Download April 16, 1998 - StealthSkater

archived as http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/ISSO_4.doc [pdf]
more of physics at http://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm
note: because important websites are frequently "here today but gone tomorrow", the following was
archived from http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/qmbeynd.html on January 22, 2002 . This is
NOT an attempt to divert readers from the aforementioned web-site. Indeed, the reader should
only read this back-up copy if the updated original cannot be found at the original author's site.
CLICK HERE TO GO TO OUR NEW
STARDRIVE WEB PAGE
Advanced Physics Updates 1991
New April 1998, The Quantum Effects Device Project
Added June 18, 1998
Nick Herbert, author of Elemental Mind (Dutton), recently wrote:
"One of the facts of life in physics is that we have evolved very high standards for what
we mean by 'explanation'. By these standards, we have (Culbertson, Walker, Hameroff,
Safatti notwithstanding) absolutely NO EXPLANATION for ordinary consciousness and
even less explanation for psi. All models of the mind so far are mere airy fairy tales
making little or no contact with the facts. It takes courage and imagination to take part in
such a pioneering venture and these researchers should be honored for that.
But despite immense efforts, we are about as far as ever from a true science of mind.
This is not for lack of trying but because the HARD PROBLEM is truly hard. In light of
our immense ignorance, anyone who claims that 'quantum entanglement can explain psi'
is a mere charlatan. Let us not confuse conjecture with fact. The field of mind science is
cluttered with conjectures not one of which even remotely touches the phenomena.
Because the state of our science is so paltry, it is easy to waste time shooting the breeze
with buffoons rather than doing real work. When we discover the Grail, it will be
evident. Let's get off our asses, onto our horses, and on with the Quest."
Exposing myself to Nick's charge of charlatanry, I say firmly that entanglement is a necessary -though not sufficient -- part of the post-quantum non-mechanism of mind-matter. No doubt some of the
recent exchange with Leon Jaroff and James Randi has rubbed off on his mind. I should say his mind
and theirs have become "entangled" a sort of "menage a trois" of strange bedfellows! With Nick
Herbert's above quote in mind, I begin to comment on Basil Hiley's essay "Quantum Mechanics and the
Relationship Between Mind and Matter" in the book Brain, Mind, and Physics ISBN 90 5199 254 8
(IOS).
BH suggests that mind and matter find a common origin in Bohm's implicate order. The implicate
order is "beyond space-time and takes process as primary". What is "process"? Does it presuppose
"time"? Hiley opens with a great quote from Freeman Dyson's "Disturbing the Universe" that
consciousness is not passive but active "forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one
quantum state and another" with "mind inherent in every electron". Consciousness -- says Dyson -differs "only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we
1
call 'chance' when they are made by electrons". Dyson dismisses "Many-Worlds" because he thinks that
choice is real and not a mere illusion.
My Q* <-> P idea is completely consistent with Dyson's idea. Random quantum chance is
superceded by non-random post-quantum choice when there is direct back-action from material system
point P to the post-quantum potential field Q* that guides P and is shaped by its path X(t) through its
configuration space. This is a violation -- a distortion of orthodox Quantum Mechanics. Look at what
Edward Teller recently wrote in Science May 22, 1998 about this same problem.
"In a completely deterministic world, what we know of free will in humans is reduced to
mere illusion … According to Quantum Mechanics, we cannot exclude the possibility
that free will is part of the process by which the future is created. We can think about the
creation of the World as incomplete and human beings -- indeed all living beings -- as
making choices left open to probability." p. 1200
Teller is not clear here. He seems to think that free will is possible without a violation of the
statistical predictions of Quantum Theory. He seems to believe in the possibility of a "conscious
quantum". Teller dismisses Bohm's theory with "Attempts have been made to add laws to Quantum
Mechanics to eliminate uncertainty. Such attempts have not only been unsuccessful, but they have
alsonot even appeared to lead to any interesting results."
Remember that Teller is out-of-touch with recent developments in Bohm's theory. I spent several
hours with him and Yitzak Rabin at Rabbi Pincus Lipner's house about 7 years ago when I taught at the
Hebrew Academy of San Francisco. Teller is certainly not aware of Brian Josephson's idea on the
biological utilization of nonlocality. One of Dennis Sciama's graduate students at Cambridge showed
how this is possible if the statistical predictions of quantum theory are distorted. Bohm's theory allows
precisely that in a "nonequilibrium" of the hidden variables.
Hiley points out that von Neumann introduced "subjective perception as a necessary feature of
quantum mechanics". Wigner then said that "mind is necessary to complete Quantum Mechanics."
Hiley cites Lockwood (Oxford) who argues for state selection. Again it is not clear if Lockwood
proposes state selection as a post-quantum effect that violates quantum theory rather than a loophole
inside the window of opportunity of R-collapse the way that Ed Teller mistakenly -- IMHO -- thinks of
it.
Hiley writes of Lockwood: "He argued that it is consciousness that chooses a state of the observed
system in terms of some favored set of observables relevant to the brain system." It is one thing to
choose the set of observables. You can do that without violating one-way Q -> P quantum theory. It is
quite another thing to choose the actual common eigenstate within that choice of compatible
(commuting) observables. That is the post-quantum "orch" of Penrose's "orch OR" that violates
quantum mechanics and opens Pandora's Box of paranormal nonlocal communication with precognitive
remote viewing etc. IMHO.
Hiley says that this state selection idea is more-or-less shated by Albert and Loewer and Stapp.
"They all try to explain the collapse of the wave function through some form of intervention of the brain
or mind or consciousness in general". Note how vague this all really is, and how Nick Herbert's remark
is quite plausible in this context. Hiley then discusses 2 separate ideas that Penrose puts forward. First
that consciousness needs quantum gravity. Second that consciousness needs noncomputability. Penrose
then connects the two. Hiley doesn't buy it.
2
Hiley then turns from the physicists to the neuroscientists. Lashly showed that visual perception and
recall are nonlocally distributed across the brain. Does this require nonlocal quantum entanglements
directly in the brain's configuration space beyond classical nerve and chemical messenger propagation in
ordinary space? Nick Herbert wrongly calls willingness to consider this idea "charlatanry". Hiley then
cites Pribram's picture of the mind-brain as analogous to some kind of hologram. It would have to be a
hologram of quantum waves in the brain's higher-dimensional configuration space IMHO although one
could also picture a more conventional hologram in ordinary space based on the local complex order
parameter of the Frohlich mode that is a non-equilibrium version of a Bose-Einstein condensate (Zohar,
Marshall). Hiley cites Schempp who somehow uses the Heisenberg algebra that Larry Crowell wants to
deform. Symplectic spinors play a role. I am not at all familiar with this path. Hiley then cites Eccles
and Margenau "that mental events act like quantum probabilistic fields and can actually change the
spatiotemporal activity of the dendritic networks… it is through intention to act that the probability of
the fireing of a synapse is changed so as to produce the desired physical movements in the body."
Well, this is exactly what -GradQ* does do in my Q* <-> P post-quantum theory which clearly
violates orthodox quantum theory while reducing to it in the appropriate limiting case when the
spontaneous self-organizing time ts is longer than the environmental decoherence time td
But that is only half of the story. One must not only show how mind moves matter, but also how
matter moves mind directly in a "self" way to generate consciousness. That is the back-action. The two
together make the spontaneously self-organizing feedback-control loop of free will or the intent in
Dyson's sense where "consciousness"differs "only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice
which we call 'chance' when they are made by electrons."
Let's get to Basil Hiley's bottom line "while it is not possible to conclude that the proposal of the direct
intervention of consciousness to explain the 'collapse' of the wave function is without substance, there is
very little direct evidence that such a process does actually occur. … such an intervention is not
necessary … I would like to propose a different way … we will have to go beyond the present quantum
formalism and will almost certainly have to introduce radically new ideas."
