SciFi story about making all encryptions obsolete and other dilemmas

[jlcd]

I want to write a sci fi story to let me think clearer.

I'd start it with Jimmy Carter direct experience witnessing this: "The woman went into a trance and gave some latitude and longitude figures. We focused our satellite cameras on that point and the plane was there.".

The sci fi story would involve the dilemma faced by a physicist (or group of physicists) on the eve of another scientific revolution that exceeds that of the quantum and relativity combined.

This is the dilemma. The coming physics revolutions and scientific evidence will shift most physicists attention to it and soon, stuff like remote viewing could be done by anyone. This would render all encyptions obsolete. Not only can people get the passwords of all social accounts. Even nuclear launch codes could be acquired by anyone. What would happen to the world when there are no secrets anymore (I realized this after watching the 2 hour show "Third Eye Spies" released lately).

Supressing it would be the natural outcome and justifiable. However, if the science is suppressed, there would be consequences.

This is because the scientific revolution would finally explain how neurons just processed mostly subsconscious automatic response and some additional processes (non physical) related to remote viewing and stuff would put the brain beable as something besides neurons. This would prove that humans are more than flesh and blood and a revolution in medical field would occur when the non physical sources of psychological and some ailments could be treated at the sources.

The diemma is this. If you suppress the coming scientfic revolutions so remote viewing couldn't become known to anyone even prisoners and make encyptions obsolete. It would also suppress the true nature of humans so the world would remain ignorant about human being more than flesh and blood.

I'd like to know what would happen to society if it's proven beyond shadow of a doubt and part of medical knowledge that human are more than the physical body we understood it now. Would it make the world a better place? Would it make better people? Or would the benefit outweight the danger of for example everyone having access to remote viewing and rendering obsolute all secrets like encyptions and nuclear codes.

If this results in global nuclear annihilations. Scientific knowledge of humans being more than flesh and blood wouldn't be beneficial because you would only have radioactive survivors after the holocaust.

So the sci fi story would involve the dilemma faced by these elite physicists whether it is better to suppress all knowledge. We are in the perfect position now and can maintain the supression by letting future physicists focus on the minimal interpretations so they would literally be told to shut up and calculate. This would make them fail to discover the hidden physics.

I don't know the ending of the sci fi story whether the physicist (or group of physicists) should decide to make it a secret (with facts available only to a Elite few swore to secretary (the secret physics of the Elite) or share it to the world. What good would be a Nobel Prize when it would be hang on radioactive house and streets amidst the nuclear holocausts when all nuclear codes become open to anyone.

Help me decide the ending (promote the next physics revolution or suppress it at all cost) because I need more information to think of the ramifications.

 

[.Scott]

I will "suspend disbelief" regarding the Carter story and your other supernatural stories.

Possession of information is not necessarily that vulnerable to the type of discovery you are talking about. And it is not the only way to protect launch activity.

If I have a flash chip with a random pattern of 8 million bytes, is a human "third eye" going to be able to:
1) View that information - given that even if he had the device in his hand, he would not be able to read it?
2) If he could view it, could he read it from end to end without error?
3) Once he had the information, could he reproduce the device?

I can allow you to look at a physical key without necessarily disclosing to you how the key works, how to reproduce it, or how to pick the lock. Is it only the shape of the key? Are parts of it magnetic? Are parts of it electrically resistive? ... or electrically active?

 

[jlcd]

I will "suspend disbelief" regarding the Carter story and your other supernatural stories.

Possession of information is not necessarily that vulnerable to the type of discovery you are talking about. And it is not the only way to protect launch activity.

If I have a flash chip with a random pattern of 8 million bytes, is a human "third eye" going to be able to:
1) View that information - given that even if he had the device in his hand, he would not be able to read it?
2) If he could view it, could he read it from end to end without error?
3) Once he had the information, could he reproduce the device?

I can allow you to look at a physical key without necessarily disclosing to you how the key works, how to reproduce it, or how to pick the lock. Is it only the shape of the key? Are parts of it magnetic? Are parts of it electrically resistive? ... or electrically active?

You mean even Trump didn't know the exact nuclear lunch codes (could he peek?) and it is only released by the electronics upon opening the attache case? and hundreds of other nuclear submarines and silos around the world? Or are the codes already determined? Please show article how the nuclear lunch codes and verifications work.

