. Lee does not consider entangled macro-quantum coherent Glauber states from the Higgs-Goldstone spontaneous vacuum symmetry breaking, so his model is incomplete. The over-complete non-orthogonality of the Glauber states manifestly violates the Born probability rule from P.W. Anderson's "More is different" "phase rigidity" giving signal nonlocality. However, as Henry Stapp points out, and I independently (e.g., B. J. Carr's review June 2008,) such a property is an extension of orthodox quantum theory to a larger theory like general relativity is larger than special relativity with Valentini's "signal nonlocality" analogous to "curvature."
see attached pdf Signal Nonlocality 91411 in Library Resources
Lee wrote:
"The nonlocal quantum correlation (quantum entangle-
ment) is nowadays widely treated as the valuable physical
resource exploited in quantum information processing ap-
plications such as quantum key distribution and quantum
teleportation [1]. However, the origin of this mysterious
phenomenon is unknown. ...
On the other hand, the holographic principle [2, 3], in-
cluding the AdS/CFT correspondence [4], asserts a mys-
terious connection between the physics in a bulk and
quantum field theory (QFT) on its boundary surface. It
claims that all of the information in a volume can be de-
scribed by the degrees of freedom (DOF) on the bound-
ary of the volume and the number of bits NB (times
ln 2) involved in the description of the bulk must not
exceed A/4, where A is the area of the boundary [5]. Re-
cently, there are renewed interests in describing gravity
with thermodynamics and holography ..
There is an unexpected similarity between entangle-
ment and the holographic principle. For example, in gen-
eral, entanglement entropy has an area law and the holo-
graphic principle involves nonlocality by nature. Fur-
thermore, it is possible to study black hole entropy us-
ing entanglement entropy [8–12]. Ryu and Takayanagi
proposed a holographic derivation of the entanglement
entropy using the AdS/CFT correspondence [13]. In-
terestingly, a superluminal (i.e., faster than light) com-
munication is impossible even with the quantum nonlo-
cality. These counterintuitive results imply that gravity
and quantum mechanics somehow cooperate not to vio-
late each other and there is a deep connection between
them. ...
In this paper, we suggest that quantum entanglement
emerges from holographic principle. ’t Hooft proposed
that quantum mechanics has a deterministic theory in-
volving local information loss [14]. Zeilinger and Brukner
[15, 16] suggested that every well-designed experiment
tests some proposition which may return a yes/no an-
swer, and quantum randomness arises from this discrete-
ness of information. Inspired by the digital nature of the
holographic principle we assume that both of the bulk
and the boundary DOF can be treated as binary vari-
ables. We also restrict ourselves to pure states for sim-
plicity. Introducing mixed states does not change main
conclusions. ...
We saw that quantum entanglement is unavoidable,
once we accept the holographic principle. The conven-
tional QFT overestimates DOF in the bulk than are ac-
tually present. Then, how can we reconcile this factor
with the great success of the conventional QFT? Analy-
sis in this work indicates that QFT is valid only for small
scales (like particle accelerator scales) compared to the
horizon size. This means that, for example, to study cos-
mology at the large scale we should not fully trust the
result of the conventional QFT. Dark energy could be a
good example. It is well known that the zero point energy
calculated from the quantum vacuum fluctuation is too
large compared to the observed dark energy. However, if
we invoke the holographic principle and consider only the
actual independent DOF of O(R2), the zero point energy
can be comparable to the observed dark energy [19] and
this could resolve the cosmological constant problem. In
other words, there are only O(R2) independent harmonic
oscillators in the bulk QFT. Our theory predicts that in
the bulk there should be always entangled states. The
inside observer can make some of the quantum states sep-
arable but not all of the states at the same time, because
the inside observer cannot remove the redundancy.
Another interesting implication of our theory is that
there are O(R) redundancy in the bulk bits and hence
at least O(R) entanglement among the bits. This fact
implies that the total entanglement inside an expanding
horizon increases as time goes. If the causal horizon is
the cosmic event horizon expanding with time, we can say
that this increase of entanglement is related to the arrow
of time [20]. Note that this entanglement is different from
the entanglement between inside and outside DOF of the
horizon which is usually of O(R2). ...
The nonlocality of quantum entanglement is also inti-
mately related to that of the holographic principle. Since
the size of the bulk bits are always larger than that of
the corresponding boundary bits, some of the correlated
bulk bits should be spatially further separated than the
boundary bits do. Thus, even if the boundary bits have
the locality, the corresponding bulk bits apparently do
not. However, even in this case, entanglement does not
allow superluminal communication, because the inside
observer cannot choose the specific outcome of her/his
measurements. Neither the outside observer do influence
the bulk bits faster than light. For a fixed outside ob-
server seeing the causal horizons, due to a large redshift,
it takes infinite time for observer’s influence to reach the
horizons. Alternatively, if the outside observer free falls
to reach the horizon, the horizon will disappear and the
observer cannot access the boundary bits properly. Both
of the holography and entanglement are observer depen-
dent phenomena."

Sep 18

Internet Science Education for Teachers

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
click here