OF THE
TIMES
Jack Sarfatti. Dr Towler claimed Dr Sarfatti had "written something like 100 emails" since his invitation was withdrawn, "many ... suggesting that we are in the pay of the CIA".Jack Sarfatti 29 April, 2010
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=411401&c=1
Please issue a retraction. I never wrote or implied or believed that Towler was in the pay of the CIA. You should have checked with me on that. It's bad journalism not to double check your sources. Towler's statement is blatant libel under British Law. It is clearly designed to make me look like lunatic conspiracy theory fool. I already called Towler out on that false allegation. Therefore, he had ample time to correct his wrong first-impression.
Valentini seems to be in a Schrodinger Cat state. Josephson and I both independently anticipated his "signal nonlocality", I ,in my back-action heuristic idea I gave at two Tucson II conferences that Towler cited in his Cambridge course calling me a "celebrity nut job," which I took with good humor BTW - Josephson in his paper with Pallikari "Biological Utilization of Quantum Nonlocality. Adrian Kent and others in the invite list are like kittens chasing their own tails simply refining in more sophisticated formalisms what we all know that signal locality is required for orthodox quantum theory to work. Valentini's "signal nonlocality" throws a monkey wrench into the whole scheme and Valentini knows that when he talks about "espionage" and breaking the security of quantum cryptography. How Valentini cannot see that living biological systems are precisely where we have his "sub-quantal non-equilbrium" astounds me and is a real blind spot in his generally imaginative thinking.Guy Lyon Playfair 29 April, 2010
Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D.
San Francisco
http://stardrive.org (Blog)
No marks to THE for trivialising an important story in the print edition by illustrating it with a film still showing Scrooge confronting Marley's ghost, captioned "With them in spirit but 'unconventional' scholars may not be physically present."Brian Josephson 29 April, 2010
I have been told that if I do attend this meeting I must not talk about how Valentni's key idea, on which his Ph.D. was based, supports the reality of paranormal phenomena. Fotini Pallikari-Viras and I thought of the basic concept independently, and published a paper on the connection in the journal Foundations of Physics in 1991.whippet 29 April, 2010
Maybe I should have seen it coming; it is a classic example of how the physics establishment protects its incorrect world-model by censoring discussion of alternatives. But neither Towler nor Valentini should be blamed for this: they were pressurised into it by others.
I always find it amusing when people feel the need to list their qualifications at the end of a post, especially M.A. (Oxon).George Mickhail 29 April, 2010
It seems to me as a complete outsider to the "discipline" that eschewed views of the world - especially by self-appointed experts, about what is considered worthy or not worthy of discussion and examination - is only a manifestation of blinkered ignorance, rather than academic rigour!Mike Towler 29 April, 2010
If it is any consolation to Professors Sarfatti, Josephson and Peat, such a 'malaise' (generally by younger academics who are frustrated by the presence of the much wiser and accomplished researchers) is not unique to your discipline but is generally endemic in other disciplines as well!
Just to clear up one particular point. Sarfatti says:Bill Shroyer 29 April, 2010"Please issue a retraction. I never wrote or implied or believed that Towler was in the pay of the CIA."and"It is clearly designed to make me look like lunatic conspiracy theory fool."I've had a policy of not commenting publically on any of this crap, because I have some dignity. Instead I'll just pick a representative sample of Sarfatti quotes from some of the 100s of emails he has sent out to a good proportion of the world's population (in only 1 week!), and you can judge for yourself whether he's a 'lunatic conspiracy fool' or whether he thinks intelligence organizations are involved. (As this is a respectable publication I won't include the disgusting foul-mouthed quotes)."This Bohm meeting was my brain child to begin with and Valentini needs to learn not to mess with the Zohan!"Damn it. I could have been rich.
"If it's a hoax it was carefully planned - probably by an intelligence
agency of some government or 'a malevolent fairy.'"
"It's obvious sabotage by anti-Bohmian agent provocateur infiltrators who have poor Valentini under control."
"There is also the obvious military significance of signal nonlocality in
non-equilibrium post-quantum matter."
"Seriously, Valentini's work, my work et-al all have very glaringly
obvious national security implications and is of interest to Intelligence
Agencies. That's a fact and that's why there is more to this case than meets the eye."
"Then the usual politics from a$$holes who control Valentini's and I guess Towler's future job prospects at Perimeter I think"
"Can Mike Towler be such a pushover and Valentini such a rude insensitive little prig?"