I guess financial institutions would be safer as the keys are unreadable. But how do you use passwords that you can't even know. By the electronic keys opening it automatically by say fingerprints? My samsung can run some programs just by running my fingerprints. So I guess passwords of all accounts can be replaced by this?

 

[.Scott]

You mean even Trump didn't know the exact nuclear lunch codes (could he peek?) and it is only released by the electronics upon opening the attache case? and hundreds of other nuclear submarines and silos around the world? Or are the codes already determined? Please show article how the nuclear lunch codes and verifications work.

I guess financial institutions would be safer as the keys are unreadable. But how do you use passwords that you can't even know. By the electronic keys opening it automatically by say fingerprints? My samsung can run some programs just by running my fingerprints. So I guess passwords of all accounts can be replaced by this?

See this news article: President Clinton looses Launch codes
The point is that the codes are something that he "has". There may also be a part that he "knows" - but it would easily remembered and therefore likely pretty short.

According to this article: "The Nuclear Button"

Once the decision is made, the president himself must authenticate that he is the one giving the order by calling the senior officer in the Pentagon. That officer will give the president a "challenge code" that requires a matching response, which the president or one of his aids carries at all time on a laminated card called the "biscuit."

Once the order is confirmed by the highest ranking official, it works its way down the chain of command until it reaches those who are responsible for turning the keys and carrying out the action.

The missile could be launched from either the sea or from land. In both cases, multiple people need to authenticate the order even after it comes down from the Pentagon.

If, as you are supposing, it became possible for others to see that biscuit, it could be replaced with an automated for of authentication based on something else that the President has been given.

 

[jlcd]

See this news article: President Clinton looses Launch codes
The point is that the codes are something that he "has". There may also be a part that he "knows" - but it would easily remembered and therefore likely pretty short.

According to this article: "The Nuclear Button"

If, as you are supposing, it became possible for others to see that biscuit, it could be replaced with an automated for of authentication based on something else that the President has been given.

Can you elaborate with more details how this biscuit "could be replaced with an automated form of authentication based on something else that the President has been given"?

At the time of Jimmy Carter. How did the nuclear lunch codes in attache case work (or no attache case yet?) compared to what Trump using now?

Also I'm looking for the actual video where Jimmy Carter mentioned it. I don't want to start my sci fi book with a false statement. I read this about Jimmy Carter incident about it

http://edition.cnn.com/US/Newsbriefs/9509/9-21/am/index.html
"CIA used psychic to help find missing plane

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Former President Jimmy Carter said the CIA, without his knowledge, once consulted a psychic to help locate a missing government plane in Africa. Carter told students at Emory University that the "special U.S. plane" crashed somewhere in Zaire while he was president.

According to Carter, U.S. spy satellites could find no trace of the aircraft, so the CIA consulted a psychic from California. Carter said the woman "went into a trance and gave some latitude and longitude figures. We focused our satellite cameras on that point and the plane was there."

Carter made the disclosure after two students asked if he was aware of any government evidence pointing to the existence of extraterrestrials. "I never knew of any instance where it was proven that any sort of vehicle had come from outer space to our country and either lived here or left," the former president said."

According to retired US army major Paul Smith Ph.D. who wrote the book "The Essential Guide to Remote Viewing"

“In March 1979, a young Air Force enlisted woman names Rosemary Smith was handed a map of the entire continent of Africa. She was told only that some-time in the past few days a Soviet Tu-22 bomber outfitted as a spy plane had crashed somewhere in the continent. The United States desperately wanted to recover the top secret Russian codes and equipment the Tu-22 carried. Using their remote viewing skills, she pinpointed the wreckage, even though it had been completely swallowed by the jungle canopy into which the jet had plunged nose first."

I just need to see the video of Jimmy Carter saying it.

 

[.Scott]

CNN is pretty reliable. I don't doubt that Carter said this. Note that these two stories are very different. In one case, it is a US plane that is being discovered. In the other case, it is a Soviet TU-22. I also do not doubt that these are fabrications.

As far as replacing that biscuit: As I said earlier, it could be replaced with a flash memory device with a large amount of random data. Then that data could be either sent as is - or used as a one-time-crypto pad to encode the Launch orders. Since only the President and certain Launch officers would have this random data, the Launch officers would be able to authenticate the source of the orders.

 

[jlcd]

CNN is pretty reliable. I don't doubt that Carter said this. Note that these two stories are very different. In one case, it is a US plane that is being discovered. In the other case, it is a Soviet TU-22. I also do not doubt that these are fabrications.

