China Breaks Entanglement Record & Some High Octane Suspicions

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 26, 2017

If you’ve been following the development of crypto-currencies, cyber-security, quantum entanglement, or financial clearing, you’ll want to take notice of these articles shared by Mr. T.M. and Mr. J.K., for China has crossed another threshold on the path toward satellite-based quantum entanglement communications systems, and therefore, toward a much more secure means of financial clearing:

Breakthrough: Entangled photons transmitted more than 1,200 km

China Shatters “Spooky Action at a Distance” Record, Preps for Quantum Internet

Note that this was achieved in satellite-to-ground communications, an important “proof-of-concept” demonstration. The goal of course is to use entanglement as a basis of secure – almost uncrackable or unhackable communications. While it’s still a long way from “sub-space communications” on the old Star Trek series, the use of lasers in the communication has now set a record of the receipt of entangled photons to 1200 km, or approximately 745 miles. The next steps in the technology tree will be to demonstrate (1) satellite to satellite transmission at large distance, then (2) satellite to satellite to satellite and/or ground, and then to begin to increase the amount of data to the point that it would resemble the data carrying capacity that financial clearing networks need: stability of transmission, minimal loss, and ultimately, secure and “unhackable” transmission is the goal, for these are essential to a stable financial clearing system in the 21st century.

That is China’s real goal: to emplace such a system, and thereby, to outflank the US-SWIFT system of financial clearing.

This in turn will require the ability to defend those satellites from ground based and orbital platforms (and a similar capability is required for the US, and anyone else with large space-based asset commitments: France, Japan, Germany, the UK, India, Russia, and so on). In other words, space weaponization is coming, and it will be multi-polar in nature, unless unforeseen events or developments nudge things in the opposite direction.

But as I read this article, a new though occurred to me, and I want to share it today by way of some high octane speculations, or rather, high octane questions or suspicions. I’ve been covering stories such as this on this website for some time now, and over time, I’ve begun to notice a pattern emerging. Perhaps I am mistaken, and noticing a “pattern” that really isn’t there, simply on account of my “selection bias” or the “selection bias” of the many people of this community who are kind enough to notice stories and articles and pass them along to me. The pattern is this: that in all such stories of quantum satellites and entanglement experiments, or “entanglement distance” records, the story seems to be about China. And this raises the question: are the other space powers completely overwhelmed? Are they not performing such experiments? And if not, why not? And if they are, where are the stories about them? In short, I cannot imagine that the USA, the UK, France or so on, are about to concede to China the sole monopoly on space-based quantum entanglement communications systems, yet, we see virtually no stories about such systems in development by those countries.

More importantly, I have a “suspicion” – a suspicion only, since I’ve not seen anything to suggest real evidence – that this is all very deliberate. We are told, of course, that entanglement and quantum computing systems would be virtually unhackable. But I have to wonder if, in the laboratories of agencies like DARPA (the Diabolically Apocalyptic Research Projects Agency, as we refer to it here, following a suggestion of Mr. J.B.), they are already into second generation experiments on this phenomenon and technology, and if, perhaps they have found, or at least, theorized about, ways around it.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

The 11-Dimensional Multi-Verse Of The Brain

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 21, 2017

A couple of days ago I blogged about the discovery of “memory-wiping” enzymes and its implications for the topic of mind control. In that blog, I also made the connection between the mind and the universe, particularly the version of quantum theory called the “multiverse” hypothesis. I’ve long sensed that there is a connection between the mind and matter, and that this connection is not of the tidy Cartesian variety, where the one (take your choice) gives rise to the other. I suspect, and have suspected for some time, that the situation is rather than of a complex set of feedback loops between the two, and that in that situation, that complexity can only be described by something “not physical” in the ordinary, three dimensional sense of our everyday experience.

Thus, when Mr. M.H. shared this article this week, I took notice:

Brain Architecture: Scientists Discover 11 Dimensional Structures That Could Help Us Understand How the Brain Works

The following paragraphs leapt out at me:

Scientists studying the brain have discovered that the organ operates on up to 11 different dimensions, creating multiverse-like structures that are “a world we had never imagined.”