"Recourse to a solicitor is psychological pressure on Valentini, who after all is an impecunious party on a low-level pittance at Imperial College and my friend Uri Geller has graciously given me the time of his solicitors in London who will advise me on how to proceed later today if Valentini does not cave in."
"It would be good to settle this amicably before it is too late - for
Valentini that is."
"Working on my Amazon Review ;-) The book Valentini advertises below is a musty un-inspired boring reprise of heavily trod well-known material."
"The intelligence agencies of all the major powers are very interested in this kind of new physics, a fact that adds a surreal X-Files Twilight Zone Outer Limits cloak and dagger dimension to this whole affair."
"I was just about to arrange for a multi-million pound grant to Towler for his Institute, obviously I will not now proceed with my fund-raising there."
And for what it's worth, the reason Jack was uninvited was stated by Valentini to be that "despite [Jack's] passion for theoretical physics", he failed to "adhere to high standards of argument and of presentation". Now this was definitely a euphemism, but not for 'believing in the paranormal'. Count his published papers.
Note finally:"Re the conference, if I do come then people ought to be properlyThis conference is not, repeat not, about the paranormal. It is not about zoology. I didn't invite any paranormal investigators for the same reason I didn't invite any zoologists (and needless to say, neither Jack nor Brian were formally invited - they asked me if they could attend, which is very different).
educated, maybe by including a talk by a parapsychologist explaining why almost certainly telepathy etc. are real. Then people can have the real physics to talk about not the sanitised, politicised version." [B. Josephson]
To all the people who've been enjoying this foul-mouthed campaign of lunatic harassment which is inciting crazies from around the world to threaten my family and that of Valentini, then shame on you. If like me, you're feeling a little bit disgusted, then apparently Jack has recently started honouring requests to be removed from his mailing lists.
Great. With a bunch of toddlers like these at the helm, I feel VERY confident in humanity's future. Or lack thereof. :-/Gary S Bekkum 29 April, 2010
Seriously, folks - you're supposed to be adults. This bickering sounds nothing like anything I would ever expect to come from mature, adult individuals, save perhaps for some sort of mental disorder which, if such be the case, consider my criticism withdrawn.
Two points:Eric 29 April, 2010
The first: To the best of my knowledge, there is to date zero evidence to support Valentini's 'non-quantum' theory -- at least, not of the kind he expects might support his idea. On the other hand, there is evidence for something rather odd going on (the word paranormal fails to properly represent the true nature of the evidence); this recorded in the US government's (partially declassified) document collection on paranormal phenomena.
The second: Valentini uses the word "espionage" in one of his papers. There are persons affiliated with US intelligence who have from time to time been associated with Dr. Sarfatti. One of these persons did at one time offer that he accepted the existence of "telepathy" as a fact. It is also a matter of the record of the United States government that the Intelligence Community pursued the use of telepathy as a communication method for the battlefield, as recently as the early 1990s. In addition to the records of the United States government, there are related files from the UK MoD. Whether or not you wish to entertain this 'exotic' possibility, there is no longer any question of the involvement of the international intelligence community.
Jack Sarfatti can you confirm that the quotes Mike included above are authentic?Jack Sarfatti 29 April, 2010
Although Towler had a general intent to hold such a Bohm conference I was the instigator catalyst that collapsed his wavefunction so to speak. Here is the true story that Towler has been busy re-writing. I have the e-mails to prove my version for any historians of physics interested.Jack Sarfatti 29 April, 2010
I caught wind of Towler's excellent on-line lectures on Bohmian physics in which he cites my idea of "back-action" that I gave in two talks at Stuart Hameroff's Tucson Conferences on Consciousness in the late 90's - published in their abstracts. The idea is that Shimony's "passion at a distance" the detente between entanglement and no signaling across spacelike intervals is understood in Bohm's theory as the fragility of the quantum potential Q. This means that Q pilots the trajectory of the hidden variable but the hidden variable does not directly back-react on Q. In other words, this is the "test particle" approximation for the hidden variable similar to the situation in General Relativity. In terms of the de-Broglie-Bohm-Vigier stochastic approach this is sub-quantal thermal equilibrium of the hidden variables.
