Noncommutative Quantum Biology as nonlocal micro-wormholes, ER=EPR Spooky Action at a Distance Force

"a bit of a black hole microscopic black hole lasting of course but couldn't we
model this particle say as if it were a micro black hole that would be on the other side in
space and time besides which should be on the other side so here I do not go into the details....an object could say almost cross and it's not good to say hollow because it's a micro universe welcome it's a part it's a particle that has potentialities, memorization and organization of information yes I cut you that's what I know what I wanted to try to ask you the notion of precisely what it was in relation to the dose" Jean Charon
From: Jean Bricmont
Date: Fri, May 26, 2023
Subject: Re: Virtual particles are not just mathematical fiction
Hi,

I don’t know much about virtual photons, but it is true that books on QFT or relativistic QM never mention the collapse, which is presented as an axiom in ordinary QM books, because that collapse is nonlocal and thus not easy to treat relativistically. In fact QFT predicts accurately the results of scattering experiments but ignores what happens between t=-infinity and t=+infinity and never discusses AFAIK EPR type situations.

Best regards,

Jean
Jean Bricmont
Sun, Jun 4,
to me
The problem is that, AFAIK, what he is talking about has no experimental verification, like wormholes. What is really successful are the predictions of scattering data.

Jean

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

Hi David: Here's more details on negative energy from Hiley: "In conventional relativistic quantum mechanics, the Clifford algebra made its appearance indirectly as an attempt to remove the negative energy that arises in the relativistic expression for the energy, E = ±√p2 + m2. (We use natural units throughout).... However what Dirac had actually discovered was that α and β were elements of the Clifford algebra C1, 3. The Pauli spin matrices had already alerted us to a possible role for the Clifford algebra, but the Schr¨odinger theory seemed not to require a Clifford algebra. However once one realises that C0, 1 ∼= C then we see that the Schr¨odinger
theory can also be discussed in terms of a Clifford algebra. ...instead use an element of a minimal left ideal to carry the information normally carried by the wave function. Thus once again we can work entirely within the algebra with no need to introduce an external Hilbert space structure.
This, of course, not only provides us with an alternative approach to the Dirac theory itself, but it also provides a way to generalise the Bohm model so that it can be applied to all relativistic particle situations."
"Here we have chosen to start this sequence with the conformal Clifford C2, 4 since this contains the Penrose twistors [25]....
This condition is sometimes known as the guidance condition, but here we have no ‘waves’, only process, so this phrase is inappropriate in this context."

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:22 PM David Chester
I think Penrose's thing is different than Sarfatti's. Negative frequency multiplied by hbar is negative energy, which most people call antiparticles. Sarfatti is talking about backreaction from the particle to the pilot wave for a formalism beyond QM, while Penrose doesn't get into the pilot wave as much and isn't going beyond QM. Not that what Sarfatti claims is better, just seems different."
Hi David: If you bring up hbar then please study Hiley more.

"Further, by emphasising the constancy of h-bar in the relation [change of]X times [change of]P approximates h-bar one tends to be led to the notion that the 'disturbance' is dependent only on the size of the cell in phase space. In this way the overall experimental conditions were tacitly dismissed as irrelevant."
Emphasis in original, p. 186, B.J. Hiley, "Phase Space and Cohomology Theory" in 1971, Quantum Theory and Beyond, edited by Ted Bastin, Cambridge University Press
And in relation to Penrose:
"this h-bar squared with a q and he calls this q the quantum potential" starts at 13 minutes in vid linked below. But Hiley takes this to a whole other level. Hiley's main point is Gromov's Non-squeezing theorem enables nonlocality to be modeled below the hbar scale without relying simply on negative energy. It's occurring in a Pre-Space realm so it's a "NEW" quality of energy - more like force instead of energy.
"And Roger this talk is aimed at some of the work you are doing..." Basil J. Hiley starts out his talk with that intro....
Hiley is then explaining we don't need to use the wave function and with noncommutativity there is no need for the collapse of the wavefunction and hence no "quantum measurement" problem - it's just a matter of extending the noncommutativity into the macroscale.
thanks,
drew