As far as replacing that biscuit: As I said earlier, it could be replaced with a flash memory device with a large amount of random data. Then that data could be either sent as is - or used as a one-time-crypto pad to encode the Launch orders. Since only the President and certain Launch officers would have this random data, the Launch officers would be able to authenticate the source of the orders.

If it was the Soviet TU-22. Jimmy Carter wouldn't mention it in public and just stated "US plane". It was retired US army major Paul Smith Ph.D. who claimed in his book it was the Soviet TU-22.

About whether flash rom can be probed by remote viewers. I don't think so. The resolution seemed to be only coarse. In my college days 30 years ago. I had a classmate who could remote view and we used to spy on our classmates and tell them where they were to their astonishment.

Also I met over a hundred sensitives in the last 50 years of my life. I could put my thoughts in natural crystal, for example, I visualized any object in the planet and stored it in the crystal, then the sensitive could see what image was there and guessed it right. I did this so many times I'm now so tired of it. But I don't think you can store the data of computer hard drive to the crystal because the storage is only coarse. Others have tried storing thoughts in semiconductors and being read by senstitives.

A decade ago. I asked a scientist how it could theoretically worked, why crystals can store information. He told me: "Also, the word "crystal" is too generic and in this case misleading; a mass of polycrystalline iron has plenty of free electrons, but quartz has practically none, so I don't think the availability of electrons is the sole factor; rather, the number of states available to the electrons, and the ease of getting them to change states considered against the ease with which they change states by themselves (randomizing "impressed" information). On that basis semiconductors should be ideal for these purposes."

I will mentioned these briefly in my sci fi book. So I need to know what the scientist meant by " the number of states available to the electrons, and the ease of getting them to change states considered against the ease with which they change states by themselves (randomizing "impressed" information)." Do semiconductors really have this feature where they can change states by themselves ( (randomizing "impressed" information)? Please guess what this means because for a decade. I didn't know what it mean. I want to explain this in my sci-fi book.

It will be hard sci-fi that can stand the scrutiny of MIT students and any physicists so the theories and data have to be solid.

 

[.Scott]

About whether flash rom can be probed by remote viewers. I don't think so. The resolution seemed to be only coarse. In my college days 30 years ago. I had a classmate who could remote view and we used to spy on our classmates and tell them where they were to their astonishment.

In your story, "remote viewing" can have any characteristics you wish.
Don't ask or expect the PhysicsForums readership to buy into it.

 

[PeterDonis]

It will be hard sci-fi that can stand the scrutiny of MIT students and any physicists so the theories and data have to be solid.

If you want all the science in your book (except for the part you add in that is not actual science--if everything in your book is actual science, it's not science fiction) to be that solid, you're in the wrong place. You need to be building your own understanding of all the relevant scientific disciplines at the required level. You're not going to do that by asking some questions on PF and getting answers. Hard SF authors who build scientific detail at that level in their stories typically have Ph. D. degrees or the equivalent.

In my college days 30 years ago. I had a classmate who could remote view and we used to spy on our classmates and tell them where they were to their astonishment.

I met over a hundred sensitives in the last 50 years of my life. I could put my thoughts in natural crystal, for example, I visualized any object in the planet and stored it in the crystal, then the sensitive could see what image was there and guessed it right. I did this so many times I'm now so tired of it. But I don't think you can store the data of computer hard drive to the crystal because the storage is only coarse. Others have tried storing thoughts in semiconductors and being read by senstitives.

None of this is actual science. By that I do not mean that you didn't have these experiences; that's something I can't comment on one way or the other because I wasn't there. I mean that nobody has studied these things scientifically; nobody has run controlled experiments on them (at least none that have produced any useful or repeatable results) and nobody has developed any kind of theoretical framework that explains them. You can study condensed matter physics and materials science all you want and you will not find anyone who can explain how you can put your thoughts in a crystal and have it store them and later have them read out by someone else; nobody has a theoretical model that says that can be done. So if your goal is to find some actual scientific theory to put in your book about this, you're wasting your time; there isn't one.