Therefore, Hiley agrees with me to the extent that any physical theory of consciousness must be
post-quantum beyond quantum theory as presently understood. Teller, Stapp, and others are not clear
enough about this. Hiley does not agree with me all the way. of course. Hiley does not think my Q* <> P idea is radical enough!
If we think in terms of ordinary one-way Q -> P quantum theory, the ordinary notion of "collapse" -called "R" by Roger Penrose -- is an illusion. Q is essentially a fitness landscape on which P moves in a
gradient vector flow just like in classical mechanics. There are qualitatively new features of formdependence, intensity-independence, nonlocality, objective wholeness (e.g.,vigier/slides/vigier.htm )
The Q landscape has basins of attraction for the trajectories X(t) of P that are in 1-1 correspondence
with the basis of simultaneous eigenfunctions in Hilbert space for a maximal subalgebra of commuting
Hermitian observables selected by the "total experimental arrangement". Now if one is making a
quantum-like model for the brain-configuration P, then the basins have to select some how. There is no
way to do this in quantum mechanics in any non-adhoc way. One can appeal to Zurek's environmentally
selected superselection for decoherence. I will come back to all that. This ambiguity is neatly resolved
in post-quantum Q* <-> P because the basins of attraction spontaneously self-organize! Nick Herbert
et-al has not even begun to see through my glass darkly at the beauty, power, and elegance of what I am
suggesting here.
3
Added June 6, 1998
Let's review what Bohm and Hiley say about the problem Nick raised.
Part 1
3.5 on "stationary states"
The wave function for the S-state is real. Therefore, the particle's actual momentum is zero. The
particle is at rest. "The quantum potential cancels out the space variation of the classical potential
leaving a constant energy E that is independent of position. ... More generally... in a non-stationary
state, the balance between -gradQ and -gradV will not hold ... if we measure the momentum of the
particle in a stationary state .... the probability of obtaining a net momentum p ... is just ||^2 ... for this
case we have reproduced the results of the usual interpretation ... all stationary state wave functions can
be taken as real... if the energy levels are degenerate, it is possible to form stationary states that are
complex linear combinations of these real wave functions ... As an example, let us consider the three Pstates .... P+ and P- correspond to motion in a circle around the z-axis .... We see then that by forming
complex combinations of real stationary state wave functions ... some of the energy is kinetic. In the
case of a free particle (traveling wave) ... the quantum potential is zero and this is why all the energy is
kinetic .... a part of what is thought of in classical intuition as kinetic energy is now treated as energy
associated with the quantum potential." pp 42-45
Remember, in my extension of these ideas, the quantum potential is "mind stuff". It is "frozen" in a
state of suspended animation in this quantum limit where Q directly "informs" its particle, but not vice
versa. Q requires its particle's position to be its "source" to awaken into sentience. This is what
breathes life into the equations of physics according to my "naked conjecture" that I offer as an
alternative to Francis Crick's Un "Astonishing Hypothesis". :-)
Remember, Bohm's quantum potential Q replaces David Deutsch's "shadow particles" in his manyworlds theory. It is Q that does the massive parallel processing in a quantum computer. Therefore,
quantum computing is a new kind of "measuring" of Q.
The traditional theory of quantum measurement is very limited based upon a particular kind of
interaction Hamiltonian. In particular, there does not appear to be any meaning to what Larry Crowell
describes as "self-measurement" in terms of the von Neumann theory. Therefore, any appeal to a Cantor
diagonal argument for a strange loop in a quantum Turing machine has no context until precisely what
Larry means by "self-measurement" here is spelled out explicitly in a mathematical way.
3.6 of Bohm and Hiley on non-stationary states
Take example of a Gaussian wave packet intially centered at x = 0 with mean momentum zero. The
epistemological Copenhagen picture is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle implies an initial spread
of velocities. "But in the causal interpretation, the velocity is always well-defined at each point ... the
quantum potential decreases as the wave packet spreads .... as the wave packet spreads, the particle gains
kinetic energy, the amount depending upon where it was initially in the packet. This clearly denies the
common idea ... that the spread in velocities was there from the start and given by the uncertainty
principle. ...
3.7 in a non-stationary state
4
... the quantum potential ... will be a function of time. This evidently means that the energy of the
particle ... will not be conserved in detail. It will however be conserved on the average ... there will be
conservation of energy in the classical limit ... p.47 A similar treatment can be given for momentum ...
Where does this fluctuating energy and momentum come from? Evidently it can be attributed to the
quantum potential which is now a function of time. But as we have seen ... the quantum potential is
implied by the guidance condition momentum of particle = grad(phase of wave function), which... is ....
broaght about by the activity of the information in the quantum field. The energy and the momentum
then come from the self-movement of that particle and ... may ultimately originate in the vacuum
fluctuations." p.48
Note that Bohm and Hily use "causal interpretation" for this "one-way" Q -> P limiting case of my
more general post-quantum "two-way" Q* <-> P "self-organizing interpretation". This is a major
conceptual difference. It is literally the difference between Life (Q* <-> P) and Death (Q -> P) IMHO.
Furthermore, the no-cloning theorem of quantum computing, Eberhard's theorem that nonlocal
communication is impossible, uncontrollable quantum randomness, the ability of quantum computers
and radioactive decays to produce truly random sequences of c-bits, randomness of quantum Zero-Point
vacuum fluctuations, etc. all come from the one-way "fragility" of Q. It's an entirely different picture
when we have the allegedly intrinsically sentient cybernetic feedback-control loop between Q* and P in
Q* <-> P post-quantum non-mechanics.
Remember, it is Eberhard's theorem that prevents any theory of ordinary consciousness as a quantum
phenomenon. It also prevents and quantum theoretical explanation of the kind of data reported in Dean
Radin's book. Post-quantum non-mechanics is a totally new ball game not only for the paranormal but
for the physical explanation of how mind in ordinary states of consciousness works.
Back to Bohm and Hiley.
"… the one-body case is as best a simplification and an abstraction... in the case of the slits, the particle
may be strongly affected by the system through which it has gone, even when it is far away. If we treat
the slits and the electron as a single combined system ... the resulting many-body wave function
expresses a direct nonlocal interaction between the electron and the slits .... the quantum potential can be
large even when the quantum field is small ... complete isolation of any quantum system is actually
impossible ... reminiscent of Bohr .... we cannot discuss the properties of a particular system apart from
the context of the entire experimental arrangement with the aid of which these properties are observed.
But of course, the difference is that we have given a conceptual analysis that explains why all this is
happening, whereas for Bohr nothing more can be said ...."
This is also the basic difference between my post-Bohmian non-mechanical explanation of
consciousness as Q* <-> P self-organization tweaked by non-self Darwinian environmental pressures an
the "orch OR" explanations of Roger Penrose and Henry Stapp. They are both correct as far as they go,
but they are both still too vaguely Bohrian for my taste. :-)
5
added May 25, 1998
Quantum Teleportation
I am using Explorations in Quantum Computing by Colin P Williams and Scott H Clearwater
Springer Elos available from Amazon.com.
Quantum teleportation requires the nonlocality of the Einstein Podolosky Rosen effect (EPR). Note
that Murray Gell-Mann -- in The Quark and the Jaguar -- denies the very existence of nonlocality. But
he is in the minority of physicists today on that.
"No action at a distance takes place. … Then what does happen? If,\ on a particular
branch of history, the plane polarization of one photon is measured and thereby specified
with certainty, then on the same branch of history the plane polarization of the other
photon is also specified with certainty. On a different branch of history, the circular
polarization of one of the photons may be measured, in which case the circular
polarization of both photons is specified with certainty." Murray Gell-Mann, p. 172, The
Quark and The Jaguar.
Does this convince you? It does not convince me. It seems that Murray begs the question: Suppose
the photons are very far apart and only then (delayed choice) the decision is made to measure the plane
polarization of one of the photons and the answer is "V", then the other photon also has "V" (vertical
linear polarized, H horizontal, R right-handed circular polarized, L left-handed) if it were to be
measured.
