A new definition of motion [Jack Sarfatti] Now that you have used my idea of "back-action" that I introduced at Tucson II in 1996 are you aware that any amount of back-action is a violation of quantum theory? That's the big idea not to be missed! [Kathryn Laskey] Stapp's projection operator applied rapidly affects dynamical motion via the empirically confirmed QZE to make a system with Hamiltonian H behave as if (to close approximation) it had Hamiltonian PHP + (1-P)H(1-P). Before the steam starts coming out of your ears (to the tune of I'm a Little Teapot?) please appreciate that I would not claim Stapp's theory is correct as formulated (that is not justified any more than it is yet justified to claim PQT is correct as currently formulated). Even if some variant of Stapp's proposed mechanism turns out to be correct, we don't yet know what projection operators are allowable or what the physically realizable limits are on the rate at which a conscious agent can apply them. Therefore, the theory is as yet too incomplete for scientific verification. Nevertheless, it is the case that there is nothing in Stapp's theory that contradicts quantum theory as currently understood. One could label this QZE as a kind of "back action" in that a quantum "player" applying QZE behaves as if it were a system with a different Hamiltonian than the one governed only by known physical forces. One could thus say the system "changed the Hamiltonian" -- although of course its behavior remains consistent with the behavior of a system with the original Hamiltonian as well. If Stapp's density matrix is thought of as a system of pretty well localized particles exhibiting ODLRO, this QZE interaction could be thought of as the "system points" collectively choosing to apply the measurement operator (i.e., force the collective system points to choose one of the attractor basins associated with the projection operator) and the "pilot field" choosing which attractor basin to go into via its action on the system point. If there is a preferred attractor basin (or preferred set of attractor basins) the "player" can keep itself there for long time periods by applying QZE. [Peter Mutnick] Your last statement makes sense, but the previous one does not make sense to me. The "pilot field" does not choose which attractor basin to go into - you are mixing metaphors. *Either* the wave function can be thought of as a quantum ground for the classical universe particle, which Stapp calls the surfer upon the wave function, *or* the wave function can be broken up into its pilot wave components (quantum potential and phase), which guide the particle. Perhaps there is some genius to your mixing the metaphors, but please clarify. Also, how in God's name can the QZE choose one of the attractor basins? Granted it could hold the particle there once it was already there. [Peter Mutnick, later] Let me try to go into this and see just how far these metaphors will go. In the ontological system of worlds, I start with a mental *state vector*, which in the position representation becomes a physical *wave function*. The first metaphor is that one can think of the *wave function* as a *quantum ground* from which a figural *classical universe particle* emerges, in the emotional world (between the mental and the physical). The *quantum ground* expresses the whole wave function, but more specifically the *quantum potential* component of it. One can think of the *classical universe particle* as the "surfer" and the *quantum ground* as the cosmic "sea" or cosmic medium for the real wave represented by the *wave function*. This transformation from solid *ground* to fluid *sea* is significant. First of all, water is the element of the emotional world, and secondly, it implies a dynamical situation. We can imagine the prototype as a crowd of people walking on solid ground - the ground is unmoving and the motion and the volition is all with the crowd of people. In the fluid element, both are moving and both seem to mutually determine the ultimate course of the "surfer", although only the "surfer" exerts conscious volition. Now I will speculate that this volition consists in the maintenance of the abstraction of classical motion, which defines the very existence of the *classical universe particle*. In the other metaphor, the physical wave function is decomposed into its real functions, S and R, or S and h^2/2m (grad^2)R/R, which define the *phase* and the *quantum potential*, respectively. The particle is similarly separated into its acceleration, velocity, and position components. The *quantum potential* exerts force on the acceleration aspect of the particle, and the velocity aspect of the particle is guided by the *phase*. If we want to really get creative, we can imagine a Unified Field Object or Bohm Point in configuration space being piloted in the hyperspace of quantum phase space by the *phase*. Beneath the configuration space, which is astral, is the physical reality of the particle position. To summarize, the *quantum potential* is in the sixth or soul world, the acceleration aspect of the particle is in the fifth or etheric world, the velocity aspect of the particle is in the fourth or mental world, the *phase* is in the third or causal world, the Bohm Point in configuration space is in the second or astral world, and the position of the particle is in the first or physical world. The particle is fully unified in the abyss between the fifth or etheric world and the fourth or mental world. There is a secret particle position there, which is the so-called hidden variable in the Bohm theory. Outwardly, the particle position remains to be determined. This is equivalent to fixing the boundary condition anew each time a position measurement is performed. But inwardly, in the secret place of the Most High God, the particle position is already determined from the global perspective of the overarching spirit. Now these metaphysical aspects of the particle can be correlated to the ontological entities of the observer and the observed. The velocity of course defines the free frames of reference of observers in special relativity and the acceleration of course defines the fabric of the noumenal reality in general relativity. Although one can think in terms of accelerating frames of reference of observers, the whole fabric of accelerating frames in fact defines a non-arbitrary set of mutually determined frames of reference, which is noumenal reality, or that which is observed, the so-called quantum relativistic ether-made-physical. This is the mystery of the quantum potential from the quantum side and the mystery of the cosmological reality from the relativistic side. But the dynamical determinants of reality in fact involve the velocity or motion in a more intimate way, because real motion is NOT defined classically. Real motion has to do with the influence of the observer and the influence of consciousness, which can become and should become all-important. Motion represents the dialectic within consciousness. Force, whether of the gravitational type or of the informational type, is not the essence of reality, but only of its lowest common denominator, namely the material or physical aspect thereof. Physics should be about reality, not just about its lowest common denominator. Of course, if we redefine motion or velocity, we will also redefine acceleration and the very meaning of force. From the standpoint of the second metaphor, we want to regard the correlated wave aspects and particle aspects as some sort of material base for the unified field of consciousness. Bohm calls this the super-implicate order. In orthodox quantum theory, the motion or momentum is an independent variable, and it is suggested that one might consider allowing both velocity *and* acceleration to become independent variables. But this will just introduce the statistical element (and perhaps something more) back into the theory and preclude a causal interpretation. Rather, we want to redefine motion, and hence velocity and acceleration, in such a way as to allow a causal interpretation that is true to all the phenomenological facts of consciousness and subjective experience. The presumption is that this new definition of motion will be the quantum definition of motion and the definition of quantum motion. To build ever more complex mathematical structures of quantum theory on a foundation of classical motion is sheer idiocy. It is the faux pas of the millennium. It is the emperor with no clothes. That it works a bit should come as no surprise. People once thought Newtonian mechanics was the last word. Now they think the standard model or something along those lines will be the last word. But the mistake is the same. There is a hidden classical assumption at the core of the standard approach, and it is the assumption of classical motion in the special theory of relativity. Bohm, by investigating the meaning of that classical motion in quantum theory, realized the need to redefine it, altogether. My claim that this applies to the special theory of relativity is a natural and obvious extension of Bohm's investigation and line of thought. I would submit that it is also the unenunciated core of what Whitehead found disconcerting about Einstein's relativity. |