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

There's several natural positive feedbacks that self-amplify (the albedo effect of the arctic and arctic methane are the two main ones). The Arctic is the air conditioner of the planet and already has only a 1/2 meter to meter thickness at the September minimum. Almost all the multiyear ice is already gone in the Arctic. This means the current CO2 levels will already melt the arctic to being ice free in the summer and to a temperature last seen 3 million years ago. There's already 500 Zettajoules of heat in the oceans and with El Nino kicking in then the arctic air will keep going to extremes - it's already heating up 7 times faster than the rest of the planet in parts of the arctic with 13 degrees Celsius warmer than normal temps.
There's a 1200 gigaton pressurized reserve of methane in the world's largest ocean shelf - in the arctic - called ESAS or East Siberian Arctic Shelf. This is not even discussed in the IPCC ar6 despite being discussed as a highly likely "abrupt eruption" in the PNAS 2021 paper of Julia Steinbach, citing Natalia Shakhova. So if just a 5 gigaton burst of methane occurs that will double the atmosphere temperatures on Earth already.
So you see that the Aerosol Masking Effect will trigger a huge increase in temperature from the arctic ice going out - right now there is the Albedo Effect but since the ice is so thin that Albedo Effect will disappear soon and the earth will heat up much more, very fast.
Just focusing on CO2 ignores those natural positive amplification feedbacks from Mother Nature wiping out this "problem" of industrialized humans. haha. Yes if we emit 1000 gigatons of CO2 that will doom earth to a 2 degree temperature increase global average but based on the 1750 temperature levels - Earth was supposed to be cooling from the Milankovitch Cycle - and so we already are at the 1.5 Degree Celsius increase global average from 1750 and we already are triggering these positive feedbacks. Cutting back CO2 by decreasing Coal will simply make the Earth hotter already dramatically due to the positive feedbacks - because we've already locked ourselves into a catch-22 scenario of natural positive feedbacks. In fact it's very likely we'll already experience massive drought and famine just from El Nino kicking in this summer as a natural positive feedback and that itself will cause the Aerosol Masking Effect to go away.

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

Hi David Chester, Ph.D. thanks for the reply!: A reply from Professor Hiley: "It [noncommutativity] is really deep stuff which moves us well away from the way physics is normally presented." Sun, Sep 25, 2022 Physics Professor Dean Rickles and Professor Harold Atmanspacher feature Hiley's work in their new book. Hiley: "I am extremely flattered to have my named linked with five greats of physics as he [Atmanspacher] does in his book with Rickles." part of a response on Sun, Mar 19, 7:56 AM 2023
Part 2: Three Approaches to Dual-Aspect Monism

3. Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Gustav Jung

4. Arthur Eddington and John Wheeler

5. David Bohm and Basil Hiley
I would say the "back reaction" of Jack Sarfatti is better explained by the "negative resonance" concept of Roger Penrose relying on noncommutativity.

Now, negative resonance means, some frequencies do not send signal in the forward direction, rather, in the reverse way.... What is the outcome? You get x and y parts (positive and negative resonance) which constructs basic overtones.... Now communication operating at astronomically large number of frequencies simultaneously (at real and imaginary space)...."

That's Aniriban Bandyopadhyay's way of describing negative resonance but Bandyopadhyay disagrees with Roger Penrose's take on reality. haha. Penrose is very radical with his emphasis on asymmetric time as noncommutativity. Also I'm pretty sure Penrose understands relativity well enough considering he got a Nobel Prize for his work on black holes.

A pair composed of a positive and a negative resonance can move through the two component superfluid as an exciton. This motion would be self-accelerating and would follow a straight trajectory would it not be for the static scalar gravitational field set up between these resonances.

June 2, 2014 Cosmological Implications of the Planck Aether Model for a Unified Field Theory by F. Winterberg

However, Penrose’s impact onto GR is much deeper and wider than the singularity theorem and includes many other wonderful and fruitful ideas, such as using the spinorial approach [105, 113], conformal treatment of spacetime [114, 115, 118, 119], causal properties of spacetime and the causal boundary [59, 85, 121], asymptotic conserved quantities [39, 106, 107], gravitational
waves and their collision [81, 117], black holes [120, 122, 126] and, of course, the question of –weak and strong– cosmic censorship [122–124] (the list is far from complete!).