But before the measurement, there was an objectively real coherent superposition of VV + HH. So
there is some kind of incoherent faster-than-light collapse even in Gell-Mann's picture because the
relative phase before the delayed choice measurement is also a real measurable property. Gell-Mann
seems to distinguish different branches of history in terms of noncommuting observables like linear
versus circular polarizations. He does not consider the collapse of the coherent superposition, -- once
the delayed choice of observable is made -- when he says "specified with certainty". Does the linear
polarization branch split further into 2 sub-branches? Even if it does, the delayed choice destruction of
phase coherence seems to involve a faster-than-light action at a distance. The 'Many-Worlds' approach
is not even supposed to use any kind of collapse at all.
Gell-Mann's popular description is not at all clear to me. Is it clear to you? In short, it appears that
Gell-Mann's position actually violates Quantum Mechanics because if you follow his argument to the
end, there is no room for the objective relative phase coherence between HH and VV for example in the
EPR state of the Aspect experiment. One would have to say that HH and VV are also separate branches.
Similarly, LL and RR are separate branches. There is never any real superposition of HH with VV, for
example. The observer does all possible measurements on different branches. She does both linear and
circular polarization measurements in different branches, and they further split into sub-branches.
What? You want branches? We got branches! So this is really pretty silly, IMHO. I would much
rather have faster-than-light action at a distance. That seems more parsimonius, simple, clear and direct,
to the "excess metaphysical baggage" (John Wheeler's term) that Gell-Mann has opted for.
Keith Ramsay explained Gell-Mann's idea better than Gell-Mann.
6
Jack Sarfatti writes: |Gell-Mann says 'Many-Worlds' avoids faster than light |action at a distance.
But I think he is wrong about that.
Gell-Mann is right. A complete explanation would take longer than I want to devote to it right now.
State reduction is the only process in standard Quantum Mechanics which involves faster-than-light
cause-and-effect. State reduction is also the ingredient whose essential purpose is to rid the model of
"other worlds".
A simple example of alleged action-at-a-distance would start with a pair of separate particles a,b in a
state we could write as [|a+>|b+>+|a->|b->]/√(2). The state of particle a -- taken by itself -- is
represented by a density matrix [|a+>|b-> portion of the state, so we are left with the state |a+>|b+> for
the two-particle system. The particle a has been placed in state |a+> (which also could be represented by
the density matrix |a+>).
If we don't apply the collapse postulate, however, the state of particle a doesn't actually change.
What changes is the observer's relationship to it. The observer's interaction with particle 'b' changes
their relationship to particle 'a' because of the prior relationship between 'a' and 'b' (entanglement).
The final state of the pair of particles together with the observer and their measurement apparatus is
something like [|a+>|b+>|observer perceives b+ state> +|a->|b->|observer perceives b- state>]/√ (2).
The 2 components are poetically known as "worlds".
The "worlds" -- other than the one which one happens to experience -- seem irrelevant to some
people. But getting rid of them involves this subtle complication when it comes to describing the state
of distant objects, involving in particular faster-than-light influences upon them.
Keith Ramsay "Thou Shalt not hunt statistical significance with [email protected] a shotgun." -Michael Driscoll's 1st commandment/
Let's go to the way Williams and Clearwater explain EPR.
"As quantum teleportation relies crucially on such an 'action at a distance' effect, it is
important to take a minor diversion to convince you that the effect is real and that reality
is, in fact, nonlocal." p. 186 of Explorations in Quantum Computing.
" … the difference between local and nonlocal interactions. A local interaction is one
that involves direct contact, or employs an intermediary that is in direct contact …
friction and gravity, are local interactions. In the case of friction, the physical contact is
mediated by an electromagnetic field, which in turn comes about by the qaction of an
intermediary -- the carrier of the electromagnetic force called the photon. Photons travel
at the speed-of-light, which although fast is still finite. Consequently, electromagnetic
influences cannot propagate faster than the speed-of-light in a vacuum." p.186
There are problems with this explanation as well. First of all, let us look at Feynman's Lectures starting
at the classical level. The problem here is whether -- even in classical physics -- is the near field
confined to the light cone or is it outside the light cone? This is in contrast to the transversely polarized
radiative far field. Go to Feynman's Volume I Equation 28.3 for the electric field from one point charge
q. There are 3 terms. The first term is er'/r'^2. Note the prime on the r. This is the retardation effect
of the past light cone. Feynman writes:
7
"Coulomb's law is wrong. … influences cannot travel faster than a certain fundamental
speed c … it is not possible to know where the charge is now and at what distance it is
now … because the only thing that can affect the field at a given place and time is the
behavior of the charges in the past … the delay is r'/c. So to allow for this time delay, we
put a little prime on r -- meaning how far away it was when the information now arriving
at P left q … What appears in our formula is the apparent direction ... the direction it
used to be -- the so-called 'retarded direction' -- and at the retarded distance r'. That
would be easy enough to understand, too, but it is also wrong.
"The whole thing is much more complicated. There are several more terms. The next
term is as though Nature were trying to allow for the fact that the effect is retarded… It
suggests that we should calculate the delayed Coulomb field and add a correction to it,
which is its (rate-of-change) times the (time delay) that we use. Nature seems to be
attempting to guess what the field at the present time is going to be …
"But we are not yet through. There is a third term -- the second derivative with
respect to t of the unit vector in the direction of the charge. Now the formula is finished.
And that is all there is to the electric field from an arbitrary moving charge."
It is the third term that gives the retarded transversely polarized far field radiation that lies on the
forward light cone in this classical limit where quantum effects are allegedly "zero". But our concern
here is with the first 2 terms of Feynman's formula for the near field. One sees that the second term
causes a deviation from the light cone which is in the first term.
Now go to Feynman Volume II Fig 26-3:
"For a charge moving with a constant speed, the electric field points radially from the
'present' position of the charge." The picture shows both the retarded and the present
positions of the charge moving at constant speed v along the x-axis. Feynman adds "E is
in the same direction as rp" This is the present direction from where the charge is at the
same moment the field is measured in the given frame where the charge is moving
uniformly with velocity v. Feynman continues that for this NEAR FIELD -- remember
no radiation for uniform motion of the charge, "In short, the electric field is radial from
the charge. And the field lines radiate directly out of the charge, just as they do for the
stationary charge. Of course, the field isn't exactly the same as for the stationary charge
because of all the extra factors of (1 - v2)…"
But, we have the counterintuitive purely classical special relativistic result that the field points
radially from the present position of the moving charge. Not the retarded position! Similarly, we expect
the same thing for the gravitational field, though that has to also be shown.
Now what about the quantum mechanics? We need to distinguish virtual photons from real photons.
The near field is due to exchange of virtual photons that are NOT transversely polarized. Virtual
photons are not on the classical light cone. Only real transverse photons are on the classical light cone.
Virtual retarded photons can be both inside and outside the forward light cone. Feynman writes: "We
must accept some very bizarre behavior … photons going faster or slower than the conventional speedof-light…." p. 119 of QED (Princeton 1985) for example. See also his original QED papers. So the real
situation is not so simple.
8
Ray Chiao Population Inversion and Superluminality
from Amazing Light Festschrift for Charles Townes (Springer Verlag 1996)
I ask a new question. At least it is new to me. Are there Extremely Low Frequency (ELF)
nonclassical superluminal quantum light wave packets in microtubules that are required for mind to
properly function in the brain? Is there a practical application here to quantum computers? Is
superluminality required for the conjectured sentient Q* nano-post-quantum computing chip?
Notes by Jack Sarfatti
Population inversion means negative quantum temperature. I ask if this happens in the Frohlich
modes in living matter? The pumping of the Frohlich mode gives an inverted effective negative
temperature medium for the electric dipoles which may permit superluminal wave packets in the
microtubules?
Population inversion in ammonia gas, for example, leads to both superluminality and parelectricity.
"Parelectricity" is not paraelectricity.
