Penrose's Problem

On Jun 27, 2006, at 11:03 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

All the advanced signals from the phase mismatch pi - x signal
nonlocality end at the initial singularity lowering its entropy setting
up the irreversible Arrow of Time solving Penrose's problem with
inflation in the Road to Reality.

On Jun 27, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"Signal locality" in JC's TI seems to correspond to perfect destructive
interference of the advanced wave to the past from the emitter with the
advanced echo wave from the absorber. Anything that can disrupt that pi
phase shift will result in signal nonlocality violating the no-cloning
theorem. So how does Cramer arrive at that pi phase shift? Is that an
independent axiom of TI like Euclid's 5th?

On Jun 26, 2006, at 11:46 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The standard hand-waving argument is that local interference fringes
will never be seen at either end no matter how the transmitter is set in
the future either at "0" or "1". One can still see nonlocal fringes in
the hindsight correlations after-the-fact, i.e. no effective practical
"time travel to past" signal nonlocality. The basic idea here is that
the two entangled photons mutually effectively "which-way" measure each
other. But is this really correct in all possible total experimental
arrangements?

One must show this formally and at least quasi-rigorously of course.

The typical argument is to look at say the receiver photon R that can
take paths A or B. If that photon was not entangled the state at the
detector would be

|RA + U(A-B)|RB

Where U(A-B) is the unitary operator representing the path difference
for that one photon R.

The FRINGES happen when at position x on the screen for photon R

x|RA + x|U(A-B)|RB


And the Born probability density fringe terms include

RA|xx|U(A-B)|RB + cc

However, in the case of the entangled photons R and T where T has a
choice of slits C & D landing at x', the usual argument is that the
initial local momentum conservation constrains the pair state to be
correlated into something like

x|RAx'|TC + x|U(A-B)|RBx'|U(C-D)|TD

The argument is then that we must integrate over all future x' to know
what will be seen at a single x in the past.

It is then argued that the dx' integral of

TC|x'x'|U(C-D)|TD vanishes and since it is a coefficient of
RA|xx|U(A-B)|RB there are no local fringes in the past. You can
switch roles and also get no local fringes in the future no matter what
you do.

That is, the orthodox argument is that each photon will quasi-measure
the other photon and the time sequence of the detections will not
matter. That is, the two photons quasi-measure each other. I use
"quasi-measure" here because of Marlan Scully's "quantum eraser" effect.

The basic "reason" for this is that unitary operators U preserve inner
"bra-ket" products, so that if the dx' integral TC|TD = 0 initially
they will remain so. However, this argument is not well posed because
the two paths for photon T to land at x' will generally take different
amounts of time.

All we know is that U(t)*U(t) = 1, but we do not know that U(t')*U(t) =
1 when t =/= t'.

On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:45 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


Is anyone able to refute John Cramer's gedankenexperiment for
backwards-through-time reverse causation in which the future creates the
past?

I have not had time enough yet to think hard enough about Cramer's
particular proposal in this attachment from the AAAS USD meeting last week.
Reverse Causation.pdf

If Cramer is right here then an important part of Lenny Susskind's (and
recently Stephen Hawking's) theory of information loss down black holes
is shot down because then we can, in principle, see beyond the horizons
to the other worlds of the multiverse. The Cosmic Landscape is then
testable. George Chapline's theory is also shot down if this works
because he rejects closed timelike curve effects in his "dark star".

The signal nonlocality, hitherto thought to violate orthodox quantum
theory, is what explains remote viewing and possibly other paranormal
phenomena.

See Martin Gardner's "Magic and Paraphysics" for the history of this idea.

ah, now we see the genesis of your funding, Jacko:
MK-Infra. how else would one ever get anywhere
with the spookadelics of "technical remote viewing?"

The standard hand-waving argument is that local interference fringes
will never be seen at either end no matter how the transmitter is set in
the future either at "0" or "1". One can still see nonlocal fringes in
the hindsight correlations after-the-fact, i.e. no effective practical
"time travel to past" signal nonlocality. The basic idea here is that
the two entangled photons mutually effectively "which-way" measure each
other. But is this really correct in all possible total experimental
arrangements?

If Cramer is right here then an important part of Lenny Susskind's (and
recently Stephen Hawking's) theory of information loss down black holes
is shot down because then we can, in principle, see beyond the horizons
to the other worlds of the multiverse. The Cosmic Landscape is then
testable. George Chapline's theory is also shot down if this works
because he rejects closed timelike curve effects in his "dark star".

The signal nonlocality, hitherto thought to violate orthodox quantum
theory, is what explains remote viewing and possibly other paranormal
phenomena.

