John Archibald Wheeler's autobiography with Kenneth Ford

Norton, 1998

Wheeler summarizes his work as follows:

"I think of my lifetime in physics as divided into three periods. In the first period, extending from the beginning of my career until the early 1950's, I was in the grip of the idea that Everything Is Particles. I was looking for ways to build all basic entities - neutrons, protons, mesons, and so on - out of the lightest, most fundamental particles, electrons, and photons. This same vision of a world of simple particles dominated my work with Feynman. We were able to formulate electrodynamics in terms of particles acting at a distance on one another without the need for intermediate electric or magnetic fields. ...It did ... make a most remarkable prediction about a hypothetical world containing only a few particles ... In such a simpler world, the future would affect the past."

[Sarfatti Comment]

The work with Feynman was classical Level 1 of matter-geometry. It had both retarded (from the past) and advanced (from the future) influences along light cones that my post-quantum theory, with its retarded and advanced "guiding" Wigner actions or "intents" (of mind on matter) and Wigner "direct" (back) reactions or "experiential qualities" (of matter back on mind), retains. Note the Wigner "guiding" actions of mind on matter, whether from the past or from the future, are Level 2. In contrast, the Wigner reactions, i.e., experiential qualities, whether memory of things past, or Merlin-like precognitive remote viewing of things future, are Level 3. David Bohm's great discovery was that orthodox quantum theory, with its indeterminism for individual events, its uncontrollable randomness, its Born probability interpretation (AKA Stapp's "normal rule") and the prohibition against communication using only nonlocality (AKA "passion-at-a-distance" - Abner Shimony), all of these come from the requirement that the Level 2 quantum information field is a "one-way" "absolute ether". This was the same situation Einstein faced in 1915 in developing the general theory of relativity in which gravitation is the direct back-reaction of matter on the space-time geometry causing it to "warp" or "curve" away from its "flatness" in special relativity. Just as Level 1 gravitation is the direct Wigner reaction of Level 1 matter on Level 1 space-time geometry, so, too, is Level 3 "sentience" the direct Wigner reaction of Level 1 matter-geometry on its Level 2 guiding quantum information field to which it is "personally attached" (Nick Herbert's term). This "two-way" spontaneously sentient self-organizing Level 3 loop between Levels 1 and 2 restores Einstein's principle of relativity that there are no "absolute ethers" at any level of physical reality.

[Wheeler]

"I call my second period Everything Is Fields. From the time I fell in love with general relativity and gravitation in 1952 until late in my career, I pursued the vision of a world made of fields, one in which the apparent particles are really manifestations of electric and magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and space-time itself."

[Sarfatti]

This is still classical material Level 1. "Fields" and "particles" here are in ordinary physical three-dimensional space changing in time.

[Wheeler]

"Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that Everything Is Information. The more I have pondered the mystery of the quantum and our strange ability to comprehend this world in which we live, the more I see possible fundamental roles for logic and information as the bedrock of physical theory. I am eighty-six as of this writing, but I continue to search." pp 63-64

[Sarfatti]

David Bohm showed that Wheeler is talking about what I call "Level 2", i.e., the non-material, but physical, guiding fields of quantum information outside of material Level 1 which guide the motion of the particles and fields in Level 1. Wheeler's first and second periods were really dealing with Bohm's material "beables" at Level 1. Stapp's theory is consonant with Wheeler's third period that Everything Is Information. My own position is to use all three of Wheeler's periods. The first two comprise Level 1, his last is Level 2 to which I add Level 3 as the two-way dialogue between Levels 1 and 2 fulfilling Einstein's principle of relativity in its greatest generality while, at the same time, explaining counter-intuitive experimental data like Ben Libet's which shows that the mind chooses backward in time, while, simultaneously experiencing its conscious choice forward in time. It is a great triumph of post-quantum theory that this fact is explained in a natural non ad-hoc way from the theory.

[Wheeler]

"My path in physics came naturally. From my earliest student days, I was most intrigued by questions about fundamentals. What are the basic laws that govern the physical world? How is the world, at the deepest level, put together? What are the consituents? How do they interact? What are the unifying themes? I wanted to go deeper, to atomic nuclei, to the individual particles within atoms and nuclei, and to their interactions with electromagnetic radiation .... that seemed to define the frontier for me [1933] ... General relativity and gravitation, the physics of space-time itself, had not yet fired my imagination.." p.104

Henry Stapp in his orthodox i.e. "Level 2" quantum theory of mind-matter (ref. Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics, Springer-Verlag) follows Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation that there is no ontological "Level 1" "hidden variable" or material "be-able" "Bohm worldline in configuration space" in the Heisenberg-James interpretation, which goes beyond the epistemological Copenhagen interpretation. Stapp is not alone here. Asher Peres and many others would agree with him.

The point of this note is that not even Niels Bohr using George Gamow's "liquid drop" model of the nuclei of atoms believed his own quantum philosophy when he did practical nuclear fission theory with John Archibald Wheeler in 1939. This is abundantly clear in Wheeler's new autobiography "Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foam" (Norton, 1998). Thus, Wheeler writes:

"For a heavy nucleus such as uranium to split into large fragments, it had to undergo considerable deformation first. (We assumed that the nucleus was spherical before it absorbed a neutron. We know now that even when unexcited, the uranium nucleus, and indeed most nuclei, are prolate spheroids - little footballs. But fission requires a temporary deformation beyond that of the normal shape.) When you cut an orange in half, the two halves fall apart. This is not true of a nucleus. Imagine a uranium nucleus hypothetically cut into two hemispheres. The powerful nuclear forces between the particles in one half and the particles in the other half will prevent the hemispheres from separating. But if a small separation is achieved in some way, to get beyond the short range of the attractive nuclear forces, the two positively charged halves will repel each other electrically and fly apart at high speed. We say that there is an energy 'barrier' standing in the way of cleavage. The energy required to surmount this metaphorical barrier depends on the 'route' followed by the nucleus on its way to separation. What Bohr and I showed is that the height of the energy barrier to be surmounted is lowest if the nucleus, instead of falling apart like the two halves of an orange, is deformed through a sequence of other shapes - from orange to cucumber to large peanut." p. 24

So here we have the material Level 1 Bohm worldline in configuration space as the proper arena to describe the above sequence of configurations of the extended nucleus. Nuclei are quantum mechanical objects. One can do interferometry with atoms, which contain nuclei. Therefore, we need Bohm's picture, which allows us to think of the different shapes of the uranium nucleus as it deforms and splits apart. We also see that the energy release in nuclear fission is electrical energy from the protons in the two fission fragments.