Therefore, my idea anticipates Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality." I proposed in Tucson that all living matter has such direct back action (no action without direct reaction so to speak). Obviously, living matter is not in thermal equilibrium in the key degrees of freedom, but are dissipative structures in Prigogine's sense. I then suggested that our inner conscious qualia is the effect of this self-organizing creative two-way spontaneously self-organizing feedback control loop. Furthermore, as shown by Roger Penrose in his semi-popular books (e.g. Emperor's New Mind) discussing Libet's presponse, there is an element of retro-causality consistent with the old Wheeler-Feyman idea.
Towler cited me for the above in his Cambridge lectures as a "celebrity nut job" that I took with good humor. He later wrote that his colleagues call him a "nut job" - presumably because of his interest in Bohm.
Well I contacted Towler by email and by August of 2009 we were talking about having a meeting on Bohm in 2010 and I contributed to bouncing around some rough ideas with him before Valentini was even in the picture.
I stayed at Trinity College Cambridge for a week in September 2009 where Towler and I met and discussed the idea further with Josephson. Towler was on his way to Perimeter Institute where he said he would discuss the idea with Valentini. I also said that I would try to get some funding for the meeting - there was never a quid pro quo that my attendance was contingent on me getting money for Towler. Also I told Towler that I was mainly interested in listening not talking at that workshop. My main interest was Valentini's idea of signal nonlocality, which in Valentini's words, could be used for "espionage" and breaking quantum cryptography security.
I am an informal "senior advisor" to Dr. Ronald Pandolfi, of the Science & Technology Directorate of the CIA and the MASINT program. Indeed, I was Pandolfi's guest at a JASON meeting at General Atomics in June 2008 in La Jolla. Therefore, for Towler to tell the Times Higher Education Supplement that I thought Towler was in the pay of the CIA was blatantly false and I had previously admonished Towler not to spread that false story to the press.
So that's how it started the rest is history. Of course both Towler and Valentini were aware of our unconventional views from the beginning. Updates on this situation are at my stardrive.org blog.
In answer to Eric about Towler's quotes of me. First let me say that I am a New Yawker ;-) with a big mouth and a temper when attacked personally such as Valentini essentially saying I am incompetent. The remarks Towler quotes are a mixture of anger, satire, humor and righteous indignation - a natural emotional response. However, let's be more specific and consider each one:Jack Sarfatti 29 April, 2010
Towler: Sarfatti says:"Please issue a retraction. I never wrote or implied or believed that Towler was in the pay of the CIA."I stand by that. I never wrote or insinuated that Towler was in the pay of the CIA.
and"It is clearly designed to make me look like a lunatic conspiracy theory fool."Obviously a true statement. Also not hundreds of emails in a week but a few dozen (mainly corrections & afterthoughts in the heat of battle)."This Bohm meeting was my brain child to begin with and Valentini needs to learn not to mess with the Zohan!"True statement by me with a joke referring to the comedy motion picture about the Israeli super-hero."If it's a hoax it was carefully planned - probably by an intelligence agency of some government or 'a malevolent fairy.'"Obviously a satirical joke. Towler's tin ear does not get my literary allusions to Cervantes Don Quixote and Gilbert & Sullvan's Iolanthe. Here we have the problem pointed out by C.P.Snow in the Two Cultures and his novels of the Sunni-Shia type split in the hallowed halls of ivy and the corridors of power."It's obvious sabotage by anti-Bohmian agent provocateur infiltrators who have poor Valentini under control."Clear satire like Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Towler is pulling my jokes out of context - he is much too literal here."There is also the obvious military significance of signal nonlocality in non-equilibrium post-quantum matter."This is a fact. What's objectionable about it?"Seriously, Valentini's work, my work et-al all have very glaringly obvious national security implications and is of interest to Intelligence Agencies. That's a fact and that's why there is more to this case than meets the eye."Again this is a fact. What's objectionable about it?"Then the usual politics from a$$holes who control Valentini's and I guess Towler's future job prospects at Perimeter I think"Yes, I wrote that in anger when I first got Valentini's letter. Since Valentini was insulting and rude in his letter why should I be held to a higher standard? Indeed, what Valentini and Towler have done is the moral equivalent of manslaughter since a man of my type's identity is in the body of his ideas. Rejecting ideas without proper consideration of what they actually are because of some general prejudice (e.g. paranormal taboo) is a kind of suffocation of the spirit."Can Mike Towler be such a pushover and Valentini such a rude insensitive little prig?"What's wrong with that? It's very apt under the circumstances when someone insults you and basically tries to paint you as an idiot lunatic conspiracy kook."Recourse to a solicitor is psychological pressure on Valentini, who after all is an impecunious party on a low-level pittance at Imperial College and my friend Uri Geller has graciously given me the time of his solicitors in London who will advise me on how to proceed later today if Valentini does not cave in."Yes, I wrote that. Part of a negotiation. It's accurate. Valentini and Towler were put under similar pressure from some of the invitees, but Towler does not print what they told him.
