Abstract
It is wonderful that Henry is still creative and active at the age of 90. I first communicated with Henry in 1963 when I was with Fred W. Cummings at Ford Philco Aeronutronics in Newport Beach, CA (I left Cornell where I was working with Leonard Susskind and Johnny Glogower on the problem of time and phase operators in quantum mechanics. I returned to Cornell about 6 months later.). That is also when I first met Richard Feynman at Cal Tech and also when I first communicated by snail mail with Brian Josephson if I recall correctly. David Kaiser recalls my interaction with Henry about quantum entanglement in his book “How the Hippies Saved Physics.” Kaiser also wrote how Nick Herbert and I were key catalysts in the creation of the “billion-dollar” quantum information/cryptography/computer industry. Henry played a key role in Nick’s and my quixotic quest to use orthodox quantum mechanical entanglement as a direct stand-alone keyless locally decodable command-control-communication-channel C4 (On Apr 22, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Robert Addinall wrote: “Actually command-control-communications channel should be C3. For C4, it should be command-control-communications-computing. Although it starts with the letter C, the word “channel” is not usually included in the acronym (C2 for command and control, and C4ISR for command-control-communications-computing-intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance). It’s nice that you are writing some of this up in honor of Henry’s birthday.”). This “failure” led to the modern-day no-go theorems that form the basis of practical quantum cryptographic networks like the Chinese satellite web.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Glogower was a prodigy Westinghouse Science Talent winner and had been a Quiz Kid on the radio as well as a child violinist at Julliard. Lenny was a roughshod New York City plumber in overalls in the Halls of Ivy at that time—three mavericks sticking out like sore thumbs.
Also include Roger Penrose’s “orchestrated OR” self-gravity collapse theory of consciousness extending the idea of Von Neumann and Wigner that in some mysterious way consciousness is associated with collapse, whether as a cause or as an effect is never made clear in what Wheeler called “The Great Smoky Dragon”. Basil Hiley has rejected this idea as “replacing one mystery with another” and I agree with him. “Orchestrated” as “coherent” as “synchronized” over long distances suppressing Bohr’s “uncontrollable quantum randomness” throwing oil over troubled waters.
More precisely, the Lagrangian contains “classical” h-independent dynamical degrees of freedom in addition to the h-dependent “wavy” degrees of freedom. This is made clear in the recent papers of Roderick Sutherland.
1. Sutherland has begun to tackle the quantum field problem, as opposed to particles (real and virtua) in his paper “Naïve Quantum Gravity” (spin 2) with some success. The same approach needs to be done for quantum electrodynamics and quantum Yang-Mills (spin 1) and Higgs fields (spin 0). It can restore locality in the case of entangled states (such as with Bell’s theorem)
2. It can preserve consistency with special relativity at the ontological level
3. It can allow replacement of many-particle, configuration space wavefunctions by individual wavefunctions
4. It can allow statistical descriptions to be replaced by definite, ontological values
5. It can facilitate the development of a Lagrangian formulation in the case where a particle ontology is assumed
6. It can suggest significant improvements to existing ontological models
7. It restores action-reaction between pilot waves and particles/classical gauge field “beable” that allows locally decodable entanglement signaling when the system is resonantly pumped by electromagnetic fields to the Frohlich macro-quantum coherent “superconducting” state protected against the ambient environmental thermodynamic equilibrium temperature. This Frohlich effect is not in Sutherland’s papers. It has been added by me. Action-reaction is not permitted in the Copenhagen interpretation and in all non-Bohmian interpretations because there are no independently existing “beables” (J. S. Bell’s term).
References
Passman, M., Fellman, P.V., Vos post, J., Passman, A., Sarfatti, J. Ontological Determinism, non-locality, quantum equilibrium and post-quantum mechanics arXiv:1807.09599
Price, H., Wharton, K. A live alternative to quantum spooks arXiv:1510.06712.
Price, H., Wharton, K. Disentangling the quantum world arXiv:1508.01140.
Price, H., Wharton, K.. Dispelling the quantum spooks—a clue that Einstein missed? arXiv:1307.7744.
Sarfatti, J. (2017) Progress in post-quantum mechanics AIP Conference Proceedings 1841, 040003 (https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4982779).
Sarfatti, J. (2018). Arik Shimansky solution to David Chalmers’s “hard problem”. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 14(1) https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/690.
Sutherland, R. A spacetime ontology compatible with quantum mechanics arXiv:1904.05157.
Sutherland, R. how retrocausality helps arXiv:1706.02290
Sutherland, R. Lagrangian description for particle interpretations of quantum mechanics—entangled many-particle Case arXiv:1509.02442
Valentini, A. Subquantum information and computation arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sarfatti, J. Henry Stapp’s Influence on My Post-Quantum Mechanics of Consciousness Via Locally Decodable Keyless Entanglement Signaling. Act Nerv Super 62, 25–28 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41470-019-00060-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41470-019-00060-1