"Soul" is a quaint term for the Level 3 post-quantum spontaneously sentient field of what Henry Stapp calls "experiential qualities" "e". Bohm's theory has all of this in latent form ready for a metamorphosis of human understanding.

I have, in the spirit of humble grace, been given a universal theory of sentience at Level 3, which fulfills Einstein's principle of relativity first conceived by him at Level 1. Sentience is the warping of Bohm's Level 2 field of non-material quantum information by Level 1 matter-geometry, just as Level 1 universal gravity is the warping of Level 1 geometry by Level 1 matter as shown by Einstein in 1915. This is a theory for ALL minds human and otherwise.

Mind is non-material i.e. not Level 1, but it is still physical. Post-modern physics has a much broader notion of "physical" than what you learned as a child. Remember Saint Paul "when I was a child, I thought as a child" on the tinkling of Bell's theorem "through the looking glass darkly".:-)

Properties of post-quantum sentient fields (thanks to Ken Jenkens):

Yes, all of these are properties of Level 3 spontaneously sentient post-quantum fields of mental information. Shannon's theory of Level 1 classical information is for matter, Bohm's new theory of Level 2 quantum information is prerequisite for mind. Mind is the two way dialogue or exchange between Level 1 Shannon information and Level 2 Bohm information.

Consciousness is an active agent that needs to violate common ideas of cause and effect in order to have morally responsible freedom of choice. Consciousness is poised at mesoscopic post-quantum Level 3 on the edge between strictly determined, but chaotic, classically macroscopic Level 1 and random quantum microscopic Level 2. Level 3 is the marriage of Levels 1 and 2. Think of mechanical Level 1 as "male" and non-mechanical Level 2 as "female". Alternatively, you can think of Level 1 as "Body", Level 2 as "Mind" and Level 3 as "Spirit". This is a kind of "Trinity" Principle.

[Sarfatti previous (14 Sep 1998)]

Advanced Wigner action + Retarded Wigner reaction = 0 (1a)

Retarded Wigner action + Advanced Wigner reaction = 0 (1b)

Mind = Bohm quantum information field. (2a)

Brain = Bohm world line in configuration space. (2b)

Memory = Retarded Wigner reaction of brain on mind. (3a)

Precognition = Advanced Wigner reaction of brain on mind. (3b)

Intent from future = Advanced Wigner action of mind on brain. (3c)

Intent from past = Retarded Wigner action of mind on brain. (3d)

|Memory| >> |Precognition| (4a)

|Intent from future| >> |Intent from past|. (4b)

First the term "behavior". I understand "behavior" as strictly classical Level 1 matter in motion in ordinary space. For a complex system this corresponds to the motion of the Level 1 material "system point" along the "Bohm worldline" (Stapp's term) on the Level 2 Bohm quantum information field "landscape" in the configuration space of the Bohm worldline. I mean "landscape" as in Murray Gell-Mann's "The Quark and the Jaguar", and Stuart Kauffman's "At Home in the Universe". Mathematically, it is the gradient flow perpendicular to the equipotential contour lines on the hypersurface formed by Bohm's Level 2 non material, but physical, quantum information potential Q in the classical Level 1 configuration space of the material Bohm worldline representing the relevant collective degrees of freedom (Frohlich modes?) of the momentary material brain configuration.

Now as to the ultimate cause of the time symmetry breaking, Dimitri Nanopoulos argues that the Level 3 post-quantum self-organizing loop, formally like the objective reduction "OR" "friction" term in the GRW model, does it. This is good because in my theory it is this term that also generates experiential qualities "e" so that the subjectively experienced flow of time from past to future is an integral part of consciousness. However, this is not the final word on this mystery.

"We concluded that the one-way flow of time that we observe in our world is attributable, in part, to the existence of all the other matter in the universe." Wheeler.

Does isolating electrons in hydrophobic cages inside microtubules upset the one-way flow of time in the brain? Remember Level 2 is the one-way influence of quantum information on its Level 1 material beable. Time also flows one-way here. Not so for Level 3 where experiment shows an advanced Wigner action of mind on matter from the future backward in time together with a retarded Wigner reaction experience of willing our free choice in the ordinary way from the past forward in time.

The advanced Wigner action of future intent is the "future Level 2 cause" of "past Level 1 brain behavior" in Libet's data. This is half of the Level 3 spontaneously sentient self-organizing feedback-control loop between Level 2 mind information and Level 1 brain matter. The other half that closes John Archibald Wheeler's "self excited" sentient circuit is the retarded Wigner reaction "e" (Stapp's experiential quality). This is our subjective experience that we freely willed our conscious choice forward in time! This is the operational meaning of my equation

Advanced Wigner action + Retarded Wigner reaction = 0 (1a)

This explains normal everyday morally responsible conscious choices which are experienced forward in time, but according to Libet (and Penrose) involve a backward in time influence. My post-quantum theory explains this very well.

DeBroglie showed

(Level2 quantum information guiding wave speed)(Level 1 classical particle speed) = c^2

Similarly, I noticed the other day that

(Level 2 Compton wave length)(Level 1 classical wormhole radius) = (Planck)^2

That is

(h/mc)(Gm/c^2) = Gh/c^3 = 10^-66 cm^2 = 1 c-bit (Bekenstein)

In quantum geometrodynamics all elementary particles are naked singularity wormholes whose mouths are a Compton wavelength across at Level 2 for low energy probes. High energy probes inside the wormhole mouth see the classical point like wormhole radius. This explains why the electron looks like a point for a 10^-16 cm probe deep inside the quantum wormhole mouth 10^-11 cm across. The classical wormhole mouth at Level 1 is only 10^-55 cm. Note the Level 2 quantum information field that is personally attached to the electron guiding it to form wavelike patterns, does not apparently reach this far inside. Sidharth says the zero point fluctuations of the EM field cut off at the Compton wavelength of the electron. However, that cannot be true of the relative near field metri curvature quantum gravity fluctuations (Herbert-Sarfatti)

delta R/R = (Planck)^2(Compton)^3/(Classical) L^4

What if the electron has a dual partner? What if there is a classical blackhole whose radius is the Compton wavelength of the electron. This would be a Level 1 black hole of mass 10^17 gm. It's Level 2 quantum wormhole radius (Compton) is 10^-55 cm. That is,

(Level 1 classical radius)(Level 2 DUAL quantum radius)^-1 = 1

(Level 2 quantum radius)(Level 1 DUAL classical radius)^-1 = 1

So the electron of mass 10^-27 gm has a dual partner of mass 1017 gm. The dual of the electron is a very classical object although it is a small blackhole equal in size to the quantum electron.