By using an advanced mathematical system, researchers were able to uncover architectural structures that appears when the brain has to process information, before they disintegrate into nothing.

…

In the latest study, researchers honed in on the neural network structures within the brain using algebraic topology—a system used to describe networks with constantly changing spaces and structures. This is the first time this branch of math has been applied to neuroscience.

“Algebraic topology is like a telescope and microscope at the same time. It can zoom into networks to find hidden structures—the trees in the forest—and see the empty spaces—the clearings—all at the same time,” study author Kathryn Hess said in a statement.

In the study, researchers carried out multiple tests on virtual brain tissue to find brain structures that would never appear just by chance.

“We found a world that we had never imagined. There are tens of millions of these objects even in a small speck of the brain, up through seven dimensions. In some networks, we even found structures with up to eleven dimensions.”

The findings indicate the brain processes stimuli by creating these complex cliques and cavities, so the next step will be to find out whether or not our ability to perform complicated tasks requires the creation of these multi-dimensional structures.

…

Hess says the findings suggest that when we examine brain activity with low-dimensional representations, we only get a shadow of the real activity taking place. This means we can see some information, but not the full picture. “So, in a sense our discoveries may explain why it has been so hard to understand the relation between brain structure and function,” she explains.

Talk about high octane! Let that sink in for a moment: at every moment you are thinking, multi-dimensional structures arise in your very three dimensional brain, and that’s a fancy way of saying your brain is not closed within or upon itself, but is rather an open system interacting with much higher dimensional realities that cannot be encompassed in the material 3-d world. And this is why, using a merely three-dimensional model, or, if I may be more blunt, a merely materialistic model of the mind-brain relationship, has failed to grasp the complexity, the hyper-dimensional complexity, of what is actually going on. Indeed, higher order topologies are necessary to describe thought at all: thought does not occur in the three dimensional material stuff of life solely or exclusively, but outside it, as something coupled with it. (Regular readers of my books will recognize this as what I’ve been calling the Topological Metaphor of the Medium, and its analogical basis.) For those who’ve read my books Secrets of the Unified Field or The Third Way, the name of Gabriel Kron should also spring to mind, with his theory that all electrical circuits, no matter how simple they are, are in effect hyper-dimensional machines, transducing something “down here” from “up there”.

What is interesting in this article is also the implication of the object or stimulus of brain activity: for consider what that object is, in physics terms. Even at the atomic or, better, sub-atomic quantum level, these “material” entities dissolve – if I may use that term – into packets of information modeled by multi-dimensional mathematical equations. In other words, multi-dimensionality is the bridge of perception because the multi-dimensionality is at the root of the objects themselves.

What’s coming down the pike? Well, I’ve speculated at length about this idea in our numerous members’ vidchats (along with some pretty stimulating speculations from members themselves): the next step is to find the exact nature and structure of those “feedback” loops between the “material” world and the “incorporeal” one: think “quantum neurology” and “neuro-cosmology” for a moment, and you get an intuitive approximation of how the old, tidy, Cartesian dualistic lines are breaking down. We are, I rather suspect, looking at something more akin to the old Neoplatonic spectrum of “fine gradations” from the immaterial world of forms to the increasingly “dense” world of matter.

Funny thing, too, to remember that Plato referred to all of this as “the mathematicals”. Funny thing, too, that in membrane theory, space-time is in 11 dimensions.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Brace Yourself: Bell Inequality – Consciousness Test Planned

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 2, 2017

When Ms. K.M. found this short article and sent it to me, I knew I’d be blogging about it.

