Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

HIDDEN VARIABLES: THE SECRET HISTORY OF PHYSICS AND POLITICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY.

Expand Messages
  • Jack Sarfatti
    This is the list of David Crockett Williams who is a New Age Imbecile Leftist spreading seditious disinformation, misinformation, Cargo Cult pseudoscience not
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 14 11:12 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      HIDDEN VARIABLES: THE SECRET HISTORY OF PHYSICS AND POLITICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY. This is the list of David Crockett Williams who is a New Age Imbecile Leftist spreading seditious disinformation, misinformation, Cargo Cult pseudoscience "not even wrong" (W. Pauli) claims on UFOs, zero point energy, and other issues that help The Axis of Evil in their attempt to demoralize America and build a Fifth Column in a vast cultural Trojan Horse Operation starting at est and Esalen in the mid-70's. This explains for example, Esalen Leader Nick Herbert's AKA "Dr. Jabir" Lord Haw Haw propaganda that began years before 911. "Jabir" consistently writes apologetics supporting the "no Holocaust" view of David Irving and pro-terrorist views on Palestine. Dr. Jabir's view is typical however of the New Age anti-American influence operation in UFO Disclosure, Ban US Space Weapons, Bogus Free Energy claims etc. Although this was started by the KGB, the former KGB agents are now free lance selling themselves to the highest bidder, i.e. Axis of Evil. The bogus New Age front organizations are nodes in a financial network that seeks to subvert the Bush Administration's efforts in Homeland Security and the complete physical annihilation of the international terrorist network.

      The information below is good information.

      The true story of "zero point energy" and "antigravity propulsion" is in

      http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf

      under construction

      "Wonderful, Wonderful Copenhagen"

      The meeting today in Princeton on "Ultimate Reality" by the religious Templeton Foundation, who put their mouth where their money is, is based on John Archibald Wheeler's Bohr based vision that Bohm showed was not necessary. Wheeler is, nevertheless, a great physicist and Bohr made great errors but also had many important insights. Copenhagen boasts two great Fairy Tale writers, Hans Christian Anderson and Niels Bohr.