That is

DUAL Compton/Dual Classical = Electron classical/Electron Compton = 10^-44.

Note also, from this the mass of the dual need not be positive, could it be imaginary or even negative? One can imagine the quantum mouth of the electron linked to the classical mouth of its DUAL. We can imagine the 10^-11 cm quantum mouth of the electron linked to the 10^-55 cm classical mouth of the electron. We can imagine all possibilities simultaneously. That is, two mouths 10^-11 cm across and two mouths 10^-55 cm across. The topology is such that there is a tube from every mouth to every other mouth. There are different possibilities for threading a universal primordial gauge field flux line through these mouths.

Not every electron has a DUAL partner because then there would be too much mass in the universe unless some of the duals had negative mass and even imaginary mass. The negative mass might account for the anomalous expansion.

Tony Smith wrote: "Jack, you say:

'There is another possibility here. It could be that the extended structure is only for low energy probes outside h/mc Now 90 Gev is about 10^-16 cm way inside the wormhole mouth of 10^-11 cm. Once the probe is inside the mouth, the probe sees the Level 1 pointlike 10^-55 cm classical blackhole. That is the 10^-11 cm Level 2 is a kind of screening field seen only for low energy scattering. It's like breaking the sound barrier, or going through a hurricane into the calm center. .. Jack Sarfatti - previous

Jack later:

I was only seeing it intuitively. But, clearly, the picture has both the classical Level 1 point and the Level 2 dressing cloud out to the Compton wavelength where the quantum metric curvature fluctuations are large . We have to make this more quantitative of course. But we seem to be getting a plausible intuitive picture here.

Tony Smith 16 Sep 98

PS - Jack, you also said to Saul Paul Sirag ". Do you have the lines [of a concert of Sirag's " Ezekiel's Vision" at the Berkeley Art Museum in 1973 that involved hypercube formulae]? Was this the paper I sent also to US Military about making baby universes? Remember, I was talking artificially manufactured baby universes splitting off from ours back then in 1974 working with Abdus Salam in Trieste. What we are really after is a giant traversable wormhole. Now if it is a quantum wormhole the Level 2 width of the mouth is h/mc. In contrast, the Level 1 width is Gm/c^2. So, guess what, the product of the Level 1 width with the Level 2 width is the square of the Planck length, or fundamental Planck area which is the Bekenstein Shannon c-bit in blackhole thermodynamics. It is also fundamental to Susskind's "holographic universe Remember De Broglie's wave-particle relation for massive subluminal matter, i.e.,

So in my new post-quantum theory we have

I don't think anyone ever noticed this before just now! I mean literally now 10:40 pm pst Sept 16, 1998. This idea ("telepatype"?) just popped into my stream of experiential qualities "e" triggered by my reading your message. My new formula eq. (1b) clearly looks profound! It is a clue.

Has contact with Higher Intelligence produced?

with

with

III. eq. 1b above, which resembles a Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

That is the quantum of area is worth one c-bit is the

So suppose, we want to make an elementary particle (worth 1 Shannon c-bit using Bekenstein's area-information exchange rate) that gives us a huge Level 2 wormhole mouth to pass a space ship (or UFO flying saucer) through? Suppose we make it 100 meters wide i.e. 10^4 cm. The classical pointlike radius needs to be 10^-66/10^4 cm = 10^-70 cm. The electron is 10^-55 cm. So the mass is really small. Now this is only a 1-bit wormhole. Clearly, we can't expect to send a ship with people through a 1 bit wormhole even though it's mouth is wide enough. Probably the traversable wormhole needs to have enough channel capacity to let the ship pass. That is we need to compute how many c-bits the ship has. We need to know the entropy of whatever Level 1 material object is to be sent through the artificially manufactured Level 3 sentient post-quantum wormhole (stargate time machine). This may be the real meaning of The Whale that swallowed up Jonah and spat him out again --see also Leviathan, Moby Dick etc.

So Tony and Saul Paul, clearly we want a Bose-Einstein condensate in physical space not momentum space, or rather a non-equilibrium Frohlich condensate of small mass elementary excitations to make this gate. We need a lot of c-bits. Presumably, flying saucers, if they are real I mean, that's a big IF of course, but let's assume it as a playful gedankenexperiment here, are able to generate wormhole mouths at will as part of their propulsion system?

I would not be surprised if Saul Paul's hypercube idea for the paths plays a key role in the quantitative dynamics for this breakthrough propellantless metric engineering? Remember this is wild, really wild late night channeling of a techno-shaman in cyber space. So is this the sort of stuff that was subliminally imprinted in my brain in 1953? :-) Remember that I do not remember the three weeks of calls my mother remembers.

from Saul Paul Sirag

Sarfatti Meets Targ and Puthoff July 15, 1973 at Dean Brown' house in Portola Valley, CA:

Present: Dean Brown, Russell Targ, Hal Puthoff, Brendan O'Regan, Lee Sanella, Frieda Morris, Jack Sarfatti.

Dean: (reads from a description of William Blake's last hours: engraving illustrations to Dante & Enoch )

"just before he died his Countenance became fair--His eyes

Brighten'd and He burst out Singing of the things he Saw in Heaven."

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:

Bring me my Arrows of Desire:

Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!

Bring me my Chariot of fire.

I will not cease from Mental Fight,

Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand

Till we have built Jerusalem

In England's green & pleasant Land.

Jack Sarfatti: Fundamental too...

