Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / September 2005

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Date: September 12, 2005 11:27:48 AM PDT
To: Dan Smith <dantsmith@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Confused ideas of "IT FROM BIT"

bcc
On Sep 12, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Dan Smith wrote:

"Roger,
I am much taken with your Lucerne document.  Could you also give us the
URL? We need a continuing discussion on that, perhaps including some of
those present. As to what you say below, I don’t see an admission for
what may be beyond space and time.  Can we not suppose that our world
exists in a primordial matrix, linked with other worlds and other
intelligences, beyond the realm of standard or evolutionary causality?
 Such may be the abodes of our ultra-terrestrials.  I’m not sure then
what it is you strive below to disallow."

Define "beyond".

It can mean extra space dimensions, which are still IT

Or it can mean the BIT information field.

Or both."

Dan, your language is too imprecise for any physicist. No go.

"Other issues come to mind."

Subject: AW: Re: Confused ideas of the "multiverse"

On Sep 11, 2005, at 1:53 PM, caryn anscomb / Jack Sarfatti wrote:

...snip...

JS: "Nothing" means nothing in physics today. There is ALWAYS
"something" though that something is either real or virtual. Even when
virtual it has a direct effect on bending spacetime. Virtual dark energy
is like a concave lens with a virtual image for a collimated input.
Virtual dark matter, like real matter, is like a convergent lens with a
real image for all the extremal geodesics (constructive interference of
histories) inside or on the local light cones.

"CA:IT must arise from BIT in the first instance – which in itself is a
paradox, what begot BIT to give rise to IT? The metaphysical copout
being BIT (which in itself is coherent consciousness/God consciousness)
is eternal, there’s no need for BIT-IT fusion."

Wrong, "IT-BIT fusion" means macroscopic eigenvalue of the relevant
quantum density matrix e.g. Bose-Einstein condensation. This defined
in detail by P.W. Anderson in several papers in "A Career in Theoretical
Physics" it is the essence of post-quantum physics in the mesoscopic ->
macroscopic regimes.

No, this is not a paradox at all using the real language of mathematics.
You simply cannot understand physics theories using plain English. That
is what is wrong with Dan's simplistic lame-brained analysis in the
perception of any real physicist. That is the problem with the pop
books. There are precise equations for the slogan

"IT FROM BIT"

most precise in the Bohm "pilot wave" theory where in the simplest problem

v = (h/m)Grad(argPsi)

MEANS

IT FROM BIT

No mysteries here. The mystery is simply from using an inadequate
language that does not fit the complexity of the problem. I could
actually say it in English with a lot of words that still would not
capture it completely.

The IT "hidden variable" "particle" with Newtonian instant velocity v
gets its marching orders from the BIT pilot wave Psi whose phase is
argPsi and whose amplitude is |Psi|.

The IT here is a "test particle" without any direct back-reaction on the
BIT Psi. Hence NO BIT FROM IT in this approximation of "sub-quantal
equilibrium" (A. Valentini)

Similarly to derive Einstein's 1915 GR in ONE LINE

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(argVacuum ODLRO)

B is non-trivial curved part of the Einstein-Cartan 1-form connection
for the local gauging of T4 to Diff(4).

B = 0 is unstable pre-inflation false vacuum without any gravity and
inertia at all.

Vacuum ODLRO is the spontaneous breaking of SU(2)hypercharge of the
standard model with Yukawa couplingwith the NEUTRAL VEV local order
parameter. This is why space-time physics is LOCAL and why the Arrow of
Time points the same way as the expansion of the 3D space of our local
Hubble universe. Pioneer anomaly a_g = - cH(t) shows hedgehog defect in
Vacuum ODLRO field centered at Sun (and maybe ALL stars?) consistent
with SU(2).

The inertial masses of leptons and quarks are ~ |Vacuum ODLRO| and we do
not need to excite a real Higgs particle for this to happen.

"Problems with Apokatastasis: The Gnostic concept of Apokatastasis."

JS: We need it like a hole in the head. Those Gnostics got off on
cutting off their own balls as I recall?

RU: "The concept of Apokatastasis is far older than Gnostic approaches
and lead back to the older Egyptian idea to synchronize the
"mythological" and the "real" cosmos (the so-called Calendar of Thoth),
saying in postmodern terms: the virtual and the real cosmos. I attached
my essay "Open Codification" where I developed some arguments relating
apoktastasis and its consequences.

It is - in my opinion - a false and dangerous idea to suspect the IT to
emerge from BIT as a primordial operation, see "Masses and Muses". To me
any god is a result of evolution and not given a priori, even if we
could say that there is a potential for gods.But actually there is none
in the beginning. I know very well that in the Augustinian tradition -
valid in Lutherian Christianity as well - any created thing or being has
no value per se. This is: God must be then thought as primordial to be
real. As a consequence all "real" loses its self-meaning, life - itself
disfunctional -  is not holy any longer, and locking up, torture,
murder, war etc, arise...

...snip...

Spirit,
Roger"