"Superluminality can occur when wave packets are tuned to a transparent spectral
window outside the gain-line profile of a medium with inverted populations … These
wave packets can travel faster than the vacuum speed-of-light c. This propagation can
even be dispersionless … Surprisingly, this is not forbidden by Einstein causality."
"Parelectricity … when zero-frequency electric susceptibility … becomes negative …
implies … stable electrostatic configuration of charges … not forbidden by Earnshaw's
theorem … levitation of charges above it … purely electrostatic trap for charged
particles."
"Ammonia vapor …maser … DC quadratic Stark splitting … negative temperature …
therefore negative absorption, or gain. When combined with feedback inside a
microwave resonator … led to oscillation … medium … in metastable, … not
thermodynamic equilibrium, since lifetime of upper state due to spontaneous emission …
very long. The imaginary part of the linear susceptibility of this inverted medium
underwent a sign reversal with repect to that for an uninverted one, and this lead to the
…. MASER … The real part of the linear susceptibility of the population-inverted
medium, … also undergoes a sign reversal leading to further surprises…. some simple
consequences of the sign reversal of the polarizability of molecules prepared in the upper
state. The polarizability is the effective volume of a molecule. In the upper state this
volume is negative. A gas of upper state selected molecules will then have a negative
susceptibility near DC. Therefore the low frequency dielectric constant of this gas will
be less than unity … there is little dispersion … near DC any wave packet … whose
bandwidth is restricted to low frequencies will travel with little dispersion through the
inverted ammonia gas faster than light travels in the vacuum."
Note the reason that Einstein said no faster-than-light signals was that he did not want Future causes
of Past effects. However, Dean Radin, Russell Targ, Fred Alan Wolf, and others show actual evidence
that human consciousness works with Future causes and Past effects. Orthodox quantum nonmechanics does not have rectroactive signalling from Future to Past. So it is consistent with Einstein
causality. That is Eberhard's theorem, which is a consequence of uncontrollable quantum randomness
9
from conservation of quantum probability current in the higher dimensional configuration space of the
combined material source/gauge force- field system P that is beyond spacetime.
Post-quantum non-mechanics has nonlocal communication because of the spontaneously selforganizing feedback control loop between the thought field Q* and its "personally attached" matter
system P (in configuration space in general, though that can be approximated by a superfluid order
parameter in ordinary space). This new post-quantum feedback-control loop between thought and
matter imposes a new sentient non-random order on purely random quantum processes which do not
have the loop. Quantum processes are random. Post-quantum processes are not random. This
newly-recognized post-quantum nonrandomness is the objective signature of our intelligence and
free will. This is the proper explanation of "orch" in Penrose's "orch OR" as a Whiteheadian atom of
experience at the 300 neuron level conjectured by Hameroff.
1907- Sommerfeld showed superluminal group speed light wave packets in media with anomalous
dispersion near an absorption line.
1968 -Bludman and Ruderman non-optical superluminal speed of sound in neutron star without
violating Einstein causality.
1969 - Aharonov, Komar, Susskind superluminal propagation in nonlinear classical fields with unstable
configurations, but no violation of Einstein causality. Picture a 1-D lattice of unstable inverted pendula
with springs coupling nearest neighbors. This lattice has a tachyonic mode where the group speed > c,
but the front speed is exactly c.
1990 - Scharnhorst and Barton find superluminal quantum light wave packets between Casimir plates.
There is also amplification by the Casimir vacuum. This may happen in microtubules.
1994 - Hegerfeldt shows faster-than-light signals in Fermi's 2-atom gedanken experiment. Can this be
used in quantum computers?
All inanimate matter obeys Einstein causality. Only post-quantum animate matter (where the
self-organizing time between thought (elemental mind) and its personally-attached matter is less than the
Darwinian natural selection environmental decoherence time) violates Einstein causality. We would
not be conscious if we obeyed Einstein causality.
Note, Einstein causality is obeyed by both Classical and Quantum physics. It is not obeyed in postquantum physics, IMHO. The evidence against Einstein causality is in the work by Dean Radin, Russell
Targ, and Fred Alan Wolf for living matter as described in papers presented at Tucson III whose
abstracts are available on World Wide Web. Links found at http://www.stardrive.com to MSNBC
website articles by Erick von Schweber on Tucson III.
Note that quantum computers require 2-level atoms acting as qu-bits. Here we are talking about
lattices of 2-level atoms with inverted populations (negative temperature) acting as a medium for
superluminal quantum light wave-packets.
1966 - Basov
"experimentally demonstrated faster-than-c propagation of laser pulses whose bandwidth
lay inside the gain line profile of an amplifier. They also calculated stationary solutions
with propagated faster-than-c. This … arose from … amplification of the earlier parts of
the pulse depleted the population inversion … so that the later parts of the pulse
10
experienced less gain … the peak of the laser pulse was thereby displaced forward
relative to the peak of a pulse propagating at the vacuum speed-of-light … a pulse
reshaping process … an idea which will reappear in all the following cases of optical
faster-than-c phenomena. Basov noted that … relativistic causality was not violated
because a finite pulse could not get ahead of a front of zero intensity which travels at c …
Propagation of laser pulses with group velocities greater than c … from gain saturation
…. called superluminous propagation."
1993 - Chiao
…" propagation … outside the gain-line profile … called superluminal propagation.
This effect arises from … real part of the linear susceptibility of an inverted 2-level
medium suffers a sign change relative to that of a normal, uninverted population …. no
experiments have yet demonstrated this … no violation of Einstein causality …
Superluminous and superluminal propagation … both …. pulse reshaping …
superluminal outside the gain-line profile involves only virtual transitions, no
spontaneous emission noise is added to the transmitted pulse, whereas superluminous
propagation depends on a real amplification of this pulse, with …. addition of …. noise…
superluminous is …. nonlinear …. By contrast, superluminal is … linear. Therefore, …
arbitrary shapes … can propagate faster-than-c without appreciable distortion, provided
only than bandwidth … restricted to spectral region of little dispersion."
1970 Garrett and McCumber …
"Gaussian wave packets propagating in region of anomalous dispersion near absorption
line … reshaped … to produce a smaller but undistorted Gaussian at the exit face … the
peak of the Gaussian appear to move …."
greater than c
1982 - Chu and Wong verified Garrett and McCumber's theory with a real experiment for weak
picosecond pulses near exciton absorption line in GaP:N … shows error in Born and Wolf on this.
1993 Chiao et-al show faster-than-light quantum tunneling for single photon Gaussian wavepacket at
1.7±0.2c through multilayer dielectric mirror whose frequency of maximum reflection matches center
frequency of photon wave packet.
"the amplitude of the wave packet decayed exponentially within the dielectric layers …
the transmitted wave packet was Gaussian … although much smaller in amplitude … the
peaks of these single photon wave packets appeared on the far side of the tunnel barrier
earlier than the peaks of the control wave packets, which had propagated through air
instead of the barrier … each 'click' of a single-photon detector used in coincidence
detection registered the arrival of a single individual photon … which had tunneled
through the barrier. In 1994, our result was confirmed at the classical field level by …
femtosecond laser pulses … Our experimental result is consistent with the theoretical
calculations of Eisenbud and Wigner for the tunneling time based on the method of
stationary phase …. this is … a pulse reshaping process … the later part … is causally
attentuated by reflection more than the earlier part ,,, there is no violation of Einstein
causality … Faster-tha- light .. tunneling also observed … in …. microwaves
propagating through waveguides beyond cutoff … a possibly genuine violation of
Einstein causality? i.e., Enders & Nimtz, J Phys I 3 1089 (1993).