Lee Sanella: Geller...bending...continued bending.

Russell Targ: What did you see?

Jack Sarfatti: Sounds like hysteresis; the guy who should study this is Truesdale -- world expert on metal fatigue; heard him lecture in Munich.

[John Archibald Wheeler also lectured there in the summer of 1966 at Werner Heisenberg's Max Planck Institute where I was - Jack Sarfatti 1998]

Lee Sanella: Girl held the ring in her hand in Berkeley.

Hal Puthoff: Balance experiment...gradient...lots of things.

Russell Targ: Assuming there are people like Geller and Swann, what is psychic spacetime? It was Jacques' [Vallee] idea is to get together he's the silent member here; The experiments with Geller were always flawed. Dean and I designed fool proof experiments; we spent a week with Geller...no results.

Dean Brown: ...gray area.

Russell Targ: There was the key experiment. He drew a perfect picture of the key. Kirk Kelly -- programer & magician -- said "I could do that."

Brendan O Regan: Did you ask him to do it?

Russell Targ: No, but I believed him.

Brendan: ...draws picture on pad, puts it face down on Targ's lap; Targ draws same.

Lee Sanella: Time and again.

Russell Targ: Uri is a highly skilled psychic...we have designed....

Jack Sarfatti: Conclusion: complementarity.

Russell Targ: What is your background?

Jack Sarfatti: Theoretical physics.

Russell Targ: Geller was very upset that there were 100 in the target pool.

deleted

Russell Targ: That reminds me of a kind of Jewish Mafia...3 guys in dark glasses and berets came to the office reception area, from the Brotherhood of Light sent by Dr. Jim Hurtak...

Lee: Oh, that bunch!

Russell: They say energy is being dissipated; we're not treating Geller right: Alpha Ben Or & Asher Ben Or and I can't remember the third one. They were reading from Enoch. They mentioned vehicles -- makyavah--

Jack: Maccabee?

Russell: ... no...it something like makyavah... Whether it was a flying saucer or a power point on earth, I couldn't tell.

[Jack 1998 Merkavah and Ezekiel]

Brendan: Hurtak was putting out a Journal with translations of many esoteric manuscripts from China and India; also Enoch manuscripts. He wrote a Geller...paper...pseudo-physics theory claimed to be involved in extra-galactic travel UFO. On Memorial day....Hurtak came to SRI. Said he was leaving Cal Art.

Hal: He was at Prague and presented a paper on the Keys to the Kingdom.

[Jack Sarfatti 1998 - remember this is 1973 during The Cold War, Prague was a cauldron of KGB intrigue.]

Brendan: 64 of them, I think.

Jack: In a restaurant in San Diego, I heard about a center going up...founded by Hurtak's Brotherhood of Light. They said it would be a "Brandeis West"?

Brendan: ...Andrija Puharich; Hurtak and Andrija were swapping equations.

Lee: I was there -- in a hotel with Hurtak and Andrija... for half an hour... they were going back and forth: they seemed to be agreeing that they were getting the same information...20 years earlier...Andrija and Arthur Young ...

Russell: Geller also talks about UFOs ... powers come from them...

Jack: That reminds me of the phone call I got when I was 13 or 14 years old. I'm 33 now. Computer voice.

Lee: 18 years ago.

Jack: says "we will come if you will come with us"...ran down the street got a bunch of my friends together...there was a whirring sound....

Hal: computers don't make whirring sounds.

Jack: I know, but there was a whirring sound. Since then if research ideas are put into me. Big Bang -- cosmology -- Nature paper--working with Bohm. Other people came up with the same ideas at the same time: Markov, Lloyd Motz's "uniton" idea...Stephen Hawking's mini black hole 10 to the minus 5 gram black holes...making up 99 percent of the mass of the universe. ...Wheeler..I saw him at a Symposium in New York...mini black holes

Russell: Leadbeater proposed it. This was late 19th century; he clairvoyantly saw a kind of heavy hydrogen he called it "occultium," and another kind he called something else.

Jack: This is 10 to the 19th times as heavy...

Russell: ...Yes, but Leadbeater also said that space was very dense and that matter formed bubbles in the dense medium. Crookes.

Jack: That's like Wheeler's quantum foam ...high density ...giant fluctuations...quasars...Burbidge...cosmic ray experiments should show.

Hal: How many black holes in the nucleus?

Jack: Doesn't really matter...density...Kerr solution...naked singularity...15 physics papers. The way I got these ideas is psychic.

Hal: Advanced galaxy...McGovern(?)...mechanical intelligences organic life.

Jack: 3 yrs before the phone call, I was walking down a stairwell; and I was suddenly struck with something important like something happening from the outside; I told Brendan...

Hal: One person and in...

Jack: I have a hunch that it's Man from the future...spinning black holes provide causality violation...closed, time-like loops Brandon Carter calls it a time-machine effect; he says that this shows that General Relativity is wrong. But what if general relativity is right....then travel to the past is possible.

Hal: Us in the future.

Jack: Bootstrap effect

Lee: This is one of Geller's ideas.

Brendan: I heard Geller say...ideas from the future.

Russell: Hal and I are very sympathetic to that...explained by precognition. Like the Tree picture...

Dean: Christmas tree picture.

Russell: Tree picture; too bad it was drawn with a squeaking crayon...

Brendan: Circles, square, triangles.

Russell: I did much the same kind of thing with Geller.

Jack: What's this 18 years ago stuff?

Lee: 18 years ago...Andrija...phone calls...mechanical voice telling him what to do.

Brendan: Geller came up with the number 18: the number of people in the room... I counted them and there were 18.

Hal: ...archetypal construct...phone calls...

Brendan: Phone calls...from space..

Frieda: George Fuller had...100-200 no sound...phone calls a day. Did you decide to be a theoretical physicist after the calls were coming.

Jack: I was going to be a theoretical physicist already --before...

[Jack 1998, the above event happened before I arrived in Trieste at Abdus Salam's invitation to work on modeling elementary particles as tiny quantum blackholes using a strong short-range gravity from spin 2 meson exchange.]

