Is Sarfatti's Theory of Backactivity the Key to Understanding Flying Saucers?

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is a link from my database that I have never reviewed. Does this go to the UFO Napster or the Bologna hall of fame?

Introduction
Jack Sarfatti has been exploring a generalisation of David Bohm's ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics, extended so a particle is not just guided by the quantum potential, but, in turn, through backactivity modifies the quantum potential field. Backactivity introduces nonlinearity into the evolution of the wave function, much like the bidirectional nonlinear interaction of spacetime and matter-energy in general relativity.
The effects of backactivity are negligible in interactions at the atomic scale; divergences from the predictions of conventional quantum mechanics would be manifest only in systems where quantum coherence occurs at the mesoscopic and macroscopic scale. Sarfatti suggests that this post-quantum backactivity may be involved in various phenomena as follows:

http://www.fourmilab.to/goldberg/saucers.html

 

[selfAdjoint]

It may be wrong, it may even be technically foolish, but I don't see how, this side of mere predjudice, you can call it bologna.

Consider. Bohm's theory in and of itself is considered wrong by physicists, because it violates relativity, but they don't at all call Bohm a crank, and John Bell, who is regarded respectfully in the community, took Bohm's theory seriously. So Bohm is not bologna.

Now Bohm's theory has a potential function that "tells a particle where to go". This replaces the usual quantum account.

Sarfatti now comes and says a one-way interaction like that, potential -> particle, is contrary to nature. We need also to consider the back reaction particle -> potential. As he says this would resemble the mutual interaction of curvature and stress-energy in GR. Is this a stupid idea? Not obviously. _Given_ the Bohm potential/particle satz, Sarfatti's addendum looks reasonable.. So not bologna per se.

Now Sarfatti deeply believes himself to have been contacted by a UFO as a teenager. He doesn't have anything weird to report about it, like your orgasmic lady, but he believes it took place. This may be silly, but until he gives some obviously false reports, it's not bologna.

Put it in napster.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
It may be wrong, it may even be technically foolish, but I don't see how, this side of mere predjudice, you can call it bologna.

Consider. Bohm's theory in and of itself is considered wrong by physicists, because it violates relativity, but they don't at all call Bohm a crank, and John Bell, who is regarded respectfully in the community, took Bohm's theory seriously. So Bohm is not bologna.

Now Bohm's theory has a potential function that "tells a particle where to go". This replaces the usual quantum account.

Sarfatti now comes and says a one-way interaction like that, potential -> particle, is contrary to nature. We need also to consider the back reaction particle -> potential. As he says this would resemble the mutual interaction of curvature and stress-energy in GR. Is this a stupid idea? Not obviously. _Given_ the Bohm potential/particle satz, Sarfatti's addendum looks reasonable.. So not bologna per se.

Now Sarfatti deeply believes himself to have been contacted by a UFO as a teenager. He doesn't have anything weird to report about it, like your orgasmic lady, but he believes it took place. This may be silly, but until he gives some obviously false reports, it's not bologna.

Put it in napster.

Sounds good to me. Since the Napster is for links only, I will leave this thread open for any discussions. Thanks selfAdjoint.