11
Part 2
Although Einstein causality is not violated, in the strict formal sense of the Kramers-Kronig dispersion
relations on the photon-atom scattering amplitudes, it is effectively violated -- practically speaking -- in
terms of application to fast quantum computing circuits using negative temperature population-inverted
active lasing "wiring". Thus Chiao writes:
"Although relativistic causality is not violated, the above conclusions still can lead to
some surprising consequences. For all practical purposes, all detectors -- which must
have a finite threshold of detection -- when placed on the far side of the medium would
be triggered earlier than if the medium were replaced by the vacuum … the 'click' of a
single-photon detector … would also be triggered earlier … For example, consider a 2photon light source -- e.g. … cw spontaneous parametric down-conversion, in which a
conjugate pair of photons is simultaneously emitted at a slight angle with respect to each
other … let 2 single-photon detectors be placed at equal distances from this source …
insert an inverted medium with a group velocity greater than c in the path of one of these
photons … the counter following the population-inverted medium will most probably
click earlier than the counter … whose path lies entirely in the vacuum." p. 103
Therefore, we can anticipate quantum computers with an effective transfer of information many
times the speed-of-light in vacuum between different parts of the computer even though the front speed,
for an unexpected discontinuity is limited by c.
"New information is communicated only when there is an unexpected change, such as a
discontinuity, whose arrival time cannot be inferred from the past behavior of the
wave…. Such discontinuous wave forms, in contrast to the smooth, finite bandwidth
wave packets… contain components at infinite frequency." p. 102
Therefore, in line with Penrose's conjecture, we need not be too surprised if it should turn out that
the Planck scale of quantum gravity does have a large effect on "new information" in living matter.
"the extremely high frequency behavior of the index of refraction of any medium …
inverted-or-not … is dominated by the response of nearly free electrons. The inertia of
these electrons always causes a retarded response .… so that n(infinite frequency) = 1."
Chiao notes a possible exception to this in vacuum modification Nucl Phys B437, 60 (1995) by
Latorre et-al. Puthoff's approach -- that electron's inertia is from Zero-Point fluctuations modified by
Casmir effects in the tiny nano-cavities of electrons in hydrophobic cages inside the protein dimers of
the microtubule -- may be relevant here. There is also the effect of coherent order parameters on the
vacuum that must be considered in the sense of the Modanese theory. Note that superradiance does not
happen for these superluminal effects. Hameroff talks of super-radiance in the microtubules. This
needs to be examined more closely how all these effects may come into play at the Eccles Gate of the
mind-matter interface.
Part 3
I see from Ray Chiao's brilliant analysis how the microtubules/consciounsess conjecture may
partially explain Fred Wolf's, Dean Radin's, and Russell Targ's data analyses at the micro-level in terms
of conventional physics.
12
Lorentz model for refractive index of a completely inverted 2-level medium. Each 2-level atom in
the medium holds a qu-bit for quantum computation. That is the active medium, for the superluminal
propagation of electromagnetic wave packets is itself a quantum computer if the decoherence time td is
longer than the computing time tq. Futhermore, if we use single-photon wavepackets, they are qu-bits
in the transverse polarization.
"the sign of the oscillator strength f of the transition is reversed due to population
inversion" p. 97
The Lorentz model index of refraction with population-inversion is
n(w) = [1 - wp2/(wo2 - w2 -iw/to)]1/2
w = frequency, wp = plasma frequency, wo is the resonant frequency of the medium, to is the lifetime of
the resonance. Note the minus sign in the second term under the square root. That is normally a + sign
if there is positive temperature. This gives an index less than 1 so that c/n > c for phase speed. But also
the other group, energy and signal speeds will also go FTL. The plasma frequency is
wp = (4pi|f|Ne2/m)1/2
The oscillator strength is essentially the matrix element of the electric dipole displacement between
the 2 atomic states |-> and |+>. That is,
|f| = 2mwo|<-|x|+>|2/ђ
N is the number density of atoms in the higher energy |+> state. Note population inversion is not a
qu-bit but a classical bit. The atoms are not in a coherent superposition of |+> and |->. So this form of
the active medium is not really set up as a quantum computer. What changes when we do use the active
medium also as a quantum computer? Is that possible? Is it interesting? Is the energy exchange
between the atoms and the photons consistent with the atoms doing a quantum computation? Do we
have to look at the complete entangled photon-atom system as the quantum computer? This is a whole
new area of quantum computation in active lasing media.
Typically 1/to << wp << wo. That is the decay rate of the upper-energy |+> atom state is small
compared to the collective plasma frequency of the medium, which is in turn small compared to the
resonance frequency of the atomic 2-level quantum jump.
Fig 10.2 of Chiao plots the real part of the complex-valued index of refraction of transverse real light
propagating through the negative temperature population-inverted active masing medium of 2-level
"atoms".
Ren(w) is less than 1 below the resonance frequency wo of the 2-level atomic electron quantum
jump. It is greater than 1 above it.
"the index of refraction near zero frequency is less than unity". It is
n(0) = [1 - (wp/wo)2]1/2 < 1
(10.7)
Therefore, d[Ren(w)]/dw → 0 in DC limit. Thus there is no dispersion at low frequencies in the
active microwave masing medium. Note the Frohlich frequency in living matter is also in this region.
13
The microtubules may act like the ammonia molecules? "Consider a classical finite-bandwidth wave
packet … carrier frequency … 1GHz (like the next generation of Intel chips --JS) and spectrum far
below the resonance …. 24 GHz in ammonia … Let this wave packet be incident on … a gas of
[ammonia] molecules prepared entirely in the upper state." These are c-bits not qu-bits. …small
amplitudes … only linear response …" The DC group velocity is also c/n(0) because there is no
dispersion there. Inverted populations of ammonia gas may occur naturally in the interstellar medium
pumped by violent events from pulsars, black holes ….
"… this inverted ammonia medium can temporarily loan part of its stored energy to the
forward tail of the wave packet, the energy velocity …. of the energy transported by the
wave packet is also superluminal near zero frequency …. The Kramers-Kronig relations
necessitate superluminality. …. both parelectricity and superluminality follow from the
Kramers-Kronig relations, these results do not depend on the validity of any specific
model such as the Lorentz model… causality cannot be violated by these conclusions …
the Kramers-Kronig relations imply that any medium with sufficient gain (with or
without population inversion) gives rise to superluminal group velocities in transparent
spectral windows separate from the region of gain… electrical engineering Bode's law,
which relates the gain of a linear amplifier to its phase shift, is equivalent to the KramersKronig … superluminality and parelectricity can … occur in transistor networks with
spatially distributed gain."
Remember that parelectricity is a way to levitate charge. It is a way to trap charge different from
Paul and Penning traps.
Mechanism for Fred Wolf's advanced wave model of Libet's brain waves, Dean Radin's retro PK,
and Russell Targ's precognition as presented at Tucson III?
Active masing and lasing media reverse the sign of the DC linear electric susceptibility. Therefore,
the sign of the phase shift of the forward scattering amplitude from each atom -- or each protein dimer in
a microtubule pumped by the Frohlich mechanism -- is reversed.
"As a result, the transmitted wave packet is advanced rather than retarded. The index of
refraction is now less than unity with little dispersion, leading to superluminal
propagation. … Any finite-bandwidth wave packet should travel faster than c through
this linear inverted medium without appreciable change in shape and amplitude, provided
only that its bandwidth lies sufficiently far below resonance. This dispersionless
superluminal propagation …. a causal wave form reshaping process in which the earlier
parts -- i.e., the weak forward tails -- undergo virtual amplification by the medium,
followed by virtual absorption of the later parts. An advanced wave form is thus
produced (versus a retarded one produced in the uninverted medium), which faithfully
reproduces an entire incident wave form no matter how complex -- e.g., Beethoven's 9th
Symphony. Energy is temporarily loaned by the medium to the wave so that the medium
is merely a catalyst … No spontaneous emission noise is added to the transmitted
superluminal wave form since only virtual emissions occur." p. 101 Amazing Light
Clearly, it is plausible that the Frohlich mechanism in living matter will support superluminal
microwave propagation in the microtubule infrastructure.