Subject: Merkavah and Ezekiel

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 14:35:16 +0000

From: Saul-Paul Sirag <sirag@pond.net>

You may remember that I told you (many years ago) that a few lines from your Trieste paper on the time-machine effect were sung in a concert called "Ezekiel's Vision" at the University Art Museum in Berkeley on June 7, 1974. But I probably didn't mention that your lines were interwoven (via hypercube Hamiltonian path formulas) with lines from Wittgenstein -- the last few lines of his Tractatus. This was before we had met (Sept. 14, 1974), so of course I didn't know about your Cornell Gilbert & Sullivan performances, nor about your studying with Max Black and the other Wittgensteinians at Cornell.

Since Ezekiel's Vision was the basis for the Merkavah Mysticism which evolved into the later Zoharic Mysticism called Kabbalah, I thought I would write a few lines about this. In the "Ezekiel ascii" attachment, you will also find the short piece I wrote to inform Charles MacDermed the composer and pianist (whom I think you've met) and Tom Buckner, the baritone who sang at the performance of "Ezekiel's Vision." If we wanted to go back to the day (exactly recorded by him) of Ezekiel's vision of the Throne Chariot (Merkavah), we might have to be carried there by the Throne Chariot. That's the Borgesian idea I tried to get across in my 1974 piece. Also I think you'll find the Hamiltonian path formulas for hypercubes interesting.

All for now.

 Saul-Paul

by Saul-Paul Sirag September 16, 1998

The word merkavah, or merkabah, is the ordinary word for chariot in Hebrew. It is used 44 times in the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament). The closely related word rekeb also means chariot and occurs 114 times in the Hebrew Bible, including the passage in 2 Kings 2:11 " Behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated them [Elijah and Elisha]. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

This phrase "chariot of fire" is the basis of William Blake's famous line "Bring me my chariot of fire!" in the song he sang on his deathbed. He was quoting his own lines which formed the preface to his long poem, "Milton." These words were (again) set to music in the 19th century in the hymn called "Jerusalem," because of its last lines: "Till we have built Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land."

Merkeva is the name of the main Israeli battle tank, designed by General Israel Tal after the Yom Kippur war of October 1973. The word merkavah is not used by Ezekiel (chapters 1 & 10) to describe his famous vision of the throne of God with the four cherubim and their wheels within wheels. However, in the early proto-kabbalistic period (1st - 6th centuries c.e.), the word merkavah was used to refer to Ezekiel's vision of the divine throne chariot. This tradition is referred to as Merkabah Mysticism -- the attempt to participate in this vision of Ezekiel.

References: David R. Blumenthal, Understanding Jewish Mysticism (1978); Chaim Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars (1984); Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible (n.d.); The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1977); Eighteenth Century English Literature, ed. Tillotson et al. (1969).

The following notes "On Ezekiel's Vision" were written to instruct the composer Charles MacDermed and the Baritone soloist, Tom Buckner for the musical piece,"Ezekiel's Vision," performed at the University Art Museum, Berkeley, on Friday, June 7, 1974. MacDermed composed the music and played the piano while Buckner sang the words provided by me. The libretto was a labyrinthine interweaving of sentences from Ludwig Wittgenstein and Jack Sarfatti. Jack and I didn't meet until his birthday September 14, 1974, so I didn't know that he had sung tenor roles in several Gilbert and Sullivan performances at Cornell University; nor that he had studied philosophy with Max Black and other students of Wittgenstein's at Cornell.

[Jack 1998, I don't know if Max was with Wittgenstein, but Norman Malcolm certainly was.]

From a Sarfatti paper, dated 27 March 1974, written at the International Centre of Theoretical Physics, Trieste, I extracted the words

:

"General relativity provides 'time machines' in the form of 'closed time-like curves.' It would be possible for a super-conscious culture to go back in historical time and create its own history on one of the space-time pages in the great book of the cosmos."

Ezekiel certainly saw something very strange. His vision of the Cherubim with their wheels within wheels initiated his whole prophetic career. And ever since, people have tried to recapture whatever it was that Ezekiel saw. The Cabalists go into their Seventh Heaven trip to the throne of God and back. After all Ezekiel said he saw the throne of God, so why shouldn't somebody else have a peek too. And the Cabalists probably did see something too. I'm wondering if their methods of moving through the seven heavens are not a moving through other dimensions of space-time.

The Abracadabra formula that has come down to us could be a corruption of:

a,

aba,

abacaba,

abacabad abacaba,

abacabad abacabar abacabad abacaba, et cetera.

These formulas, it turns out, are descripive of the most efficient paths [Hamiltonian paths] through cubes of various dimensions, each dimension being labeled with a letter -- a, b, c, d, r. In the original form they would have been Hebrew from : aleph, beth, gimmel, daleth, resh, shin, thov. That would be seven dimensions, labeled by the first four and the last three letters of the Hebrew alphabet. If one didn't want to get lost in hyperspace, it would be handy to have some sort of algorithm to thread the maze of hyperspace. Maybe abacabadabacabarabacabadabacaba would do it [for 5 dimensions].

There's been some speculation that the Ezekiel vision was of what we today would call a flying saucer. In other words, an object of advanced technology. It's hard to know one way or another, but I've been wondering if it was not a time machine of some sort. Recently in Physical Review Abstracts (D 15 March 1974) there was a report [by Frank Tipler] of the possibility of time travel by means of a rotating cylinder. It would be odd if we were to go in such a time machine to visit Ezekiel's time and place. We could do this, because we know the day he saw his vision, since he carefully recorded the time (a date equivalent to July 5, 592 BCE give or take a day) and place. It would be odd if in doing this -- to have a peek at Ezekiel's vision it turned out that what Ezekiel saw was just us in our time machine trying to have a peek at his vision.

• Saul-Paul Sirag (May 1974)

Background information.

Using the idea that all elementary particles are extended tiny quantum wormholes a Compton wavelength across leads to a natural tetrahedral topological structure with four wormhole mouths. The ideas behind this include:

1. Quantum curvature fluctuations are enormous out to the Compton wavelength and beyond using Wheeler's formula and a new one by Nick Herbert. That the effect is large has not been noticed apparently until a few weeks ago when I took Wheeler's and Herbert's formulae for absolute metric and curvature quantum fluctuations and converted them to relative dimensionless fluctuations which is what matters physically. You simply cannot look at an absolute curvature fluctuation of say 10^-44 cm^-2 and conclude it is "small". You have to compare it to the mean classical curvature at that scale.