"It would be good to settle this amicably before it is too late - for
Valentini that is.""Working on my Amazon Review ;-) The book Valentini advertises below is a musty un-inspired boring reprise of heavily trod well-known material."Yes, and it's true. Valentini's latest book is exactly as I describe it. I hope his next book is better."The intelligence agencies of all the major powers are very interested in this kind of new physics, a fact that adds a surreal X-Files Twilight Zone Outer Limits cloak and dagger dimension to this whole affair."A true statement with some satirical humor at the end."I was just about to arrange for a multi-million pound grant to Towler for his Institute, obviously I will not now proceed with my fund-raising there."A true statement.Damn it. I could have been rich.I cannot be responsible for how information spreads on the web and who reads it. I have advised Towler to call in Scotland Yard if he is getting threats and I will cooperate fully with the authorities to find the guilty parties making such illegal threats. However, Josephson has pointed out that Towler himself has put too much information out on the web in that regard. Also let me say, as I did before, that had Valentini and Towler only disinvited me I would not have gone public at all and would have saved thousands of dollars on a trip in peak season when Europe is usually uncomfortably hot. It was only when Josephson and Peat sent me their Valentini letters that I jumped on the war path.
And for what it's worth, the reason Jack was uninvited was stated by Valentini to be that "despite [Jack's] passion for theoretical physics", he failed to "adhere to high standards of argument and of presentation". Now this was definitely a euphemism, but not for 'believing in the paranormal'. Count his published papers.Let me say that I have not been an academic since 1970. Therefore, it is not appropriate to judge me by traditional academic standards of publish or perish. But Towler knew that from the beginning. However, my paper on application of Bohmian ontology to practical problems in quantum chemistry with Creon Levit has been oft-cited. Creon is a scientist at NASA AMES and winner of the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology and head of NASA Nanoelectronics. Also Towler cited my original version of "signal nonlocality" in his Bohm Cambridge lectures as mentioned in my earlier comment. He may have deleted it by now in true Orwellian 1984 fashion - I have not checked.Note finally:"Re the conference, if I do come then people ought to be properly educated, maybe by including a talk by a parapsychologist explaining why almost certainly telepathy etc. are real. Then people can have the real physics to talk about not the sanitised, politicised version." [B. Josephson]This conference is not, repeat not, about the paranormal. It is not about zoology. I didn't invite any paranormal investigators for the same reason I didn't invite any zoologists (and needless to say, neither Jack nor Brian were formally invited - they asked me if they could attend, which is very different).
To all the people who've been enjoying this foul-mouthed campaign of lunatic harassment which is inciting crazies from around the world to threaten my family and that of Valentini, then shame on you. If like me, you're feeling a little bit disgusted, then apparently Jack has recently started honouring requests to be removed from his mailing lists.
"neither Jack nor Brian were formally invited - they asked me if they could attend, which is very different"is a blatantly false Orwellian re-writing of history as my email record will prove to any serious investigator.
Anyone familiar with the original emails will recognise that their patronising tone set the stage for everything that followed.Jack Sarfatti 29 April, 2010
My comment about inviting parapsychologists which Mike quotes was made rather tongue in cheek, and I did not really expect it to be taken seriously; it was only to make a point. However, the response shows that no mention of the paranormal, even in the context of Bohmian quantum mechanics, is to be allowed here. As regards Mike's zoology comment, quite a number of people at the Cavendish work on applications of physics to biology, and it seems to me that if linking physics and biology is good enough for the Cavendish, it ought to be acceptable also for this conference.
A colleague who evidently shares Bill Shroyer's views has commented on this whole business "this seems to be 100% a boy's game", and I think this means I have written enough and should stop at this point.