"Superluminal propagation occurs not only in the spectral window near DC" most
relevant to neuroscience where the nerve frequencies are far below the Frohlich
microwave resonance for collective modes "but also in transparent windows next to a
14
gain line where resonant enhancement can give rise to large effects of much faster than c,
infinite, or negative group velocities… within sidebands of the order of the … plasma
frequency on either side of this [gain] line … the meaning of negative group velocity is
that the peak of the transmitted wave packet leaves the exit face of the sample cell before
the peak of the incident wave packet enters the entrance face of this cell … we are
performing such an experiment .. using a resonantly-enhanced stimulated Raman effect in
an optically pumped rubidium vapor cell … pulses propagating in transparent spectral
region with bandwidths … hundreds of megahertz adjacent to the Raman gain line should
exhibit highly superluminal, indeed, negative group velocities … the Raman transition ,,,
hyperfine splitting of 3.036 GHz in ground state of 85Rb …vapor N = 10 1l atoms per cc
… observation of superluminal pulse propagation may be done with 0.8 nanosecond
pulses whose central frequency is detuned by 170 Mhz to give a group velocity of -c.
Thus for a 10 cm cell the pulse arrives 0.7 ns ahead of a pulse which travels through the
same distance of vacuum … the pulse duration is about 0.8 ns. Hence the shift in arrival
time of the pulse is comparable to its width."
This part should be archived. Okay Nick (Herbert) -- it is morning again. Let's take a fresh look at
this Gray ET technology transfer. :-)
We are dealing with what Feynman called the "central mystery of Quantum Mechanics" -- the
double slit experiment in Wheeler's "delayed choice" version. We add amplitudes before squaring for
indistinguishable paths. We square amplitudes before adding for distinguishable paths says Feynman.
Gray's point is really very simple: the down-converters split the primary photon into an interference
photon and a measurement photon. The measurement photon with the blocker 'on' (in the Future
delayed choice) "measures" which path that the primary -- and hence also the interference -- photon took
in the Past. Therefore the receiver detectors A and B in the Past fire equally. When the blocker is 'off'
in the Future, there is no path information for the primary or interference photon in the Past. Therefore,
A will be silent and only B will fire in the Past because of what did not actually happen in the Future.
All of this happens globally self-consistently in loops in time.
So this is the simple picture that would qualitatively explain precognitive remote-viewing and
also Schmidt's retro-PK data that Henry Stapp also wrote about. On the other hand, we seem to have
a violation of Eberhard's theorem. The latter may only be a low complexity -- i.e., n=1, limit of the
completely random branching filter for n statistically-independent photon pairs used in the same selfconsistent loop. This seems to be a kind of post-quantum complexity effect beyond orthodox quantum
mechanics because the n=1 limit is more-or-less in agreement with Eberhard's theorem since the Gray
nonlocal communicator machine is essentially completely noisy there. Its performance, however,
rapidly improves with n as (1-2-n)/2-n where only n=1 corresponds to uncontrollable quantum
randomness that we can call the "Eberhard limit". As n increases away from the base line n=1, we seem
to have a kind of post-quantum filtering of the nonlocal message out of the completely random quantum
noise. These ETs are pretty clever, you must agree! :-)
15
We also have the papers on nonlocal interferometry where there is -- as you say -- no local fringe
patterns. But the interference is picked up in the cross-correlations between the 2 ends of the system.
Now you claim that this situation is isomorphic to the Andrew Gray machine. This is plausible. But
the answer may be in the random-branching n complexity effect that seems to be able to locally decode
the nonlocally encoded message out of the uncontrollable quantum randomness. Is this the postquantum trick that the extraterrestrials on Colonel Phillip Corso's time-ships are now teaching us
( doc pdf URL-doc URL-pdf )? Can your flying "Pleasure Domes" be far behind? :-)
April 16, 1998
Nick Herbert finds the error in Gray's proposal!
OK, Nick. I am sending you a $50 bonus today. Your equations today are a step forward and they
appear correct. Good work, Nick! So far, you are the main contender for the first Bohm Prize. :-)
Bottom line: OK, I think you have shown that Gray's idea will not work because it is not possible to get
destructive interference at receiver C and constructive interference at receiver D for the interference
photon for all screen detections at x for the measurement photon with blocker 'off'. The local statistical
pattern at the receivers will be the same random noise for both blocker 'off' and blocker 'on'. The main
reason for this is that one needs to integrate over all possible places where the measurement photon can
be absorbed on the screen in the Future. That is the signal from the Future will be buried in random
noise until a correlation can be made later with data from the Future. The correlation does in fact show
a nonlocal retroactive influence. But not the kind that can be used to explain things like precognitive
remote-viewing. That is, Eberhard's theorem generally prevents any purely orthodox quantum
explanation of both ordinary consciousness and the paranormal (as in Dean Radin's book, for example).
There is still the matter of Gray's branching combinatorics, since your equations below are only for
n=1. But I admit that it seems unlikely that using n pairs will save the day unless .,. The main error that
Gray appears to make is in his Tables 1 and 2 on "History 2" where he says probability -- that there will
be the 50-50 pattern at C and D when blocker will be 'off' in Future -- is zero. The only way that Gray's
scheme could work would be if one could somehow squeeze all the measurement photons only into the
small piece of the screen {x} where we have destructive interference for C and constructive interference
for D. But this seems to violate diffraction constraints? This would have to be an entirely new post
quantum effect of sentient self-organization controlling quantum randomness with "intent" from Q* <->
P. No Q -> P system can do it.
16
Nick Herbert wrote:
Jack -Here's the quantum calculation for Gray's configuration. To me, using a screen is not
as elegant as using half-silvered mirrors to combine beams. But the conclusion is exactly
the same.
Here's the gist of my calculations re Gray (see Gray.gif for info on naming
conventions). The Fs are photon wavefunctions usually written as "phi"s. But phi, alas,
is not an ASCII symbol.
F -> F(1) + F(2)
primary splitter
F(1) -> F(A,1)F(B,1)
doubler #1
F(2) -> F(A,2)F(B,2)
doubler #2
F(A,1) -> E(R)F(C) + F(D)
upper combiner
F(A,2) -> [F(C) + E(R)F(D)]E(A)
For Gray's configuration, lower photon waves (B) are combined at a screen rather than
combined with half-silvered mirrors.
F(B,1) -> F(B,1,0)E(x)
without blocker
F(B,2) -> F(B,2,0)E*(x)
F(B,1) -> F(B,1,0)E(x)
with blocker in Beam B2
F(B,2) -> F(B,2)
where E(x) = exp(ikpx)
p is beam divergence (in radians) from screen normal
k is photon wave number (in cm-1)
x is distance (in cm) from screen centerline
F(B,1,0) is photon wave amplitude at screen centerline
For convenience we use our freedom to move the screen to make
17
F(B,1,0) = F(B,2,0) = W
.
Then
F -> W[E(R)F(C) + F(D)]E(x) +W[F(C) + E(R)F(D)}E(A)E(B)E*(x)
This is the final wavefunction for Gray's Device (without inserting the blocker). And
remember that
E(R) = "i" and E(A)E(B) = z
Then the Gray wavefunction is proportional to:
F -> [(z + i)CosX - (1 + iz)SinX]F(C) +[(1 + iz)CosX + (z + i)SinX]F(D)
So, we arrange this so that
(z + i)CosX - (1 + iz)SinX = 0
i.e. destructive interference at receiver detector C in the Past at time t1
(1 + iz)CosX + (z + i)SinX = e^iy
i.e. constructive interference at receiver detector D at t1
Also, I am still worried about timing here. You seem to be using a multiple time expression - again like Gray -- rather than a single time expression. Of course, this is only for a piece of the
entire screen and this is what Gray forgot. This is what ruins his gedanken experiment unless
somehow his n-complexity analysis saves him. That seems unlikely.
To be clear about this time thing …
Let t1 be the time that interference photon arrives at C or D. Let t2 be time blocker is or is
not inserted corresponding to measurement photon wave packet passing the blocker region. Let
t3 be time measurement photon arrives at the screen. Where t>t1, there is no interference photon
anymore -- i.e., F(C) and F(D) are zero if you use the common time picture rather than the
multiple time history picture. That is why Fred Alan Wolf was forced to invoke the "strange
silence" conjecture. So you have not yet consistently addressed this issue of timing.