Maciej Dunajski, Roger Penrose

We discuss the equivalence principle in quantum mechanics in the context of Newton--Cartan geometry, and non--relativistic twistor theory.


The non–linear time–dependence of the phase factor leads to a discrepancy between the notions of positive and negative frequencies in Newtonian and Einsteinian frames....The Einstenian and Newtonian wave functions differ by a time–dependent phase factor which – if the equivalence principle is taken seriously – leads to ambiguities in a definition of positive and negative frequency....space time seems to bifurcate and collapse in the R-process, the twistor space is one complex three–fold.


the phase factor that is encountered here is not at all harmless, as it contains the time-dependence...in the exponent, which affects the splitting of field amplitudes into positive and negative frequencies. In other words, the Einsteinian and Newtonian wavefunctions
belong to different Hilbert spaces, corresponding to different quantum field theoretic vacua....

In particular, we have considered testing a proposal for a unified theory
that is based on the ‘gravitizing quantum theory’ approach rather than the conventional
‘quantizing gravity’ approach. In Section 2, we examined how, if we attempt to make QT
consistent with the equivalence principle of GR, then a possible resolution is to consider
making modifications to QT that would lead to a violation of the superposition principle
of QT where the degree of violation is dependent on the gravitational interaction and
configuration of the system. Since this increases for more massive systems, the proposal
can provide an objective state reduction that is consistent with current experiments, thus
resolving the measurement problem of QT, which would, on other hand, be expected to
persist for the ‘quantizing gravity’ approach and conventional quantum gravity theories.
QT is predicted to breakdown when the mass of a quantum system is near the Planck
mass scale, allowing for experimental tests that are far more achievable than those
generally required for distinguishing conventional quantum gravity theories, where the
relevant effects are anticipated near the Planck length scale.

Exploring the unification of quantum theory and
general relativity with a Bose-Einstein condensate
Richard Howl, 1 Roger Penrose, 2 and Ivette Fuentes1 in 2019

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

So you are single-handedly over-riding the peer-review process? "These studies" are all in major peer-review science journals. PNAS is a top science journal. "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is a peer-reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journal. It is the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences, published since 1915, " The IPCC in contrast is a political process - it first has completely "consensual" working groups - meaning one scientist can block any evidence from going forward. After that the countries get to politically censor the reports before the final IPCC report is published. So to claim that truth is a "popularity contest" is trite indeed. If a study or a series of studies are in top peer-reviewed science journals then they are "de facto" accepted by the science community until debunked. Natalia Shakhova's research on methane "abrupt eruption" published in the top journal NATURE in the arctic is corroborated by Peter Wadhams who shared his office with Stephen Hawking at Cambridge - in other words these are the top scientists and they are therefore being ignored by the "political" body of the IPCC. You got your science turned around. There's already been two international expeditions that have corroborated Shakhova's research on the ESAS methane "abrupt eruption."
If you read Naomi Oreskes' history of science book on continental drift as "plate tectonics" - she details how it took decades for the science to be accepted due to the difference science models between the UK and the U.S. This is a similar situation. The science is clear but it just gets screened out for the IPCC reports since they are more of a policy focus. Their argument is that the Aerosol Masking effect is highly uncertain - despite their citing of Daniel Rosenfeld. Then the IPCC argues that we can reduce methane emissions to offset aerosol making effect being reduced. James E. Hansen, a well-known global warming scientist has peer-reviewed research showing the Aerosol Masking Effect is 50% of current and future temperature increases - meaning as sulfur pollution is reduced it will seriously heat up the Earth more. The IPCC is ignoring the natural methane positive feedbacks out of the Arctic - despite the methane already being accelerated out of ESAS.
So if you want to ignore the evidence due to your personal inability to look it up - you're not alone. hahaha. You can use "sci-hub" to read normally paywalled science. Use googlescholar to see who cites what studies and then follow up via "sci-hub" and then use arxiv to read free preprints if they're not on sci-hub. Good luck if you so accept this challenge.