We’ve all heard of the phenomenon of “entanglement,” i.e., that when information of a particular sort is modulated or induced into a pair of particles, which pair are then shot in different directions, that modification of that information in one particle instantaneously is transferred to the other.  But there’s another problem: the observer. In quantum mechanics, because of its now well-known observer effect, or, to give it its proper name, its uncertainty principle, one cannot measure certain types of attributes of things at the same time. These are called conjugate attributes: one cannot measure the position of an electron, and its velocity, at the same time. Couple these two things to entanglement, and what is measured at one end is translated to the other. The problem, of course, that all this suggests the observer/experimenter may have a much more important role in the actual creation of reality than was dreamed possible just a little over one hundred years ago.

Now, according to the article Ms. K.M. sent me, scientists now want to test these two principles directly:

Scientists Are About to Perform an Experiment to See if The Human Mind Is Bound by Physics

Now, for those who’ve been following this website, and particularly some of the discussions we’ve had in our members’ vidchats, and some of the members’ webinars, this will sound familiar:

Simply put, the Bell test involves a pair of entangled particles: one is sent towards location A and the other to location B. At each of these points, a device measures the state of the particles.

The settings in the measuring devices are set at random, so that it’s impossible for A to know the setting of B (and vice versa) at the time of measurement. Historically, the Bell test has supported the spooky theory.

Now, Lucien Hardy, a theoretical physicist from the Perimeter Institute in Canada, is suggesting that the measurements between A and B could be controlled by something that may potentially be separate from the material world: the human mind.

His idea is derived from what French philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes called the mind-matter duality, “[where] the mind is outside of regular physics and intervenes on the physical world,” as Hardy explained.

To do this, Hardy proposed a version of the Bell test involving 100 humans, each hooked up to EEG headsets that would read their brain activity. These devices would be used to switch the settings on the measuring devices for A and B, set at 100 kilometres apart.

“The radical possibility we wish to investigate is that, when humans are used to decide the settings (rather than various types of random number generators), we might then expect to see a violation of quantum theory in agreement with the relevant Bell inequality,” Hardy wrote in a paper published online earlier this month.

If the correlation between the measurements don’t match previous Bell tests, then there could be a violation of quantum theory that suggests A and B are being controlled by factors outside the realm of standard physics.

This comes very close to the experiments of Dr. William Tiller, though the latter were on consciousness or intentional manipulation of macro-effects rather than quantum effects. However, it is the same in that (1) it involves a group of people, presumably for the purpose of statistical measuring and sampling, and in that (2) it involves direct human intentional manipulation. Unlike Tiller’s experiments, however, there’s no indication of any written out specific intention, which, in Tiller’s opinion, is crucial in order to avoid conscious incoherence, and which, as I pointed out in a member’s webinar, bears explicit and specific resemblance to the formulation of western theological sacramental theory.

Additionally, the experiment also resembles similar intentionality experiments already conducted on random number generators. In the case of those experiments, the results for the most part have suggested that there is indeed a a measurable effect of conscious intention on physical systems otherwise not directed in physical contact with the “intender.” These results would seem to predict that, in so far as Mr. Hardy’s experiment – if it is ever performed – might be concerned, there will be a similar effect, so long as the participants are coherent, i.e., agreed in intention on the outcome. Time will tell, of course, but if so, it will be another experimental confirmation that the merely material cosmology is in drastic need of supplementation and expansion.

Of course, the result, if they go as I suspect they will go, as indicated by such consciousness experiments on random number generators as have already been performed, will be hotly contested and debated(just as those random number generator tests have been contested and debated).  If Mr. Hardy performs his experiments carefully, and if there is indication of such mind-over-matter correlation, then the real thing, at that point, is to begin to investigate any group multiplier effect(if any): does this vary in its effects with age groups? Males? Females? Do the number of people agreed on a specific intention intensify the effect? And so on.

