From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: The New Physics of "The Force" of "Star Wars".
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:48:08 GMT


Progress Report on The New Age Physics of "The Force" of "Star Wars".

ABSTRACT
Precognition is put on a sound basis in terms of a new physics that can be
tested.  The new physics involves a minimal generalization of standard
quantum mechanics (NSQM) but reduces to standard quantum mechanics (SQM) in
the relevant limit the way general relativity reduces to special relativity
when curved spacetime flattens out.

1. Looking at Feynman's classic 1949 papers on quantum electrodynamics
(QED) from the 1992 perspective of quantum gravity suggests that the
"ultra-violet catastrophe" is easily avoided by using the Planck length
(i.e. 10^-5 grams = 10^-33 cm etc.) as the high-momentum/short wavelength
cut-off.

QED is "semi-classical" in that the spacetime metric is classical only the
photon and electron fields are quantized.  The metric quantum fluctuates so
strongly at the cut-off that Lorentz symmetry breaks down. There is no
smoothness, no differentiability there.  The geometry of quantum gravity is
fractal! Note that in semiclassical QED the worldlines of photons and
electrons are fractal but the metric is not.

The renormalization "shell game" of Feynman et-al neglects gravity and has
infinite bare mass ( i.e., -m(0)) and bare charge (i.e., -e(0)) with
infinite self-energy (virtual photons and virtual pairs) mass shift (i.e.,
+@m) and vacuum polarization charge shift (i.e. +@e) such that the observed
mass (i.e. m) and charge (i.e. e) of the electron is finite

m = -m(0) + @m > 0

-e = -e(0) + @e < 0

It is also shown that the observed real photon mass is zero (Lorentz-
invariant gauge invariance) in spite of virtual electron-positron pairs in
the real photon propagation.

All of this was done without any thought of gravity. We have seen how a
simple classical model of a point electron with gravity gives a finite
self-energy. That is the clue.

By simply sticking in the Planck cut-off into Feynman's formulas for the
lowest-order leading diagrams of perturbation we get that @m and @e are not
infinite but very close to the observed values consistent with

m(0) = 0

e(0) = 0

so that gravity in a sense causes both the mass and the charge of the
electron. This is a very different philosophy which may also connect
gravity to the Higgs mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in the
quantum vacuum.


2. Quantum -connection communication.
If it exists it may explain "telepathy", "precognition", "mind-matter
interaction" and how the designed universe comes into being from the
advanced intelligence inside it but in the far future!

The "transactional interpretation" of QM (John Cramer), a spinoff of the
Feynman path picture, as well as the Wheeler "delayed choice" and the
"quantum eraser" experiments, suggests that when an atom emits a photon or
a photon pair, that the state created is not a local phenomenon but depends
on how that photon or photon pair is going to be detected in the future. I
am also using a Bohmian "quantum potential" picture here in which there is
real nonlocal action at a distance that exerts forces and torques
originating in the future detection on the atom emission in the past.

For example, in the Aspect experiment

                   1                            2
+' --------<-------------------|  |----------------------->-------- +
         /                 pair source                       \
  I    /                                                       \   II
     /                                                           \
-' /                                                              \ -

For this total experimental arrangement the photon pair state is

|1,2> = (1/rt2)[|1+>|2+> + |1->|2->] = (1/rt2)[|1+'>|2+'> + |1-'>|2-'>] (1)

where <+|+'> = <-|-'> = cos@   (2a)

      <+|-'> = -<-|+'> = sin@  (2b)

from the theory of group representations (i.e. spin 1 rep of orthogonal
rotation group around line of flight of back-to-back photon pair).

@ = @(I) - @(II)    (3)

where @(I) is actual orientation of the polarizer beam splitter at the
local event when photon 1 scatters from it etc.

*Note that Budnik's objection against Aspect's experiment is totally
meaningless operationally.

The standard quantum prediction for the nonlocal joint probability that
violates Bell's locality inequality is then

p(1+'|2+) = |<1+'|<2+|1,2>|^2 = (1/2)(cos@)^2     (4)

which is observed to a precision of 5 standard deviations away from the
Bell-inequality prediction in Aspect;s 1982 exeriment in Paris.

But now let us consider a different total experimental arrangement:


              1                            2                 +
+' --------<------|  |----------->--------------------------------
         /                 pair source            \               |
  I    /                                            \   II        |
     /                                                \           |
-' /                                                    \ ----||--#
                                                            -    +
RECEIVER                                             TRANSMITTER

ANSATZ: the "ab-initio" photon pair state is not |1,2> as in eq (1) but is,
rather,

|1,2>' = (1/rt2)|2+>[e^i&|1+> + |1->]    (5)

where & is the translational phase shift controlled at II but detected at
I.  Note that the space-time separation between the local detections at
events I and II is irrelevant. This is pre-geometrical phenomenon.  The
idea is that real nonlocal quantum forces and quantum torques from II
distort the usual J = 0 ->1->0 cascade of Aspect's experiment to create
|1,2>'.

Note that the "transmitter" event II for photon 2 is a kind of
interferometer with a half-wave plate (i.e.,"polarization quantum eraser")
in one alternate path which rotates the plane of polarization of photon 2
by 90 degrees in space from - to +. The symbol # represents a special
"clamped" detector in which photon 2 excites a delocalized elementary
excitation in such a way that there is no trace of which path phton 2 took
through the interferometer (i.e. "space path quantum eraser").

We already know that the time-evolution |1,2> -> |1,2>', that is,

(1/rt2)[|1+>|2+> + |1->|2->] -> (1/rt2)|2+>[e^i&|1+> + |1->]   (6)

is not unitary even though it conserves local probabilities. It is not
unitary because it does not respect the invariance of the inner product
<2+|2-> = 0. Therefore, it is not permitted in standard quantum mechanics
(SQM), although it would be permitted in a non-standard quantum mechanics
(NSQM) which still conserved local probabilities. The relation of SQM to
NSQM would parallel that of Euclidean geometry to non-Euclidean geometry.
NSQM violates "retarded causality" that causes are always before their
effects.  Feynman's propagator boundary condition for contours in the
energy plane about poles in quantum electrodynamics (QED) also violates
retarded causality.

A similar problem arose in classical relativity because it takes infinite
energy to push a subluminal particle up to the Einstein classical barrier
of the speed of light.  However, nothing prevents a faster-than-light
(tachyon) particle being created ab-initio. Such a particle would violate
retarded causality but it would not violate the symmetry group structure of
special relativity.

I have leap-frogged over the non-unitarity problem by conjecturing that (5)
is not necessary to conceive as happening as a time - evolution. The
"transaction" between the future detection events I and II with the past
source event S conspire to make |1,2>' rather than |1,2> in the new total
experimental arrangement.  If this is the way the world works then the
locally decodable nonlocally transmitted quantum connection signal S(I)
received at I but transmitted from II is

S(I) = |<1+|1,2>'>|^2 - |<1-|1,2>|^2 = sin2@cos&    (7)

in which the nonlocal un-hidden variables @ and & are controlled from II
and modulate the signal received at I.

In the delayed choice mode the signal is transmitted from the frame-
invariant timelike future of its reception. This would be genunie
precognition. Any attempt to create a time paradox would fail in this sort
of situation. In other words there would be no free-will and equipment
would malfunction to prevent a time paradox.  The Force of Star Wars keeps
the universe globally self-consistent in such a case!