2. The quantum wormhole is a naked singularity. Cosmic censorship and chronology protection are false at the quantum level IMHO. There is an Einstein bridge from the quantum mouth h/mc to the classical mouth Gm/c^2. The quantum mouth is the "dressed particle" and the classical mouth is the "bare particle". For example, take an electron, h/mc = 10^-11 cm, Gm/c^2 = 10^-55 cm. If you scatter two electrons off each other at 90 Gev CM energy (is it CM? - check this) you probe 10^-16 cm deep inside the quantum wormhole. Therefore, you see the bare electron at 10^-55 cm which explains why high energy deep inelastic electron-electron scattering shows a structureless "point" electron. Similarly with quarks inside hadrons probed by electrons.

3. I first got the idea that elementary particles are little blackholes in the early 70's and published a paper about it in Collective Phenomena which caused Abdus Salam to invite me to Trieste in 1973 as he had similar ideas. Recent papers by Sidharth have reactivated this idea.

4. I noticed that

linking this to Bekenstein's "blackhole thermodynamics", Hawking radiation etc.

This suggest the S4 tetrahedral symmetry that Saul Paul discusses below because we can postulate a more complex wormhole with four mouths two of size h/mc and two of size Gm/c^2. There is a dual mass *m where

The projective geometry parameter x is

The Planck scale is at x = 1.

So for an electron m = 10^-27 gm, the dual mass is *m = 10^17 gm which has a Hawking lifetime (says Tony Smith) of 10^18 years, so it is stable and may explain missing mass of the universe?

5. So here is how to interpret the four mouths of the S4 quantum geometrodynamic structure, in the case of the electron, for example,

One mouth is the dressed electron of size 10^-11 cm mass 10^-27 gm seen by low energy probes that stay outside the quantum wormhole mouth.

Another mouth is the bare electron of size 10^-55 cm of mass 10^-27 gm seen by high energy probes inside the quantum wormhole mouth.

Still another mouth is the bare dual mini-blackhole of size 10^-11 cm with the huge mass of *m = 10^17 gm. This is a classical object even though it is tiny, as small as an electron. Its Compton wavelength is the fourth mouth of size 10^-55 cm and mass 10^17 cm.

Now this is one classical alternative with a quantum amplitude. There may be others that add coherently to it. I have to investigate that.

6. We may get all of the elementary particles using Saul Paul's scheme below where we link the mouths in different ways with a single electric closed flux line. There will also be a magnetic flux loop where the two fluxes obey the Dirac condition on magnetic monopoles and quantization of electric charge. From this, Saul Paul and Tony Smith should be able to generate the weak flavor and strong color forces as topological linkages of the basic electromagnetic flux through the four mouths or Cherubim of Ezekial's Vision?

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:51:04 +0000

From: Saul-Paul Sirag <sirag@pond.net>

To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@well.com>

Jack,

This synchronicity goes very deep.

Ezekiel saw the 4 cherubim. John's vision of the throne of God in the book of Revelation has 4 "living creatures" (zon in Greek) around the throne, and 4! = 24 elders surrounding the throne. Of course the main number, repeated over and over is 7, which goes back to the 7 days of Creation + Sabbath. But there is a deep connection between S4 and 7 as we will see. [Aside: For a while, I called the 4 objects permuted by S4 Zons.]

By the middle of the fourth century c.e., the Christian Church fixed the canon of the New Testament, beginning with the 4 Gospels, one for each of the 4 Cherubim (this idea goes back at least to Origen (d. 254 c.e.)) and ending with the very controversial book of Revelation.

Carl Jung has pointed out that the 4 cherubim correspond to 4 cardinal figures of the Zodiac. (He was undoubtedly not the first to notice this.)

From Jung we may pass to Arthur Young, who was a student of Jungian symbolism (he went through a long Jungian analysis, which he credited with the cure of his paralyzed arms -- but that's another story.

Jung had emphasized the symbolism of fourness, in addition to the well known threeness of the Christian trinity.

Because of Arthur Young's fascination with the fourness, he was very intrigued with the tetrahedron.

In March of 1974 he asked me (as his "research associate" at the Institute for the Study of Consciousness, which he set up in the fall of 1973) to work out the group table for the symmetries of the tetrahedron.

This is why (group theory-wise) I cut my teeth on the structure of S4. I worked out the table by actually manipulating a tetrahedral ball and stick model. I found that the rotations of the tetrahedron have the symmetry group consisting of the 12 even permutations of 4 objects (this is called the alternating-4 group, A4, and also the tetrahedral group, T. Moreover, the full symmetry group (which includes reflections) is the set of all permutations of 4 objects, the symmetric-4 group, labeled S4, and also called the octahedral group, O, because it is the rotational symmetry group of the octahedron (and cube which is the dual figure).

One of the things I learned while working out this S4 group table was that I could take short cuts by way of the structure of the Klein-4 group K4 as a subgroup of S4. In standard group theory language, S4 is the semi-direct product of the K4 group and S3, the Symmetric-3 group. Thus there are 6 cosets of K4 in S4. In other words, I stumbled onto the concept of cosets without knowing what they were called.

When Jack showed up at the ISC on his birthday September 14, 1974, one of the first things I showed him was my S4 group table. I claimed that it would be a generalization of Eddington's K4 structure of basic physical measurement.

Jack's response was that finite groups were not the way to go: particle physics is now based on Lie groups.

Years later, in 1979 I gave Jack a copy of the S4 multiplication table in the form of the K4 coset substructure; and including the cycle patterns for each element.

Sometime in 1980, Abdus Salam sent Jack a copy of his Nobel Prize address (1973). In it Salam mentions 24 particles (18 quarks in 3 families and 3 colors; and 6 leptons in 3 families).

Jack made the claim that these 24 particles must correspond to the 24 elements of S4.