      >
      > "Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D." wrote:
      >
      >
      > S-P & M-M Sirag wrote:
      > Jack, I have put in a few corrections and clarifications. Please distribute
      > this version.
      >
      > ----------
      > From: "S-P & M-M Sirag " <sirag@...>
      > To: sarfatti@...
      > Subject: Re: HIDDEN VARIABLES: THE SECRET HISTORY OF PHYSICS AND POLITICS IN
      > THE 20TH CENTURY.
      > Date: Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 6:02 PM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > On Oppenheimer and Bohm: a reply to Stephen Schwartz
      >
      > Since the relationship between Oppenheimer and Bohm is central to your Hidden
      > Variables history, you and Steve need to have the dates (and other items)
      > straight.  Steve's critique of the "popular" version of the story is largely
      > correct. However, Steve says, "he [Bohm] was actually fired in a purge by
      > Oppenheimer of 'Trotskyism in Physics'." But this implies that Bohm's
      > anti-Copenhagen papers of 1952, were the cause of Oppenheimer's presumed
      > actions against Bohm.  The dates of the events suggest a very different
      > picture.
      >
      > 1943 -- Oppenheimer reports to Captain DeSilva a list of "what persons at
      > Berkeley were in his opinion truly dangerous. He named David Joseph Bohm and
      > Bernard Peters as being so." (p. 150, *In the Matter of J. Robert
      > Oppenheimer*, USAEC hearings of 1954, MIT Press, 1971 [herinafter called AEC
      > hearings]).  In this hearing, when DeSilva's memo is quoted, Oppenheimer
      > denies having called Bohm a dangerous person (p. 151, of AEC hearings).
      >
      > March 1943 -- Oppenheimer asks for a transfer of Bohm from Berkeley to Los
      > Alamos. The request is denied.
      >
      > 1943--Bohm recieves a PhD in physics from U.C. Berkeley.  Oppenheimer was one
      > of his professors.
      >
      > 1946 -- Oppenheimer helps Bohm get an appointment to Princeton Physics
      > department as assistant professor.  (AEC hearings, p. 151)
      >
      > May 1949 -- Bohm testifies before House Un-American Activities Committee. He
      > invokes the 5th Amendment right to decline to testify when asked about
      > Communist Party membership and activities.  (AEC hearings, p. 152)
      >
      > 1949-1950 -- Bohm is asked by Princeton to take a leave of absence from
      > teaching. However, he continues to receive his salary. He works on the book,
      > *Quantum Theory*.  He also talks to Einstein and shows him his manuscript of
      > the book.  Einstein declares that it is the clearest description of Borh's
      > (Coopenhagen) interpretation of quantum theory. It contains a long section on
      > the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky thought experiment of 1935.  Bohm recasts the
      > experiment in terms of particle spin rather than position and momentum.  This
      > is a crucial change leading to the eventual work of John Bell, John Clauser,
      > and Alain Aspect in testing deep aspects of quantum mechanics.
      >
      > 1950 -- Bohm's contract with Princeton is not renewed. He gets an appointment
      > to Sao Paulo University in Brazil. Eugene Wigner, a very close friend of Von
      > Neumann,  (both very imaginative Copenhagenists, and very patriotic American
      > immigrants from Hungary) hosts a going away party for Bohm.
      >
      > [Oppenheimer says that he had nothing to do with Bohm's getting the Sao Paulo
      > position. But he said -- if asked to write a letter of reference for Bohm --
      > "I am quite sure I would have written a letter of recommendation about his
      > physics (AEC hearings, p. 152). Note that this is 2 years after Bohm published
      > his anti-Copenhagen papers.]
      >
      > 1951 -- Bohm's *Quantum Theory* is published by Prentice Hall. He says in the
      > preface, "An appreciable part of the material in this book was suggested by
      > remarks made by Professor J.R. Oppenheimer in a series of lectures on quantum
      > theory delivered at the University of California at Berkeley, and by notes on
      > part of these lectures take by Professor B. Peters.  A series of lectures by
      > Niels Bohr, entitled 'Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature' were of
      > crucial imortance in supplying the general philosophical basis needed for a
      > rational understanding of quantum theory."
      >
      > [Remember that according the the AEC hearings (1954), Oppenheimer had reported
      > to Captain DeSilva that both Bohm and Peters were "truly dangerous" persons.  
      > Further according to DeSilva's memo, "Oppenheimer stated, however, that
      > somehow he did not believe that Bohm's temperment and personality were those
      > of a dangerous person and implied that this dangerousness lay in the
      > possibility  of his being influenced by others.  Peters, on the other hand, he
      > described as a 'crazy person'  and one whose actions would be unpredictable.
      > He described Peters as being 'quite a Red' and stated that his background was
      > filled with incidents which indicated his tendency toward direct action." In
      > followup questioning, Oppenheimer denied ever having said that Bohm was
      > dangerous.  As Oppenheimer put it: "I recall the conversation, though I don't
      > recall these as accurate words. I remember only being asked by DeSilva, among
      > these people, and I think there were four, which do you think is the most
      > dangerous, and saying Peters." (AEC hearings, p. 150)]
      >
      >
      > BTW there is interesting information on the development of Bohm's
      > anti-Copenhagen position in Max Jammer's book, *The Philosophy of Quantum
      > Mechanics* (Wiley, 1974) on page 279. Jammer makes the same mistake about
      > McCarthy and HUAC that Steve points to -- in fact this passage may be the
      > source of some of these mistakes, since this book is the most detailed
      > compendium on the philosophy of quantum theory.  Jammer writes concerning
      > Bohm's *Quantum Theory* book of 1951:
      >
      > "Still, on closer inspection, the critical reader of Bohm's book could not
      > have failed to note that some explanations--in particular in the treatment of
      > the process of measurement--did not fully reflect the spirit of Bohr's
      > philosophy. Bohm sent copies to Einstein, Pauli, and Bohr. 'Einstein liked the
      > book,' Pauli likewise expressed his appreciation, but Bohr remained silent!
      >
      > "At that time, as a result of the crusade launched by Senator Joseph Raymond
      > McCarthy, chairman  [sic] of the United States Congressional Committee on
      > Un-American Acitivities, Bohm was suspended from his position. Taking
      > advantage of his involuntary vacation, before leaving for the University of
      > Sao Paulo in Brazil, he 'experimented with physical concepts,' as he later
      > liked to call it. Stimulated by his discussions with Einstein and influenced
      > by an essay which, as he told the present author, was 'written in English' and
      > 'probably by Blokhintsev or some other Russian theorist like Terletzkii,' and
      > which criticized Bohr's approach, Bohm began to study the possibility of
      > introducing hidden variables. During the next few weeks he wrote a paper on
      > his suggested interpretation of quantum mechanics, preprints of which he sent
      > to his colleagues as well as to Pauli. Pauli rejected the paper, saying that
      > it is 'old stuff, dealt with long ago.' Prompted by these remarks Bohm wrote a
      > sequal paper in which he proposed a new theory of measurement in conformity
      > with his hidden variable theory."
      >
      > [Reference: D.Bohm, "A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms
      > of 'hidden variables,' Parts I and II," *Physical Review* 85, 166-179; 180-193
      > (1952); received July 5, 1951.]
      >
      > According to a footnote by Jammer, it is not clear which paper Bohm could have
      > been referring to. However, Blokhinsev was definitely anti-Coopenhagen. On pp.
      > 276-7 of Jammer's book, we read:
      >
      > "If Reichenbach regarded hidden variables as a logically possible, but
      > physically inappropriate, assumption, Dimitry Ivanovich Blokhinzev of Moscow's
      > Lomonosov State University considered it an open question to be decided by
      > future research. In a paper published in Russian but soon translated into
      > French and German, in which he severly criticized the 'subjective-idealistic
      > conceptions' of the Copenhagen school, he also referred to von Neumann's
      > proof [of the incompatibility of hidden variables with quantum mechanics],
      > calling it 'not satisfactory' since it is based on the formalism of quantum
      > mechanics. In his view a consistent hidden variable theory may be established
      > only if these variables are not accommodated within the usual formalism of
      > quantum mechanics."
      >
      > Apparently Blokhinzev's anti-Copenhagen views were widely held within the
      > Soviet Union. However, there were other eminent Soviet physicists who
      > supported Bohr's views--for example, Vladimir Foch and Lev Landau (who in fact
      > spent some time at Bohr's institute).
      >
      > Bohm's career after Princeton:
      >
      > 1950-1955 -- University of Sao Paulo, where he was visited by J.-P. Vigier and
      > Richard. Feynman.
      >
      > 1954 &1957 -- 2 papers by Bohm and Vigier resulted from this visit:
      > "Model of the Causal Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of a Fluid with
      > Irregular Fluctuations," Physical Review 96:1, 208-217 (1954).
      > "Relativistic Hydrodynamics of Rotating Fluid Masses," Physical Review 109:6,
      > 1882-1891 (1957).
      > [Both of these papers are reprinted in the collection, *Jean-Pierre Vigier and
      > the Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics* edited by Stanley Jeffers,
      > Bo Lehnert, Nils Abramson, and Lev Chebotarev, Apeiron, Montreal, 2000.]

      All these people visited ISSO Science funded by Joe Firmage who is now essentially bankrupt.
      ISSO Science still lives on in my and Saul-Paul Sirag's theoretical work and in Creon Levit's experimental work.

      >
      > 1955-1957 -- Haifa Institute of Technology, Israel,  where he began writing
      > papers with Yakir Aharonov.
      >
      > 1957 -- *Causality and Chance in Modern Physics* (published by Routledge &
      > Kegan Paul)
      >
      > 1957-1961 -- Bristol University, UK, where with Aharonov he wrote the seminal
      > Aharonov-Bohm effect paper, Physical Review 115, 485 (1959).
      >
      > 1961-1983 -- Birkbeck College, University of London, where Bohm wrote a series
      > of papers with Basil Hiley, culminating in the book, *The Undivided Universe:
      > an Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory* published in 1993 after his
      > death in 1992.
      >
      > 1964 -- John Stewart Bell, publishes his theorem building on the work of Bohm
      > and leading to the laboratory experiments of Clauser, Aspect, etc. (This paper
      > and Bohm's 1952 papers and many other relevant papers are collected in
      > *Quantum Theory and Measurement* edited by Wheeler and Zurek (Princeton,
      > 1983).  J.S. Bell was a strong supporter of Bohm's anti-Copenhagenism, and
      > his papers are collected in *Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics*
      > (Cambridge, 1987).
      >
      > In 1961 Bohm met Krishnamerti and became an active supporter of his teachings.  
      > This is reflected in some of his more mystical writings, such as *Wholeness
      > and the Implicate Order* (RKP, 1980).
      >
      > [Note: In 1979 Saral Bohm told me that in 1961 in a London bookstore she had
      > come across a book by Krishnamurti, called *The Observer and the Observed*,
      > and showed it to David. They subsequently discovered that Krishnmurti lived in
      > London, and that this helped David to decide to take the offer of a position
      > at Birkbeck College rather than a rival offer of a position in Paris. I would
      > guess that this latter offer was made by J.-P. Vigier.]
      >
      > In 1987 a festshrift for Bohm's 70th birthday was published, *Quantum
      > Implications*, edited by B.J. Hiley and F. David Peat. There are two papers by
      > Bohm himself as well as an introductory chapter on Bohm's life and work.  In
      > that chapter there is a two paragraph description of Bohm's political
      > difficulties:
      >
      > "It was while writing this book [*Quantum Theory*] that he came into conflict
      > with what eventually became known as McCarthyism. A year or so after arriving
      > at Princeton he was called to appear befor the Un-American Activities
      > Committee, a committee of the House of Representatives. He as asked to testify
      > against colleagues and associates. After taking legal advice he decided to
      > plead the Fifth Amendment. A year or so later, while he was in the middle of
      > his book, his plea was rejected and he was indicted for contempt of Congress.  
      > While awaiting trial, the Supreme Court ruled that no one should be forced to
      > testify if the testimony is self-incriminating, provided no crime had been
      > committed. Since no crime had been committed the indictment against Bohm was
      > dropped.
      > "During this period the University advised Bohm to stay away, on of the few
      > benefits to emerge from this whole sordid affair. During his enforced
      > isolation he was able to complete the book far sooner than he had anticipated.
      > After that, however, with his contract at Princeton expired, he was unable to
      > obtain a job in the USA and was advised by Oppenheimer to leave the country
      > before the full force of McCarthyism took effect. Fortunately he had some
      > friends in Brazil whe were able to offer him a professorship in the University
      > in Sao Paulo. He held this post from 1951 to 1955."
      >
      > Note that in 1950, Oppenheimer had no reason to try to "disprove Bohm" since
      > the book Bohm was working on was largely based on Oppenheimer's own Berkeley
      > lectures, as well as Bohr's writings--and so was considered as a strong, and
      > clear, Copenhagenist textbook.
      >
      > All for now.
      >
      > Saul-Paul (March 13, 2002, on the eve of Einstein's 123rd birthday)
      >
      > ----------
      > From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
      > To: Paul Zielinski <pzielins@...>, Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
      > Subject: HIDDEN VARIABLES: THE SECRET HISTORY OF PHYSICS AND POLITICS IN THE
      > 20TH CENTURY.
      > Date: Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 9:40 AM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > From a website article:
      >
      > "David Bohm: Princeton University; Fellow of the Royal Society of London; a
      > former student of Oppenheimer. Bohm declined to testify at Oppenheimer's
      > hearing before Senator Joseph McCarthy's House Un-American Activities
      > Committee in the 1950s for fear that his words might be twisted against his
      > former mentor and he emigrated to England."

      >
      > 1. Bohm did not "decline to testify at Oppenheimer's hearing before Senator
      > Joseph McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s."

      >
      > a. No such hearings took place.  Oppenheimer hearings were held by the AEC.  
      > Bohm was not called as a witness.

      >
      > b. Senators do not lead or sit on House committees.  This is one of the
      > commonest shibboleths found in the liberal/left media today.  Dozens of times
      > I had to correct the SFCHRONICLE on this.  I always began the discussion by
      > asking: "Did you take civics in high school?  Do you grasp the difference
      > between the Senate and the House?"

      >
      > c. McCarthy never participated in the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee,
      > the Senate equivalent of the House Committees. He held hearings through the
      > Permanent Investigations Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Governmental
      > Operations.

      >
      > d. Bohm did appear before the House Committee. He refused to answer questions
      > about a Communist functionary and KGB agent, Steve Nelson.  His motivation was
      > a need to conceal his own relationship with this individual.

      >
      > From another site:
      >
      > "In 1952, the young Princeton physicist [Bohm] presented a "hidden variables"
      > formulation of quantum mechanics. For various reasons, none of the
      > formulations were good. Bohm and his work were both dismissed from the
      > university. J. Robert Oppenheimer had been Bohm's mentor, but he, perhaps,
      > more than any other physicist, was responsible for Bohm's being "buried
      > alive," according to Ms. Goldstein. Oppenheimer has been quoted as suggesting
      > "if we cannot disprove Bohm, then we must agree to ignore him."

      >
      > "Bohm was an embittered man, betrayed by the physics community  though
      > Einstein had early on declared Bohm his successor, added Ms. Goldstein. Bohm
      > spent a great deal of his life in obscurity, spending his last years teaching
      > night college in London."

      >
      > Line above in bold is pure Stalinism. Many websites out there reporting that
      > Bohm was fired from Princeton for refusing to testify against Oppenheimer,
      > when he was actually fired in a purge by Oppenheimer of "Trotskyism in
      > physics."

      >
      > The point of our book will be to clean all this crap out of the minds of the
      > scientific public.  Obviously, the title should be HIDDEN VARIABLES: THE
      > SECRET HISTORY OF PHYSICS AND POLITICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY
      .

      >
      > Stephen Schwartz
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.