Of course, all this is, for the moment, guess work. The experiments have not been performed, but this is definitely one to watch.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Laurie Huston and Tom Campbell: Consciousness and Ego

Source: TomCampbell
June 2, 2017

Laurie Huston from News the Heart is talking with physicist Tom Campbell on Ego, Growth, Consciousness, Intention and Control. This deep conversation began with an experience I had that Tom and I often discuss around Me versus Other. Learning how to detach ourselves and give space for the other to BE allows us to shift our triggers and BEcome more conscious in our lives. This also allows us an opportunity to detach from our emotions that are only perceived by our story. We also discussed 3 questions from our listeners, 1. on Intention and Control and how they are confusing, especially if we bring Law of Attraction into our intentions. Intention that is from a place of Being instead of end goal is the way we can maintain letting go of our control over our lives and allow what is happening to BE. 2nd question was around crying and ego and whether this is helping us grow. Being authentic is important and although crying is for each person’s ego, it doesn’t hinder our growth unless it moves into suffering. And the 3rd question was around energy and clothes which will continue next month as it brought up a great deal of information around Intention and our tools to assist us in our growing. We discussed how the differences between energy, data and tools we use will assist us in our growing towards love.

At The End Of The Twig: Are There Limits To Entanglement? Is…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 23, 2017

As I indicated yesterday, this has been a very strange week for me, for people have sent many articles detailing recent discoveries in technology and science, and as might be expected, many of them come from the wild and weird world of quantum mechanics, which seems to grow weirder by the week (as if it wasn’t weird enough already). Mr. J.K., Mr. V.T., and Mr. A. and a few others sent the following three articles:

Scientists Have Set a Limit For Quantum Entanglement – And It’s Really Freaking Powerful

Space time ‘fluctuates wildly’ claims new theory that could shed new light on how the universe is expanding

Scientists Achieve Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication For The First Time

Now, as one might expect, I’m going to crawl way out onto the end of the twig of high octane speculation here, where the weight of the speculation far exceeds the ability of the twig to support it. I can’t help it; I’m a hack from South Dakota, and it’s what hacks from South Dakota do. Besides, I’m also a Capricorn, and crawling way out onto the end of tree branches is also what goats do:

So, with that huge caveat in mind, there are a few statements in these articles that have me wondering. Consider this statement, when scientists subjected entangled particles to micro-gravitational, and then hyper-gravitational, acceleration:

“Our results show that quantum entanglement is unaffected by non-inertial motion to within the resolution of our test-system,” the researchers conclude.

“This represents the first experimental effort exposing a genuine quantum system to milli-g and hyper-g, and extends the experimental regime in which quantum effects can be said to exist in harmony with relativity.”

Consulting my Scientismese to Hack English dictionary, this translated to my simple mind as:

“entanglement is not affected by inertial systems”, or, “entanglement is not affected by gravity.” Now, granted, the scientists conducting this odd, but very important, experiment, are not saying that. What they want to do is scale it up, and see if in fact there is some limit or “boundary condition” where under extreme gravitation entanglement might be affected or perhaps broken. Would it break, for example, in the extreme conditions of a black hole? Or, conversely, would the conditions in a black hole actually be the matrix for a kind of “hyper-entanglement”? I suspect (here comes that standing on the end of the twig part) that no such boundary condition will be found, or, that if it is, under certain inertial or gravitational conditions, entanglement might actually be enhanced, and that as such, entanglement (which, let us remember, is the entanglement of information) might be a clue, perhaps, to anti-gravity or contrabary.

Which brings me to the second article, and these ideas:

New calculations suggest space-time is wildly fluctuating, swinging back and forth between expansion and contraction at a scale ‘billions and billions’ times smaller than an electron.

The researchers from the University of British Columbia suggest there is a huge density of vacuum energy in the universe, as predicted by some – but, in their calculations, oscillations between expansion and contraction cause it to nearly cancel itself out.

But, it doesn’t, and instead gives rise to a tiny net effect that slowly causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, they say.

Again, to my simple hack-goat-from-South-Dakota-on-the-end-of-the-twig mind, this sounds a bit like what we’ve heard before: the lattice of space-time is not a static phenonemon: it appears to be that way but upon analysis, those “nodes” in the lattice result from a kind of zero-summing at the node, but with a slight residual leading to a translation, and as a result of that, there is a slight asymmetry driving the expansion of the universe. If that even more wild and woolly speculation is true, then connect it with the first phenomenon: manipulation of that contraction and rarefaction might also be a clue to the engineering of that lattice directly (and note, a contraction or compression and rarefaction such as the authors are speaking is a longitudinal wave form… and who does that sound like?).