I looked at my S4 table and saw immediately that since there are 5 classes of S4 elements, and that there were 1, 3, & 8 elements making up the even permutations of the A4 subgroup, while the remaining 12 elements separate into two classes each containing 6 elements. It looked like the even permutations would correspond to gauge bosons, and the odd permutations would correspond to basic fermions. After all 1, 3, 8, 6, 6 had become a particle physics mantra: 1 photon, 3 weakons, 8 gluons, 6 quarks, 6 leptons. The multiplication of permutations would match the basic rule of particle physics: fermions interact by exchanging bosons; bosons can interact with each other, by exchanging bosons. Moreover, the cosets of K4 arranged these 12 odd permutations as 2 of each class in three separate cosets. The idea that group multiplication of elements modeled particle interactions was, of course, a radically new idea.

This was the jumping off point for the development of the S4 (Octahedral) group algebra theory of the unification of the forces (other than gravity). The Standard Model Lie groups are imbedded as a Principal fiber bundle (the unitary elements) in the Group Algebra C[S4], also known as the octahedral group algebra C[O]

In January 1982, I presented this as a 20 minute paper at the American Physical Society in San Francisco. The paper was called "Why There Are Three Fermion Families." Jack was there and (along with Pierre Noyes) were the only ones to respond favorably to the paper.

At that time the number of fermion families was unknown. At least three were needed (to explain CP violation according to Kobayashi and Masakawa, 1970). There was experimental evidence for three. There were many theoretical predictions of 4 (or more) families. Only in 1989 was it experimentally fixed at three. To this day (cf. Sci. Am. Nov. 1998), physicists say that the family structure is a big mystery.

In order to bring in gravity, I went to the double cover of O, the octahedral double group OD. The group algebra C[OD] = C[O] + P + D, where P is the complex Pauli algebra and D is the complex Dirac algebra (which are complex Clifford algebras, i.e. complex C(3) and complex C(4).

There are now 8 classes in OD, which correspond to 8 basic representations, and thus to 8 total matrix algebras of dimensions 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2. By the correspondence proved by John McKay (1979) these are what I call "balance" numbers of the E7 Lie algebra.

When I learned this in the mid-1980's, I realized that I would have to get into string theory, which by that time was heavily into the E Lie Algebras, especially E8 X E8.

At the 23rd International High Energy Physics Conference in Berkeley, I contributed a paper called, "An E7 Unification Scheme Via the Octahedral Double Group."

At this conference, Jack introduced me to Abdus Salam, and I gave him a copy of the paper. Salam said, "I thought E7 was dead;" and I said, "Well, I'm going to resurrect it."

In January 1989 I presented more details of the C[OD] correspondence with E7 at the San Francisco meeting of the American Physical Society, "A Finite Group Algebra Unification Scheme."

Later that spring I went to a series of lectures in Berkeley (in the physics department and at the Math Sciences Research Institute) on the relationship of knot theory to quantum field theory by Ed Witten and presented him with a copy of this paper.

In the last few years E7, mainly through the work of Witten, has emerged as the master symmetry group of an 11-d Supergravity theory, with 7 hidden dimensions, of spacetime. This is a key part of M-theory ("membrane, magic, or mystery -- according to taste" says Witten). This theory has a kind of duality, analogous to the duality between electricity and magnetism, i.e. between the 137 magnetic charge and the 1/137 electric charge, and thus between the macroscopic and microscopic. By way of this duality, the five competing superstring theories have all become sub theories of a master theory, which is the 11-d supergravity theory.

I'm now wondering if this M-theory duality fits in with Jack's "duality" ideas.

A very recent development (Physics Today, August 1998), makes a kind of near field - far field duality between string theory and quantum chromo-dynamics. In this case the A2 (SU(3)) standard model QCD gauge group is regarded as the part of an infinite expansion in "number of colors" so that the entire infinite series of Lie algebras of A type are active.

This is very congenial to my thinking, because I have been pushing the idea that the entire set of A-D-E Coxeter graphs is implicated in the ultimate description of reality. This is because the A-D-E graphs have been shown by mathematicians in recent decades to be a ubiquitous classification structure. At least 20 different mathematical objects have been brought into this scheme -- Lie algebras (and groups), Coxeter (Weyl) reflection groups, finite subgroupss of SU(2), which I call McKay groups, catastrophe structures, singularities (of differentiable maps), 2-d conformal field theories, gravitational instantons, error-correcting codes -- to name only a few of the well known (and of great interest to physics).

[My motivation for developing these ideas was to find the deep roots of consciousness; and therefore I published these ideas as "Consciousness: a Hyperspace View" as a 40 page appendix in the 2nd Edition of Jeffrey Mishlove's book, Roots of Consciousness, 1993. An updated summary, "A Mathematical Strategy for a Theory of Consciousness" was published in the First Tucson Conference proceedings: Towards a Science of Consciousness, 1996.]

Each of the A-D-E classifications is merely a different window into some vast object (Vast Active Living Intelligent System -- a la Phillip K. Dick?) What is clear through one window is seen only dimly (or not at all) through another. The A-D-E Coxeter graphs provide a way to transform from one type of object to another, or to transform within a particular type.

There is an infinite number of A's, and an infinite number of D's beginning with D4, and only three E's: E6, E7, E8.

The E's are spoken for in string theory (and its M-theory extension). The A's now play their role interpolating between string theory and quantum chromodynamics. The obvious question: what is the role of the Ds?

My guess: The Ds are all SO's (i.e. Dn corresponds to SO(2n)); and have spin structures as double covers. [Note: SSU(2) double covering SO(3) I a very special case.] Therefore, the Ds have to do with some expansion on spin.

The D series begins with D4, so we are back to 4 again. Have I given away too many secrets?

All for now.

Saul-Paul

**********************************************************************

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Saul Paul

I just added your notes on Chariots of Fire to

http://www.hia.com/pcr/ind15.htm

in its fifth or so version

I only now noticed that my double Einstein bridge S4 duality etc may be the Cabalistic four Cherubim of Ezekial's Vision? I suppose you were already aware of that synchronicity?

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:37:33 -0500

From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>

To: sarfatti@well.com

CC: sirag@pond.net, tsmith@innerx.net

Saul-Paul and Jack,

Thanks for the interesting messages about the 4 mouths.

Here are some more thoughts.

Start with a Kerr-Newman black hole.