Funny I was thinking exactly the same as Brian about having written enough. I will say no more about the politics unless provoked. I would prefer to discuss the physics ideas I presented above - the fire behind the smoke.Michael Pyshnov 30 April, 2010
Physicists who think that organisms are "living bio-paste" (Colin Bennett) are probably missing something important. A physical description of organisms as crystals is possible; see www.cell-division-program.comJack Sarfatti 30 April, 2010
Towler smears and libels me when he says I made "disgusting foul mouthed" remarks to him or anyone else in this affair. I challenge him to reproduce them for the record.etzel cardena 30 April, 2010
Ironically, Drs. Towler and Valentini would have also probably disinvited David Bohm, on whose work the conference is founded. Dr. Bohm published a paper harmonizing his theory with parapsychological phenomena in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, in the context of gratefully receiving an award from that society. And, of course, they would have also sent into academic exile Newton, Kepler, and a considerable number of Nobel prizewinners in physics and other fields, all of whom have supported unconventional ideas ...Brian Josephson 30 April, 2010
Yes, I think we should focus on the wider issues now, rather than this affair which will soon be forgotten. One point is that many intelligent readers of this discussion will be very aware in one way or another that telepathy is something real, yet people in academia are afraid to say this out loud as they may suffer if they do (indeed, Towler has indicated that one factor behind these disinvitations was the idea that people might suffer e.g. in their job prospects were they to attend a meeting where subjects such as telepathy might be discussed).Don Quixote 30 April, 2010
It is said that science is a self-correcting process, but this episode makes it very clear that mechanisms exist that can obstruct such self-correction. What happens as a result is that we the scientific community separates into two groups, the elite caste who either dismiss ESP etc. outright or who pretend that they do for the sake of their careers; and the Untouchables who accept the reality and try to advance the science thereof.
You, the public, fund the scientific enterprise. Please try to do something about this ridiculous situation! Write to your MP!
I might add here that there is a similar problem in regard to complementary medicine, where the elite class bring up all sorts of doubtfully legimitate arguments to try to stop complementary medicine practices. For example, failure to prove is equated with proof of failure, or the elite can't see that a whole situation may have an influence that exceeds the sum of the influences of the parts. A colleague at Cambridge University has shown just this for a Traditional Chinese Medicine remedy, where it appears that one component can neutralise the harmful side-effects of the main ingredient. The influence of the Elite here , while it can do good in disclosing problems, may at the same time be having harmful effects on the health of our nation through blundering into things that they do not fully understand.
Can't help feeling that, if telepathy is real, one doesn't actually need to say it out loud....Donald McLean 30 April, 2010
The institutionalized suppression of ANY information dealing with the outermost limits of human potential and its manifest traits is a common historical theme in Western society. David Bohm did not strike up a dialogue with the likes of Krishamurti on a whim.Antony Valentini 4 May, 2010
The cloistering and closeting of actual activities that directly attest to sub-rosa application of the so called "paranormal" among an elite and their interest in keeping such things well under wraps speaks volumes about Machiavellian intent. Politicized hypocrisy is written all over Towler and Valentini's arbitrary manipulation of Bohm's physics. Maladroit use of fair minded people as pin-cushions for their poison is as clumsy as it is irrational. Continual replication of academic practices that substitute the part for the whole is also apparent in Western medicine and the social sciences.
So it is perfectly OK if the Queen of England herself is encouraged to deliver the "Royal Touch" - but punishable heresy if commoners duplicate her success to alleviate human suffering.
Just who do Towler and Valentini think they are fooling? Fewer and fewer open and honest individuals, methinks. Lux lucit in tenebris.
I would like to make a public statement about this.
The fuss stemmed from a private email that I wrote to Prof. Brian Josephson on the 19th April 2010, regarding a conference (about the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics) which I am co-organising with Dr. Mike Towler. The matter has recently erupted into the public domain with the publication of a rather misleading article in Times Higher Education.
Conference organisers are sometimes required to make difficult judgements, and of course mistakes can and do occur. The email I wrote was an attempt to deal with a difficult and complex organisational problem internal to the conference. It was not intended as a literal statement of my views about the scientific status of research into the 'paranormal'. Nor did the wording accurately convey the nature of Prof. Josephson's early association with the conference.
For the record, and contrary to what many are claiming: I am not in principle opposed to the careful and scientific investigation of alleged anomalies, whatever they may be.
This view seems to me entirely obvious and uncontroversial.
Some will ask why I wrote an email apparently 'dis-inviting' a participant. Normally, such a step would of course be a regrettable breach of basic etiquette, and the recipient could reasonably complain strongly (and in private) to the organisers. However, as many will have learned from Dr. Towler (who started planning the conference before I got involved), certain alleged 'invitees' were in fact never formally invited.
Even so, some may ask why certain people became associated with a conference that is outside their domain of expertise, and which was never intended to be about the paranormal. Others feel driven to suggest that I was forced to write the email by a sinister power, and attempt to portray this episode as a bigoted attempt to suppress radical ideas. Some have simply concluded that there were probably good (if obscure) reasons for my writing the email, while others have seen fit to make comments without knowing the full (and private) facts behind the case.
In my view, if I may say, these matters are the business of the conference organisers and not of anybody else.
Prof. Josephson took the regrettable step of posting my email, in full and with author signature, on his website. (The author information and some of the text has now been removed.) This act encouraged a storm of protest from some of Prof. Josephson's associates, partly in the form of a large volume of misleading emails sent to all the conference participants as well as to dozens of others (including journalists) and partly in the form of postings on various websites, including one that by any reasonable standard can only be described as deliberately defamatory.
Private correspondence (whether by conventional or electronic mail) should be treated as private, and should not be placed in the public domain without the author's consent. The internet is an evolving medium, and one can query the suitability of standard constraints in this context. However, I suggest that we all take a deep breath, and ask ourselves if it is wise to blur the distinction between private and public correspondence in this way.
It is my view that a private matter between Prof. Josephson and myself has been brought into the public domain in a manner that is inappropriate and improper, as well as unhelpful and deeply misleading.
Some will regard my attitude as old-fashioned. For the other side of the argument, I can recommend a book by Lee Siegel, whose title speaks for itself: Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob.
Memorandum for the Record
I just got a crazy email about this so I am responding to it.
Towler asked me what I might talk about. I told him. I never demanded to talk at the meeting. This whole thing is a trite Red Herring. Also I was formally invited as Tower's email below proves.
Towler misrepresents the truth when he wrote in the Times Higher Education that
1) I wrote hundreds of emails in a week about this to him - it was about 2 dozen.
2) That I used "foul language" - never.
3) That somehow I am responsible for alleged "threats" from nutty people on the web who I do not know.
4) and this trite matter that he took out of context because he had nothing substantial to complain about
From: Mike Towler
Subject: Re: Invitation
Date: January 24, 2010 9:19:24 AM PST
To: JACK SARFATTI
Return-Path:
Received: from smtpin126-bge351000 ([unknown] [10.150.68.126]) by ms211.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u3-12.01 64bit (built Oct 15 2009)) with ESMTP id for adastra1@me.com; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:19:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk ([unknown] [131.111.8.130]) by smtpin126.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.04 32bit (built Jul 2 2009)) with ESMTP id for adastra1@me.com (ORCPT adastra1@me.com); Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:19:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pc53.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.62.222]:41933) by ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]:25) with esmtp id 1NZ67R-00052o-0P (Exim 4.70) for adastra1@me.com (return-path ); Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:19:25 +0000
Received: from mdt26 (helo=localhost) by pc53.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1NZ67R-0008N2-1m for adastra1@me.com; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:19:25 +0000
Original-Recipient: rfc822;adastra1@me.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5,1.2.40,4.0.166 definitions=2010-01-24_03:2010-01-20,2010-01-24,2010-01-24 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0908210000 definitions=main-1001240088
X-Cam-Antivirus: no malware found
X-Cam-Spamdetails: not scanned
X-Cam-Scannerinfo: [Link] X-X-Sender: mdt26@pc53.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Hi Jack,
Great - you're on the list.
shall I publicize the workshop or do you want to keep it low-profile?
Feel free to publicize, of course. Note however that I won't be able to accept any more participants until we're clear which of the original list of invitees have accepted.
So far:
12 YES
6 PROBABLY YES
2 PROBABLY NOT
3 DEFINITELY NOT
28 YET TO REPLY
By the way, were you able to find any money from your friends in the end? I'm almost at the stage where I have to start worrying about finances.
Cheers,
Mike
+--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------+
|Dr. Mike Towler (mdt26 at cam.ac.uk) Theory of Condensed Matter (Rm 529)|
| Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK |
|Tel. +44-(0)1223-337378 OR -334256 (College) Fax. +44-(0)1223-337356|
+----------------------: www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26 :------------------+
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
yes, that's fine I will attend
i am not actively working on consciousness
i am mainly working on cosmology these days
hologram horizon gravity, dark energy/dark matter
mainly want to learn what Valentini is doing in more detail
:-)
shall I publicize the workshop or do you want to keep it low-profile?