See Martin Gardner's "Magic and Paraphysics" for the history of this idea.

thus:
Apostol is great, since he begins with integration a la Liebniz,
rather than the usual Newtonian bilk....
Euclid is an encyclopedic & ahistorical curricula, although
it works OK if you *begin* with Book 14 by Hypsicles (in the Dover
ed.),
since it is all essentially elementary; that's teh "solid" stuff,
which is also the dictum of Bucky Fuller, who refused
to give any math, at all, in his stuff, except for a bit
of bogus stuff that he tried ("no pi nature" and "Scheherazade
numbers");
see the great Color Plate One from _Synergetics_, though,
in my sigfile; he did command a ship in the Navy!...
you do not "need to understand what a formal proof means;"
you just need to work-through proofs that are written,
such as in _Mathematics Magazine_, especially the "Math
Without Words" page. then, you can worry about formalisms,
or try to prove things that interest you. anyway, always,
proofs involve the "neccesity & sufficiency" of Liebniz, although
a proof might only be of one or the other; you just have to be able
to use the English words in sentences, really, to get that, although
the usages are *extremely* flexible.

The basics of geometry are found in the "Euclid" approach;
it is not necessary to be excellent on proving theorems,
but you need to understand what a formal proof means.
Informal proofs are "guides", which in principle can be
expanded to formal proofs.

thus:
I may not be sincere, but I seem to be your only correspondent,
herein or at sci.math. Mathemematica is the best *what* --
programming language for math?...
I have never programmed except in a classroom setting,
long ago, since the kind of geometry that I do is so simple;
synthetic geometry precedes coordination by a millenium or
so. there are no coordinates in _S_, either, other than
the vague & persistent laudation of "4Deity." I don't even
use a handheld calculator of any sort,
except to find the last digit of pi (the very last one;
I have to borrow it, and the battery dies
before the output, usually)....
this is not a Mathematica list, nor is it a math newsgroup,
and lots of the users around here are kinda mathphobic; so,
try to put some prose on your putative math-physical relevance.
thank *you*....
as for spacetime, it is completely superfluous, since
phase-spaces were already in use via Hamiltonians,
Lagrangians etc. (not that I use them, or even really know
what in Hell they are). it's just a big, 4D joke,
not unlike that stinky old Schroedinger's cat-corpse ...
speaking of "thinking, The box?"

That's why I think you're not sincere. It's not obfuscation, it's
clarity and you know it. I've used dozens of languages since 1965.
Anyone who says Mathematica is not the best is a moron.

Bnumbers are correct according to Robin Chapman, but, he says fields
like Bnumbers have been used for number theory and I want to use them
for geometry.

See the last graphic in the Section The Vector Equilibrium at:
http://users.adelphia.net/~cnelson9/

thus:
no; the sequence of digital blares that one has heard
for years from car-alarms, which funded the bogus gubenatorial recall
in California, always does that for me. so,
what is a "military-pavlovian style," if you prefer
not to address any of my questions?...
Sir David is quite a guy, as proved in _A NEW Kind of Science_.

did you say that you could find the Bornouli numbers,
using the buckynumbers, that is not a triviality?

I note that that last graph had 3 coordinates,
with different-sized tetrahedra and "hue for 0
through 2;" so, What?

what possible use could your Buckynumbers have,
that has not already been covered by other homogenous 3d formats?...

when you find a mathematical-physical application,
I'm sure that you'll announce it!

One four-dimensional point is a regular wireframe tetrahedron in the
Synergetics coordinate system and you can make each point a different
hue and you might see something you're looking for, who knows?

thus:
monsieur Magadin was, I think, working with scalars, so that
the "subspace" was artificially mooted. all of this was covered
by Hamilton in _Quaternions_, where the terminology was coined....
one problem is that common parlance of "subspace,"
would be merely a region of a larger space, although it's not a
problem,
since the parlance is really only common to math and
sciencefiction, as far as I know, and it's mostly going
to deal with dimensionality, otherwise. if so, then
you're not going to look at silly degenerate cases (say,
a Hilbert space of infinite dimensions,
all pointing on the same complex vector to your forehead ... although
this is exactly what Hamilton did with his first "2D" complex numbers,
on one line (I think, homogenous coordinates, oppositely directed .-)

If you do not hand wave or lie, the why should you feel insulted?

thus:
good point. although there is a 2.5-page proof of the isomorphism
of deductive & inductive proofs, I don't know of one
from induction to "bizzaarr circumlocution."

"Thus together with step n = 3 the extension of the statement of the
overlapping to the step n = 4
is that each even number in the step n = 4 can be written as the sum of

two prime numbers and these two prime numbers are each from a pair
of twin prime numbers in the steps n = 1, 2, 3, 4 and that there
is a pair of twin prime numbers in the step n = 4 (and not in the step
n
= 1, 2, 3) such that the sum of this pair of twin prime numbers is an
even number in the step n = 5. "

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...litude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...s/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/33...o_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf