Re: Bohm, spacetime origin & consciousness
- note cc to some of my Fellow Pundits? :-)
On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 06:10 AM, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
> Thanks for the ideas.
> I am not yet quite convinced about the need for the big wave or the
> mind but I am dutifully doing more reading. Having got my teeth into
> this I
> will not be satisfied until I really understand Goldstone phases. I
> have to
> get through Leibniz in the original first though!
Philosophy not really relevant here IMO. It must be a giant
non-classical information wave. Random micro-quantum waves are pure
noise, consciousness is obviously a coherent signal with enormous
information capacity. Only the robust giant local <g|b(x)|g>
macro-coherent quantum information wave can serve as the physical field
for conscious mind. It is ready made for the job. "The Lord is Subtle
but not malicious." (Einstein). The Bohm quantum potential made from
<g|b(x)|g> is to cite Basil Hiley, "non-mechanical", "form-dependent",
"intensity-independent", and in a certain sense "nonlocal" in the same
way that an unentangled micro-quantum wave for a single particle,
though a local complex function in ordinary space has a nonlocal
The dynamical equation for the giant wave "condensate" <g|b(x)|g> is
not the linear micro-quantum Schrodinger equation but the nonlinear
Landau-Ginzburg equation. Bohm's "hydrodynamics" is now more
complicated from the new nonlinear "Hartree-Fock" self-consistent field
terms nonlinear in the ODLRO c-number field <g|b(x)|g>. The normal
fluid fluctuations into and out of <g|b(x)|g> still obey the linear
Schrodinger evolution however.
>> the mind MUST be a local macro-quantum coherent "holographic" field
> I can see it could be, but not yet why it MUST be
Take IT FROM BIT + BIT FROM IT from me. I guarantee IT! :-)
From my extensive experience in the physics this much seems obvious to
>> signal nonlocality explains Libet, Radin, Bierman "presponse".
> I need to work on that
IT FROM BIT + BIT FROM IT must be for conscious mind because, at the
very least, Dick Bierman sees "presponse".
>> The physics here is general and universal,
> for sure
>> How can a random mixture of micro-quantum information waves explain
> conscious mind
> it wouldn't. for the moment it seems to me that one boson will do the
> of being conscious of all the atoms in the domain it inhabits but
> not be able to control enough output without being part of a big wave
No, because one can prove that single boson micro-quantum states have
signal locality. Also which of the what 10^18 random qubits (in
microtubule model) in the body will take over. How can a state worth a
few qubits control 10^18 at least qubits? It makes no sense. Also,
random noise is random noise. The stream of inner consciousness is a
stable coherent signal. This requires "generalized phase rigidity" the
essence of macro-quantum theory. If you read the quotation from PW
Anderson in the new updated version of
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Ukraine.doc or http://qedcorp.com/APS/Nova.pdf
> “It is ironic that during the same years that the elementary-particle
> physicists, at the highest energy end of the spectrum, have been doing
> their best to discard as many as possible of the properties of the
> quantum field operator, at the very lowest energy end of the spectrum,
> in the two low temperature phenomena of superconductivity and
> superfluidity, we have been provided with a series of very direct
> demonstrations which seem to bring the quantum particle field almost
> into the ordinary, tangible, macroscopic realm… the quantum particle
> field plays a role very similar to the roles, with which we are
> familiar, of the classical fields, the electromagnetic and
> gravitational fields, in our ordinary macroscopic experience. This
> has been shown by a series of experiments of various kinds of
> coherence in quantum fluids.”
> “Coherent Matter Field Phenomena in Superfluids”, P.W. Anderson
This idea may become clearer? BTW we are not thermal equilibrium
systems. We are pumped open systems and the metabolic power is like an
effective inverse temperature (H. Frohlich, biomembrane model)
analogous to a pumped laser above threshold making a coherent
<g|b(x)|g> real photon radiation field.
>> It's not a property of individual cells.
> I cannot see how we can be sure though. Anatomically, a single cell has
> enough inputs to generate more than a googol of patterns for a boson to
How can a single boson state, i.e. b*|0> "view"? What is the
operational meaning of your remark?
|0> is the boson vacuum, and b* is the second quantized creation
operator for the boson field.
In order for the "mind" to "view" anything, it must have an "input"
from the "body".
That is precisely the macro-quantum BIT FROM IT Landau-Ginzburg
equation. This is only an ODLRO "more is different" collective
emergence bottom --> up process.
The "mind" must also be able to "move" the "body".
That is precisely the deBroglie-Bohm IT FROM BIT "guidance equation"
also found on the micro-quantum level where it is a sub-quantal random
Brownian type process (J. P. Vigier) with a random ensemble of micro
BIT pilot waves buffeting their IT particles. One only gets coherent
volition AKA "will power" in the macro-quantum open systems with signal
The micro-quantum BIT mind field has no direct sources from its IT. The
IT is a test particle, therefore, it follows with mathematical logic,
that a "single boson", as you put it, cannot "view" anything at all! In
contrast, <g|b(x)|g> does "view" the outside world via its
Landau-Ginzburg BIT FROM IT nonlinear partial differential equation in
ordinary space since the latter is minimally coupled to the
electromagnetic field (both near and far) from the electric charges of
the electric diple quantum dots in the microtubule model, for example,
where b(x) is a collective boson Frohlich mode from the 10^10 dots.
> I will be in UK this fall BTW. I spent a year in Birkbeck with Bohm 71
> right where you are.
> I would be delighted to offer you dinner if you in town. I am
> interested in
> knowing more about Bohm too. People always speak highly of him even if
> do not agree.
More on that later. :-)
>> Are you related to that Old Puritan Preacher
> No relation I'm afraid. I have looked in to him and find his
> philosophy a
> bit simple!
>>>> Jo E
>>>> Professor Jonathan CW Edwards
>>>> University College London
>>>> Arthur Stanley House, Tottenham Street,
>>>> London W1T 4NJ England
- On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 01:13 PM, Dick J Bierman wrote:
>Please give an up-to-date URL(s) on latest in this field. Thanks. I
>> IT FROM BIT + BIT FROM IT must be for conscious mind because, at the
>> very least, Dick Bierman sees "presponse".
> Hi Jack, I feel honoured that you keep mentioning my name but please
> note that this presponse has been replicated by a number of
> researchers by now. So I am certainly not the only one.
will put it in "Progress in Quantum Physics Research" in the galleys
> In spite of these successful replications, I should stress that thisAlways the case. It's your job to be cautious - Bravo!:-) As a theorist
> is experimental data and should be treated as such: That is there is
> still some non negligible possibility that we made errors. But by
> having more and more (conceptual) replications this possibility
> becomes smaller and smaller.
I am not so constrained. But "presponse" is only one very essential
part of a Big Picture that is beginning now to make a lot of sense
since the discovery of dark matter and dark energy especially since Feb
11, 2003 - a watershed date.
IMHO "presponse" is properly understood as "macro-quantum signal
nonlocality" in a <g|b(x)|g>
IT<->BIT condensate field, this BTW does not preclude an advanced EM
b is some boson collective mode destruction operator like a Frohlich
electric dipole mode. |g> is the "ground state" of the mind field.
> In the mean time I was wondering whether our informal observation thatThat seems to be exactly what a "globally self-consistent loop in time"
> there seems to be a time symmetry between presponse and normal
> response can be accounted for by your thinking.
> Best, Dick
would require? Note that the "loop" in Igor Novikov's "The River of
Time" is actually movement of matter around a closed timelike
worldline" on the purely IT level. What you are seeing is analogous but
with non-classical information transfer from signal nonlocality in the
unified macro-quantum IT<-> BIT condensate field not in sub-quantal
Remember my conclusions in the NOVA paper now in press is entirely data
1. Superfluid coherence
2. Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances
3. Electrons do not explode from their electrical self energy
4. Presponse mind-brain data (also PEAR, SRI RV)
5. Dark energy and dark matter as 96% of all the stuff of the universe
especially since WMAP and Type Ia supernovae data.
6. Finally, last but not least, the more controversial "flying saucer"
data as distilled by USG intelligence pros from NIDS, French Military,
Rockefeller Report and a few other reliable sources after the large
amount of New Age Cargo Cult noise has been filtered out.