On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:50 AM, Mike Towler wrote:
Dear Jack,
Sorry to be so slow with the Bohm meeting. Antony and I have been working
on the official announcement and the programme. So as not to scare the
more traditional uptight chaps, we've decided to lower the emphasis - for
official publicity purposes at least - on the 'celebrity nutjob' end of
things (consciousness and all that..). Of course, in the actual meeting we
can talk about what you want.. So:
It is our pleasure to invite you to attend the forthcoming discussion
workshop "21st-century directions in de Broglie-Bohm theory and beyond" to
be held at the Apuan Alps Centre for Physics in Tuscany, Italy next
August. The official announcement with all relevant details is below.
Please can you officially confirm that you would like to attend.
Note also that I had to change the dates - since the main house that we usually rent in the village was unavailable later in September.
With our very best wishes,
Mike Towler
Antony Valentini
+--------------------------------------- -----------------------------------+
| Dr. Mike Towler (mdt26@cam.ac.uk) Theory of Condensed Matter |
| Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K. |
+--------------------------------------- -----------------------------------+
| Prof. Antony Valentini (a.valentini@imperial.ac.uk) |
| Theoretical Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London |
+--------------------------------------- -----------------------------------+
WORKSHOP ANNOUNCEMENT
21st-century directions in de Broglie-Bohm theory and beyond
============================================================
Saturday 28th August - Saturday 4th September 2010
Apuan Alps Centre for Physics @ TTI, Vallico Sotto, Tuscany, Italy
[Link]
A4 POSTER FOR THE WORKSHOP AVAILABLE HERE :
[Link]
A quantum foundations discussion workshop on the de Broglie-Bohm
formulation of quantum mechanics and related topics is to take place in
late August/early September 2010 at the Apuan Alps Centre for Physics, a
15th-century Tuscan former monastery in the mountains near the
beautiful Italian city of Lucca. It is hoped that the meeting will be of
great interest to anyone stimulated by the work of physicists Louis de
Broglie and David Bohm, and by the directions their ideas have followed
through the work of many people over more than eighty years. The meeting
is being organized by Cambridge University physicist Dr. Mike Towler, who
owns and runs the monastery, and Prof. Antony Valentini of Imperial
College, London and Clemson University in South Carolina. In its six years
of operation, the monastery has become well-known as a unique communal
venue where the community spirit and magnificent location have inspired a
series of memorable meetings; we very much hope this workshop will
continue this tradition.
The usual format of workshops at this venue is intended to encourage a
relaxed and intellectually-stimulating atmosphere rather different to the
8am to 7pm grind of your regular conference. Formal talks are restricted
to the mornings, and participants are given the freedom and space to think
and to contemplate and discuss the issues at hand in front of the many
available blackboards. For the young and vigorous, afternoon mountain
walks, caving, and other healthy outdoor pursuits are organized, whilst
the unfit and elderly might enjoy artistic tours, reading and conversation
in the garden, and gentle country strolls, with all participants reuniting
in the evening for excellent Tuscan dinners in local restaurants. It is
hoped that by taking part in these activities, whilst breathing clean
mountain air and having access to good food and wine, participants will be
able to return home mentally and physically refreshed as well as having
learned something new about science.
De Broglie-Bohm theory is a 'hidden variables' formulation of quantum
mechanics initially developed by de Broglie from 1923-1927 and clarified
and extended by Bohm beginning in 1952. In non-relativistic quantum theory
it differs from the orthodox viewpoint in that the notion of 'probability'
refers to the probability that a particle *is* at some position, rather
than to its probability of being found there in a suitable measurement.
From this seemingly subtle difference it is easy to show that - contrary
to popular belief - QM can be interpreted as a dynamical theory of
particle trajectories rather than as a statistical theory of observation. In such a formalism the standard paradoxes related to measurement,
observation and wave function collapse (Schroedinger's cat, and so on)
largely evaporate. The classical limit does not have to be presupposed and
emerges from the theory in a relatively clear way. All the 'talk' is
replaced by sharply-defined mathematics, it becomes possible to
'visualize' the reality of most quantum events, and - most importantly -
the theory is completely consistent with the full range of QM
predictive-observational data. While some believe the study of
interpretational questions to be mere semantics or 'just philosophy', it
is often forgotten that the location of the boundary between philosophy
and physics is unknown, and that one's philosophical perspective can guide
mathematical developments. For many people it is clear that de
Broglie-Bohm theory should be studied, not only because it is beginning to
make apparently testable predictions, but also because it has the
potential to suggest possible directions towards the next generation of
ideas in theoretical physics.