Then we have the following statements from the third article:

Quantum communication is a strange beast, but one of the weirdest proposed forms of it is called counterfactual communication – a type of quantum communication where no particles travel between two recipients.

Theoretical physicists have long proposed that such a form of communication would be possible, but now, for the first time, researchers have been able to experimentally achieve it – transferring a black and white bitmap image from one location to another without sending any physical particles.

If that sounds a little too out-there for you, don’t worry, this is quantum mechanics, after all. It’s meant to be complicated. But once you break it down, counterfactual quantum communication actually isn’t as bizarre as it sounds.

First up, let’s talk about how this differs from regular quantum communication, also known as quantum teleportation, because isn’t that also a form of particle-less information transfer?

Well, not quite. Regular quantum teleportation is based on the principle of entanglement – two particles that become inextricably linked so that whatever happens to one will automatically affect the other, no matter how far apart they are.

But wait, there’s more:

Direct counterfactual quantum communication on the other hands relies on something other than quantum entanglement. Instead, it uses a phenomenon called the quantum Zeno effect.

Very simply, the quantum Zeno effect occurs when an unstable quantum system is repeatedly measured.

In the quantum world, whenever you look at a system, or measure it, the system changes. And in this case, unstable particles can never decay while they’re being measured (just like the proverbial watched kettle that will never boil), so the quantum Zeno effect creates a system that’s effectively frozen with a very high probability.

Now, putting all this in Hack-ese again, one simply freezes the system by freezing the observation of it in a certain state. Granted, all this is at a quantum, sub-atomic particle level. But it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out that someone, somewhere, will want to test the whole idea by “scaling it up” to “see what happens”, or, in this case, what doesn’t happen. While all the focus of the experiment is on particle-less communication, I therefore cannot help but wonder the extent to which the whole thing might be tailored to the engineering of micro-timelines and “reality engineering.” (And, for those willing to crawl way out on to the end of this twig with me, I cannot help but wonder if the original Zeno paradox itself might be a legacy phenomenon of precisely this type of physics-observer-based thinking…. yea, I know, I’ve lost it. That’s too much of a whopper. But still… I can’t help but think of Plato and his “mathematicals”.)

Putting all this together, what it boils down to is that these experiments and ideas have truly cosmic implications, that mankind is taking the first faltering steps into a cosmological engineering capability.  For now, the capability is small… but… if they can be “scaled up…”

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Tom Campbell: Fireside Chat Feb 2017 [Pt 2]

Source: Tom Campbell
May 1, 2017

Tom Campbell answers questions on various subjects involving our reality and consciousness from the viewpoint of his theory, philosophy, and experience.

Tom Campbell: Fireside Chat Jan 2017 [Pt 3]

Source: Tom Campbell
March 7, 2017

Physicist and Consciousness Researcher Tom Campbell answers questions on various subjects involving our reality and consciousness from the viewpoint of his theory, philosophy, and experience.

Tom Campbell: Fireside Chat Jan 2017 [Pt 2]

Source: Tom Campbell
March 6, 2017

Physicist and Consciousness Researcher Tom Campbell answers questions on various subjects involving our reality and consciousness from the viewpoint of his theory, philosophy, and experience.

Tom Campbell: Fireside Chat Jan 2017 [Pt 1]

Source: Tom Campbell
March 1, 2017

Physicist and Consciousness Researcher Tom Campbell answers questions on various subjects involving our reality and consciousness from the viewpoint of his theory, philosophy, and experience.

Tom Campbell: Fireside Chat Nov 2016 Pt 1

Source: Tom Campbell
January 24, 2017

Tom Campbell answers questions on various subjects involving our reality and consciousness from the viewpoint of his theory, philosophy, and experience.