https://sci-hub.se/https://jstor.org/stable/187791
So I was just perusing the book and so in terms of relativity Costa de Beauregard is also talking about quantum field theory by using the 1/2 spin statistics as Perturbation Theory.
So Costa de Beauregard has some very interesting quotes of Descartes - arguing that Descartes "Cogito" was EMPTY of conceptual thought or "cognizance" and rather was a pure "ordering thought" or thought as will power. So then the Negentropy is the Will Power or Ordering of Information BEFORE there is any consciousness of the information. This fits perfectly with the Kidney energy as the Yuan Qi - in fact Costa de Beauregard calls it the Eternal Negentropic Cascade or something like that - and says the model of the Final Cause as a SUCTION is more appropriate.
This aligns with Schauberger as well as the PreSocratics....
So what Costa de Beauregard states is that for light on its own then there is no difference in the change of time direction whereas the positron - electron is a 1/2 spin. So this again fits with the SHEN as laser holographic resonance that goes into the Emptiness and vice versa - the Shen-Qi.
Fascinating - so I didn't get to this part of the book yet. So that is Costa de Beauregard's answer to this question:
Right so this is what I call the STRONG Misanthropic Principle - meaning that standard science by assuming a symmetric time as geometry has CREATED the entropy on Earth.... and then claims that negentropy can not be observed by biological life (when in fact the OPPOSITE is true as Schroedinger also realized)....
So then back to the paranormal - notice that the reviewer does NOT dismiss Costa de Beauregard as "woo woo"!!!! hilarious!!
So Costa de Beauregard was one of the first scientists to PROMOTE John Wheeler's conception of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. This was long before the experiment was actually done.
Roderick I. Sutherland at the University in Sydney has a Lagrangian formalism for the pilot wave and its beables. It draws on Yakir Aharonov's retrocasual weak measurements to explain many-particle entanglement in a special relativistic way without the need for configuration space. The basic idea was already published by Costa de Beauregard in the 1950s and is also used by John Cramer in his transactional interpretation except the beables that exist between the von Neumann strong projection operator measurements. Sutherland's Lagrangian includes two-way action-reaction between pilot wave and beables. Therefore, it is a post-quantum non-statistical theory with final boundary conditions that violate the no-signal theorems of quantum theory. Just as special relativity is a limiting case of general relativity when the spacetime curvature vanishes, so, too is statistical no-entanglement signaling quantum theory with the Born rule a limiting case of the post-quantum action-reaction Lagrangian when the reaction is set to zero and the final boundary condition is integrated out.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
once again no mention of the paranormal!
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Olivier_Costa_de_Beauregard
Costa de Beauregard, however, was alert to a particular kind of unorthodox interpretation of this assumption which undermined its role in the EPR argument. His proposal was that two distant systems could “remain correlated by means of a successively advanced and retarded wave” (Costa de Beauregard 1953: 1634); that is, one system could influence, via an advanced wave, the state of the combined systems in their common past, which then, via a retarded wave, could influence the state of the distant system in a kind of “zigzag” through spacetime. This way, there could be a dependence between the two distant systems without any violation of Lorentz invariance. Thus, as Costa de Beauregard (1987b: 252) puts it,
Einstein of course is right in seeing an incompatibility between his special relativity theory and the distant quantal correlations, but only under the assumption that advanced actions are excluded.
When Costa de Beauregard in 1947 suggested this response to the EPR argument to his then supervisor de Broglie, de Broglie was “far from willing to accept” the proposal (1987b: 252) and forbade Costa de Beauregard to publish his unorthodox idea (Price & Wharton 2015). However, in 1948 Feynman had developed his eponymous diagrams in which antiparticles were to be interpreted as particles moving backward-in-time along the particle trajectories, and so by 1953 de Broglie had endorsed the publication of Costa de Beauregard’s response. On the seeming craziness of the proposal, Costa de Beauregard claims, “[t]oday, as the phenomenon of the EPR correlations is very well validated experimentally, and is in itself a ‘crazy phenomenon’, any explanation of it must be ‘crazy’” (1987b: 252; see also Costa de Beauregard 1976, 1977b, 1987a).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/
Thus, given Costa de Beauregard’s suggestion of “zigzag” causal influences, it is perfectly possible for a retrocausal model of quantum phenomena to be nonlocal in the sense that causal relations exist between spacelike separated events, but “local” in the sense that these causal influences are mediated by timelike trajectories.
So I was just reading the book some more... and I had never heard of this particular test of relativity!
Hafele and Keating Experiment
"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."
J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972)
Strange that this specific test is not even mentioned in any of the Twin Paradox vid descriptions...
Ok if I search the specific experiment title then I get five vids. Not bad youtube!
No comments:
Post a Comment