Over the years the subject has been somewhat contentious, both internally
and in its relationship with people working in other areas. It is however
clear that - because of its fringe nature in modern physics - there is a
singular need for researchers in the field to move forward with a common
purpose. The meeting therefore intends to focus the energies of
professionals in quantum foundations by resolving, in so far as is
possible, any conflicts that have arisen. Areas of disagreement will be
identified, and inspired by the relaxed environment and generous spirit
engendered by the monastery, participants shall work towards achieving a
harmonious understanding. The formation of new collaborations, the
beginning of new projects, and the identification of the best new
directions for 21st-century research are to be encouraged. Participants
will also work towards mutually satisfactory answers to specific
objections levelled by critics of de Broglie-Bohm theory (some of whom
will be invited); a summary of the best answers to such objections - if we
can agree on them - will be put on a suitable website afterwards.
Though the format of the meeting is highly flexible and suggestions are
most welcome, an initial suggestion for possible topics might include:
- Quantum non-equilibrium and 'signal non-locality'. Dynamical relaxation
to quantum equilibrium. Potential instabilities in the Bohm dynamics.
- Possible deeper interpretations of de Broglie-Bohm theory (such as Basil
Hiley's new quantum algebra work).
- Pilot-wave field theories and relativistic generalizations
- De Broglie-Bohm quantum cosmology
- 'Deconstructing' the wave function. Can the theory be reduced to 3-space
waves? Norsen's 'theory of exclusively local beables'.
- Proposed experimental tests (Valentini, Riggs, etc..)
- The ontological status of the theory. First or Second order? Energy.
Empty waves. The arguments for and against psi-epistemic hidden-variables
theories. Alternative formulations of deterministic hidden-variables
theories. Non-Markovian trajectory theories.
- Comparison with the consistent histories formulation.
- Use of trajectories for efficient numerical simulations in quantum
chemistry.
- Spin, antisymmetry, the exclusion principle and the 'quantum force.'
- Responses to common objections (it's not possible for particles to
exist; particles going round corners ought to radiate etc.).
- The best way to teach the subject. Why should young people be interested
in these ideas, when showing interest in quantum foundations still might
harm their careers? Of what use is de Broglie-Bohm theory and why is it
to be studied?
In deciding on suitable topics for talks, speakers are encouraged to avoid rehashing old arguments to which, ultimately, the answers are a matter of opinion. Rather, we are looking for genuinely new, forward-looking material which can guide future research in quantum foundations.
Given the nature of the event, most participants will be specifically
invited, but anyone who feels they have something to contribute and wishes
to attend the meeting should contact the organizers for further details.
The initial list of people to be invited is as follows:
Guido Bacciagaluppi, Herman Batalaan, Andrew Bennett, Harvey Brown, Jeremy
Butterfield, Samuel Colin, Murray Daw, Maaneli Derakhshani, Chris Dewdney,
Felipe Falciano, Arthur Fine, Sheldon Goldstein, Jonathan Halliwell, Jim
Hartle, Lucien Hardy, Basil Hiley, Peter Holland, Adrian Kent, Tim
Maudlin, David Mermin, Alberto Montina, Lubos Motl, Wayne Myrvold, Hrvoje
Nikolic, Travis Norsen, Philip Pearle, Roger Penrose, Alejandro Perez,
Patrick Peter, Nelson Pinto-Neto, Paavo Pylkkanen, Peter Riggs, Carlo
Rovelli, Jack Sarfatti, Simon Saunders, Maximilian Schlosshauer, Ilja
Schmelzer, Lee Smolin, Rafael Sorkin, Rob Spekkens, Ward Struyve, Mike
Towler, Roderick Tumulka, Jos Uffink, Lev Vaidman, Antony Valentini, David
Wallace, Robert Wyatt, James Yearsley.
Space permitting, students and family members are welcome.
For further practical details, such as transport, accommodation,
excursions, food, technical equipment and so on, please see the draft
workshop programme document available on the monastery website
www.vallico.net/tti/tti.html (follow the link 'PUBLIC EVENTS').
We look forward to seeing you in Tuscany in summer 2010.
Warm regards,
Mike Towler and Antony Valentini