Also you have only done the analysis with blocker on, what about blocker 'off'?
Now that we have written down the wave function, we can confidently calculate the
behavior of the Gray Device for any experiment we desire. For a physicist, this should
be the first step in the analysis of any experimental proposal.
1) for instance, let us choose the phase shift z such that z = +i
F -> cosXF(C) + sinXF(D)
18
A photon coming out of upper channel C is perfectly correlated with a lower photon
going into diffraction pattern CosX. A photon coming out of upper channel D is
perfectly correlated with a lower photon going into diffraction pattern SinX.
2) Since = where <...> stands for integration over the screen, it is obvious that the average
number of photons coming out of channel C is equal to average number of photons
coming out of channel D. So photons at upper combiner are 50/50 random.
OK - this the key point that kills Gray's machine. This is where unitarity and Eberhard's theorem
come in. Is the key idea here that it is impossible to arrange destructive interference at C and
constructive interference at D for all points x where the measurement photon will arrive on the screen?
Therefore, there is no way to decode the future influence locally before it happens. You can see that
there was a Future influence in hindsight by correlating data from a small part of the screen with data on
firings at C and D. This is like quantum teleportation and quantum cryptography.
3) As with the half-silvered mirror combiner, it is easy to show that this conclusion
(upper photons 50/50 random) is independent of the phase shift z. I have done all of
the hard work -- the conclusion is easy to calculate.
4) Similarly, it is easy to show that putting a beam stop in Beam B2 does not change the
50/50 random quality of events at the upper combiner. Again I leave this trivial
calculation to the reader. I have provided all of the parts. Finish the calculation and
come to your own conclusion as to whether Gray's configuration can be used (in
delayed choice mode) for signaling backwards in time.
Where's that Prize Money? I think I deserve a bonus for doing this entirely in ASCII!
http://members.cruzio.com/~quanta
Okay, I think you have shown that Gray's idea will not work because it is not possible to get destructive
interference at C and constructive interference at D for the interference photon for all screen detections
at x for the measurement photon. That is, the signal from the Future will be buried in random noise until
a correlation can be made later with data from the Future.
Archive on Gray's Idea
March 1998 Physics Today, Sheldon Goldstein's "Quantum Theory without Observers - Part1"
"It is not at all clear what Quantum Mechanics is about. What in fact does Quantum Mechanics
describe?" In Bohm's theory, the answer is simple. Quantum Mechanics describes the system point P in
Q -> P. Q comes from the wave function psi which is an ontological field that personally attaches to P.
Classical physics deals only with P. None of the mysticism of the Copenhagen interpretation is needed.
It is failing to recognize that the wave function φ is not a complete description of physical reality. That
there is also P that leads to the solipsist epistemological view of Bohr, von Neumann, et-al that "there is
intrinsically only awareness, observation, measurement."
This is not to say that a post-quantum extension of the quantum field from Q to Q* does not explain
consciousness as a purely physical phenomenon. In fact it does, IMHO. However, this explanation of
consciousness as a post-quantum phenomenon does not in any way require that consciousness "collapse"
19
the quantum wave function in the von Nemann model of measurement as Wigner proposed and as Jahn
at PEAR assumes.
The Physics Today article is good at explaining the history of the reality and measurement problem.
Bohr and Heisenberg were simply wrong although what they proposed was plausible and sensible at the
time. Bohm's theory starts from Einstein's insight that the quantum wave function φ does not provide a
complete description of observer-independent individual systems P.
The individual is symbolized as the system point P at the ontological "be-able" level beneath the
epistemological statistical level of Hermitian operators in Hilbert space whose root mean square formal
expectation values are fluctuations of observables -- like position, momentum, and energy -- over
ensembles over identically prepared not too complex inanimate systems P. These ensembles can be
"pure" or "mixed". Bell essentially showed that this be-able level must be nonlocal and contextdependent. Bohr and Heisenberg and the 'Many-Worlds' theorists deny that Ps exist at all. They thereby
mutilate the seamless interface between the quantum and classical levels that is one of the main beauties
of the Bohm pilot-wave theory. Time-travel to the Past -- if it exists -- requires a duplication of the
system points P that leads to the Deutschean "Multiverse" when the Ps at that level are "snapshots".
I am still working on a rigorous proof of that conjecture. The truth is that Einstein won his debate
with Bohr although the latter was correct to emphasize the wholistic nonlocal and context-dependent
qualities of quantum reality. Einstein did not win completely because an objective local quantum reality
at the individual "be-able" B level is not possible. The be-able B is the entire Q -> P complex. That is,
B = Q -> P.
"What Einstein desired and Bohr deemed impossible -- an observer-free formulation of Quantum
Mmechanics in which the process of measurement can be analyzed in terms of more fundamental
concepts -- does in fact exist. Moreover, there are 3 basic categories: decoherent histories, spontaneous
localization, and pilotwave theories."
The "spontaneous localization" theory is the GRW theory. It is really a consequence of the postquantum extension of Bohm's pilot wave theory from B = Q -> P to B* = Q* <-> P, if we throw away
the P when the latter's complexity Nc is below a certain threshold. That is, spontaneous localization
theory of GRW works when Tgrw/N > T* where Tgrw/Nc = T*. T* is the environmental decoherence
time. Tgrw is the GRW time that is of the order of the age of the Universe. N is a measure of the
complexity of the individual systems P in the ensemble at the statistical level. For example, for single
electron and neutron interferometry N=1.
A 2 q-bit quantum computer has N=2. So the complexity of the quantum computer is essentially the
number of q-bits that are processed in parallel as a single entangled whole. An analogy can be made
with 16 c-bit Windows 3.1 compared to 32 c-bit Windows NT. The jump from 3.1 to NT is analogous
of N=1 jumping to N=2. The post-quantum regime is when Tgrw/N < T*, so that N>Nc. GRW then has
a new physical meaning because spontaneous self-organization overcomes environmental decoherence.
Environmental decoherence is the most fundamental form of Darwinian natural selection. Note
there is still a third time scale Tq which is the time needed to do a quantum computation. Ordinary
quantum computers require Tq < T*. These quantum random computers still obey Tq < Tgrw/N where
Tgrw/N > T* . Post-quantum nonrandomcomputers with intrinsic sentience have Tq < Tgrw /N < T*.
That is, ordinary q-computers have Ps with Ns that must be below the complexity threshold Nc =
Tgrw/T*. But sentient post-q-computers have Ps with Ns above the complexity threshold Nc determined
primarily by the environmental decoherence time T*. This shows exactly how a complexity threshold
characterizes the phase transition from non-sentient quantum random computation to intrinsically20
sentient post-quantum non-random computation. Both quantum random and post-quantum non-random
computations are beyond the classical computation of the Turing machine in the sense of Penrose's
rebuttal of "strong AI".
Goldstein admits that the Bohm theory is "less popular but arguably far simpler" than the decoherent
histories (DH) approach of Griffiths, Omnes, Gell-Mann, and Hartle. There is a problem of consistency
in DH "the consistent … assigning of probabilities to objective histories is not easy to achieve … DH
assigns probabilities … only to histories belonging to special families … closed under coarse graining,
that satisfy a certain decoherence condition". The DH decoherence is not the same as Zurek's
environmentally induced decoherence. It is not clear which decoherence is relevant to T* for quantum
computers? The histories h are defined as time-ordered sequences of projection operators.
"Whether-or-not a family … satisfies the decoherence condition depends not only on a sequence of
times and coarse grained observables at those times but also on the initial … density matrix … as well as
the Hamiltonian … the … probability formulas have an entirely different meaning for DH than for
orthodox Quantum Theory. They describe the probability distribution of the actual value of the relevant
observable at the time… and not merely the distribution of the value that would be found were the
appropriate measurement performed. This difference is the source of a very serious difficulty for DH …
probabilities of what objectively happens and not merely of what would be observed upon measurement
- is precisely what is precluded by the no-hidden variable theorems of … Gleason … Kochen… and ….