According to Hawking and Ellis, the maximal spacetime with a Kerr-Newman black hole (with less mass than angular momentum, like the Compton Radius Vortex electron), looks like their Figure 27 on page 163, an image of which is at URL

A-------------------------------------------- 1

_____________ ------------_____________

B --------------------------------------------2

where the lines ___________ are edge-on views of ring singularities,

The line between 1 and 2 is in the ordinary part of the extended spacetime in which distances are positive and gravity is attractive,

The line between A and B is in the exotic part of the extended spacetime in which distances are negative and gravity is repulsive,

As the caption to Figure 27 says, "... On circling twice round the singularity ... one passes from [the ordinary part] to [the exotic part] and back to [the ordinary part] ..."

Could the 4 wormhole mouths correspond to A and B sides of the exotic singularity (Jack's large mouths) and 1 and 2 sides of the ordinary singularity (Jack's small mouths) ?

If so, the the symmetry (since large mouths are different from small mouths) is not so the full S4, but is the Klein 4-group K4, there being a symmetry between the top and bottom of each type of mouth and another symmetry between large mouths and small mouths. Since S4 / K4 = S3, what about the S3 part of S4?

Since we have not used color degrees of freedom at all in our construction of this Kerr-Newman Compton Radius Vortex (only using angular momentum, electric charge, and mass), we can get S3 as the symmetry of the 3 colors red, green, and blue.

Now we have what we need for S4 internal symmetry space, and can do physics.

We do not need to go beyond the maximal extension of Kerr-Newman spacetime.

Tony 25 Sep 98

Subject: Re: supercomputing

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:59:16 EDT

From: Puthoff@aol.com

To: gamet@isrglobal.com, sarfatti@well.com, ibison@ntr.net

deleted

In principle the Reissner-Nordstrom metric for a charged mass could take the product below unity. This is because charge and mass enter with opposite signs, and if the charge contribution overwhelms the mass contribution, then... You are right that it would also result in "electrogravitic repulsion," as coined in a paper by Qadir (Mahajan, Qadir & Valanju, Il Nuovo Cimento 65B, p 404, 1981).

Hal Puthoff

------------------------------------------------------

Subject: overview

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:07:26 -0500

From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>

To: sarfatti@well.com

Jack, here is an outline overview of what I have been writing recently about Compton Radius Vortex and related ideas on my web pages - it is current through today, Sunday 27 Sep 98 (when I added some pages) - also, it is just an outline, so the content is in the web pages, some of which are about 50k text, plus images.

If you think that it is suitable, you can post it to quantum-mind.

1 - General Description of Compton Radius Vortex for Electrons, Quarks, Neutrinos, Pions, and Protons:

2 - Herbert/Sarfatti Near Field and Far Field structures with possible applications:

3 - Black Hole Background Material:

4 - Background Material on Bohm Theory, Sarfatti Back-Reaction, and the Geometry of MacroSpace related not only to my models but also to Stan Tenen's Geometry and to Saul-Paul Sirag's A-D-E structures:

5 - Large Numbers and Cosmology, in which I differ somewhat from Sidharth, but agree that such structures suggest contact with Nelson's non-local background field based on conservative Markov diffusion.

6 - Vortex Symmetries, motivated by Jack Sarfatti's 4-mouth, from a slightly different point of view, but arriving at the same symmetries when you have Planck Mass Black Holes for which the Classical Vortex and Compton Vortex are the same size - also on this page I quote Saul-Paul Sirag extensively because I think that he does not yet have his own web page:

Tony Smith wrote:

> 6 - Vortex Symmetries, motivated by Jack Sarfatti's 4-mouth,

> from a slightly different point of view, but arriving at

> the same symmetries when you have Planck Mass Black Holes for

> which the Classical Vortex and Compton Vortex are the same size -

> - also on this page I quote Saul-Paul Sirag extensively because

> I think that he does not yet have his own web page:

> http://tony.ai/worm4holes.html

> mirror at

Jack Sarfatti replied to Tony Smith, on Sept 27, 1998 approx 7pm PST

Two quick points about 6.

1. If M Thorn was motivated by our work it happened backward in time. He drew it at least a year ago!

2. I disagree with you that the quantum gravity fluctuations do not allow us to see structures smaller than the Planck scale. I think the fact that the electron looks like a structureless point in 90 Gev scattering shows that is not so. But more importantly your making that remark is logically inconsistent with other things you say. For example, if we believe Wheeler that delta g = Planck/L and that electron is a Sidharth naked singularity with a quantum wormhole mouth 10^-11 cm across, then, as you know we get enormous relative dimensionless quantum gravity curvature fluctuations delta R/R out to a micron and even a bit bigger from the 1/L^3 power law decay for scale L. So, if what you say was true for Planck scale it would also be true for micron scale IF Sidharth's picture is correct. But the key is that the quantum zero point fluctuations really have a different nature in Bohm's picture than the usual one we learn. In any case, we have to look at this key point very carefully. It is not so simple. Remember, the duality idea makes no sense if we cannot see below the Planck scale. To me, at this moment, the Planck scale is simply the pivot point for this projective geometry duality.

That is, Planck scale is where

quantum wormhole size = classical wormhole size

Define

X = quantum wormhole size/classical wormhole size

Planck scale is X = 1.

Electron has X = 10^-11/10^-55 = 10^44

*X = Y = 1/X.

Plot this as a hyperbola Y against X.

So the 10^17 gm mini blackhole dual partner to the electron has Y = 10^-44. This electron's dual partner is the same observable size 10^-11 cm as the electron, but it is 10^44 times heavier and it is a very classical object. Note if it had the same absolute charge as the electron it would be effectively neutral i.e. a MACHO ? or is it a WIMP? I forget? :-) The charge to mass ratio e/m for the dual partner to the electron is 10^-44 that of the electron. If the dual and the electron are linked by the same electric flux loop then this would be the case.

In any case 10^-55 cm and 10^-11 cm have equal ontic status in this theory. So don't jump so quick that the metric fluctuations provide some kind of barrier to seeing small distances. Also remember that if the equivalence principle holds, it may not, but if it does, then the probe is also distorting. If both the probe and the probed distort equally the effect will be invisible. So we really need to look at all this more carefully. It will take time before we understand this. No one understands this yet. Not even Wheeler, Penrose and Hawking.