Specker…
"It is a consequence of these theorems that the totality of quantum mechanical probabilities for the
various sets of commuting observables is genuinely inconsistent. The ascription of these probabilities to
actual simultaneous values, as relative frequencies of occurrence over an ensemble of systems (a single
ensemble for the totality of probabilitie, for the wave function under consideration) involves an
inconsistency (albeit a hidden one).
"For example, the correlations between spin components for a pair of spin-1/2 particles in the singlet
state -- if consistent -- would have to satisfy Bell's inequality. They don't. … as so far, formulated, DH is
not well defined." Bohm claims that his theory is not subject to the above theorems. We need to come
back to that in detail. Even if the DH approach can be made to work by appending epicyclic fudge
factors like "fullness", "maximality", "classicity" in some kind of "optimality condition" to yield the
"quasiclassical domain of familiar experience" … the usual macroscopic laws … will emerge together
with quantum corrections ….
"It is, however, not at all clear that the theory thus achieved will possess the simplicity and clarity
expected of a fundamental physical theory ". In stark contrast to DH, "spontaneous localization and
Bohmian mechanics (a pilot-wave theory) - have already led to the construction of several precise and
resonably simple versions of quantum theory without observers". So much for Murray Gell-Mann's
false claim in his The Quark and The Jaguar that his allegedly "local" DH theory is the real truth and
that the nonlocality of Bohmian mechanics is "the story distorted."
Thanks to Lynda Williams for bringing this issue of Physics Today to my attention.
Bulk quantum computing using nuclear magnetic resonance technology is a breakthrough from a
collaboration of scientists from Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, and Los Alamos (I. L Chuang, N Gershenfeld,
M.G. Kubinec, D.W. Leung). The paper is not easy to understand in detail. But here are some
highlights.
21
First, you need to understand the difference between "pure" and "mixed" quantum states. A pure
quantum state is maximally coherent. A mixed state is classical probability distribution of pure state.
The thermal equilibrium of a large number of identical simple systems that are not interacting with each
other is an example of a mixed quantum state. These researchers have experimentally prepared effective
pure states inside a liquid in a mixed quantum state. I emphasize that this is not a theoretical possibility
but an actual experimental fact.
Everything here is only for orthodox quantum computers. These are "one-way" devices with
"fragile" quantum potentials Q in Bohm's language. That is, Q->P. Eberhard's theorem preventing
nonlocal communication and the no-cloning theorem are true in this regime of physical reality where the
collective modes of life are not directly participating in the computational process. There is no
"spontaneous self-organization" in the sense of Stuart Kauffman's theory here (e.g., At Home in the
Universe).
The evolution of a quantum computer in time requires a Hamiltonian "energy" operator that has
nonlinear interactions between the parts of the computer. The trick is to strike a delicate balance
between two conflicting objectives. The first objective is to be able to control the quantum computer
using long-range external electromagnetic fields like nuclear magnetic resonance signals on protons
inside liquids. This means that the quantum computer has to be coupled strongly enough to an external
environment. The second conflicting objective is that this coupling to the external environment must not
decohere the quantum computing process. The infinite parallel processing capacity of the quantum
computer depends on it not losing its coherence too quickly before it has time to do the job. The inputs
and outputs of the quantum computer have to connect to the grosser classical level.
There are 4 steps in a quantum computation:
1. The input has to be an effective pure state if not an actual pure state. That is, there has to be
enough initial quantum coherence to do the parallel processing.
2. It must be possible to perform arbitrary single q-bit transformations. These are unitary
transformations that conserve the flow of probability current in configuration space.
3. Apply universal double q-bit "functions" -- e.g. "controlled-NOT".
4. Use standard von-Neumann projective measurement (aka "collapse" or "R") to get to a
classical output that converts the q-bits to the Shannon c-bits used in classical computers.
All 4 of these steps must be done inside the coherence time of the quantum computer. That's the
hard part "because of the ubiquitous nature of interactions leading to decoherence. Since just a small
amount of decoherence can disrupt a quantum computation, quantum decoherence is the largest obstacle
on the road to practical quantum computing machines."
22
Some of the material system points P suggested as the "rock-like" component of potential quantum
computers (Schrodinger machines) include:
1. spin chains
2. polymers
3. quantum dots
4. isolated magnetic spins
5. trapped ions
6. optical photons
7. nanometer scale quantum electrodynamic cavities
8. lone control electrons inside protein dimers on microtubules .
The key fact of nuclear magnetic resonance NMR is the long coherence time that can be thousandsof-seconds due to the natural isolation of the nucleus. That is, the nuclear energy gaps are at least a
million times larger than the electronic energy gaps and the random classical thermal fluctuation
energies at room temperature. However, NMR is a bulk phenomenon. We detect an average signal over
a large ensemble of many molecules. Therefore, it is usually assumed that we cannot achieve Steps (1)
and (4) above.
That is, there is not enough initial quantum coherence for the computation and we cannot get a vonNeumann R-measurement. See Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind for a discussion of the Rmeasurement. For another point-of-view, see Bohm and Hiley's The Undivided Universe. Here comes
the breakthrough:
"We have recently shown that NMR can in fact be used to perform quantum
computations using ordinary liquids at room temperature and standard pressure using
standard commercial instrumentation."
End of Part 1. To be continued.
Thanks to Gary Bekkum for bringing this marvelous development to my attention.
The coherence of quantum computation permits factorization of large integers into primes in
polynomial time instead of exponential time. This could destroy classical computer encryption security.
One has to be able to controllably manipulate quantum dynamical degrees of freedom while -- at the
same time -- preventing environmentally induced decoherence. This is standard orthodox quantum Q>P physics.
In addition -- not yet anticipated in the standard discussions -- is the new post-quantum factor of
complexity. That is, when the complexity of the computing system -- basically the number N of
entangled q-bits -- reaches a certain threshold Nc, the system kicks into a spontaneously self-organizing
intrinsically-sentient post-quantum "elemental mind" mode. There is a characteristic self-organization
time scale of T/N for what Penrose calls "orch OR" in Shadows of the Mind. T is a very large number
on the order of the age of the Universe or even larger. Nanopoulos computes it. It is the same T found
in the post-quantum GRW model.
Let T* be the standard environmentally induced decoherence time. The post-quantum regime is
when T/Nc < T*, where T* is sufficiently long. This is my "naked conjecture". If the naked conjecture
is true, quantum random computers may fail to be able to factorize integers into primes in polynomial
23
time when they make the phase transition to post-quantum nonrandom sentience. Why? Because then
they will be exactly like us. They will have inner experiences of qualia, and we can't factorize large
integers inside our heads intuitively. Therefore, sentience may be a disadvantage for certain narrow
technological tasks like hacking into a secure computer network.
Gershenfeld and Chuang write: "multiple pulse nuclear magnetic resonance techniques to manipulate
the small deviation from equilibrium of the density matrix of an equilibrium ensemble so that it appears
to be the density matrix of a much lower dimensional pure state" This is near the thermodynamic
branch where fluctuation-dissipation theorem is valid. What happens here when we go to the Prigogine
"dissipative structure" region far from the thermodynamic branch. This is where we expect to find
sentient post-quantum self-organization. Note that the quantum gravity models of Hawking-Unruh
blackhole-surface radiation also use the fluctuation-dissipation theorem near the thermodynamic branch
of event horizons. What is a post-quantum dissipative structure like in this case? A a sentient stargate
or warp drive device?
New Feb 1998, Warp Drive Physics
PREVIOUS VERSION
if on the Internet, Press <BACK> on your browser to return to
the previous page (or go to www.stealthskater.com)
else if accessing these files from the CD in a MS-Word session, simply <CLOSE> this
file's window-session; the previous window-session should still remain 'active'
24