Now since you say you are writing science fiction, you could simply make these phenomena--remote viewing, storing thoughts in crystals, sensitives, etc.--the "fiction" part: that is, the part for which you simply make up the "scientific" background to suit your story. This would be no different than hard sf authors putting things like hyperspatial travel in their stories and making up some kind of plausible-sounding "scientific" background for it. But to do that task convincingly enough still requires a good background in actual science--as I said above, hard sf authors who put that kind of made-up detail into their stories typically have Ph. D. degrees or the equivalent. You're not going to get that by asking questions here on PF.

 

[jlcd]

My sci-fi book will involve about nuclear weapons so I need to know the following facts:

1. What can trigger the imploding explosives that can cause the chain reactions in the Uranium or Plutonium.. is it simply simple wires that can be jumpered the detonate the nukes?

2. Or are there many wires that have complex encyrption codes before the explosive close in circulary on the radioactive materials?

3. Are all nuclear missiles already fueled or does fueling needs to be done first before any launch?

4. What kind of wiring controls the ignition of the rocket or the whole setup, Is it just simple wiring that is shorted that can launch the missiles (after the verifications were done in the control room)?

Here is another complication of the debate in my book whether the world is ready for the full physics to be released.

It's good if remote viewing was all there is to it. All of society having the capability would create many peeping toms and at least othe crimes lesser because all murderers can be known.

But there is additional problem. The mechanism that makes remote viewing possible can also influence the target. I personally know a woman who in her sleep can bilocate and make her nonphysical body appear to people. Some saints have this capability of bilocation. The explanation is that as we get elevated in thought, pure in heart, our nonphysical body is being developed. For those with high development. It can make become a vehicle of consciousness. For others, this occurs spontaneously like many reports like from CNN about dead people appearing to relatives at distance right after they died.

https://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/23/living/crisis-apparitions/index.html
Now what has it got to do with nuclear weapons. The remote viewer with bilocation capability can detonate the nukes or launch them by jumpering the connections right at the missiles!

So in my sci-fi book. The physicists who figured out the physics of the paranormal are debating whether to release the physics to the world or hide and suppress it so much by promoting minimal interpretations or shut up and calculate. The ending of the books seem to point towards suppression. How would you guys conclude the story given the facts above? Promote or suppress all physics of it?

 

[PeterDonis]

My sci-fi book will involve about nuclear weapons so I need to know the following facts

These are the sorts of things that countries who have nuclear weapons do not generally make public knowledge, for reasons which should be obvious.

 

[jedishrfu]

Watch a movie like War Games and see how they approach nuclear weapons.

Checkout the History Guy on Youtube and his description of the Damascus incident.

Remote viewing is covered under parapsychology and data on it is very sketchy to the point of it being junk science.

@jlcd Please stop referring to remote viewing here as if its a real scientific field otherwise we will be forced to close the thread.

 

[jlcd]

If you want all the science in your book (except for the part you add in that is not actual science--if everything in your book is actual science, it's not science fiction) to be that solid, you're in the wrong place. You need to be building your own understanding of all the relevant scientific disciplines at the required level. You're not going to do that by asking some questions on PF and getting answers. Hard SF authors who build scientific detail at that level in their stories typically have Ph. D. degrees or the equivalent.None of this is actual science. By that I do not mean that you didn't have these experiences; that's something I can't comment on one way or the other because I wasn't there. I mean that nobody has studied these things scientifically; nobody has run controlled experiments on them (at least none that have produced any useful or repeatable results) and nobody has developed any kind of theoretical framework that explains them. You can study condensed matter physics and materials science all you want and you will not find anyone who can explain how you can put your thoughts in a crystal and have it store them and later have them read out by someone else; nobody has a theoretical model that says that can be done. So if your goal is to find some actual scientific theory to put in your book about this, you're wasting your time; there isn't one.

Now since you say you are writing science fiction, you could simply make these phenomena--remote viewing, storing thoughts in crystals, sensitives, etc.--the "fiction" part: that is, the part for which you simply make up the "scientific" background to suit your story. This would be no different than hard sf authors putting things like hyperspatial travel in their stories and making up some kind of plausible-sounding "scientific" background for it. But to do that task convincingly enough still requires a good background in actual science--as I said above, hard sf authors who put that kind of made-up detail into their stories typically have Ph. D. degrees or the equivalent. You're not going to get that by asking questions here on PF.

Yes. I understood all of the above. There is something I want to know.

If I want to use Demystifier basic theory. I should mention his name in the book? Because after years of studying QM, Zurek, Decoherence. I think only Demystifier theory can offer some chance of explaining it:

In his peer reviewed: https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11643

"By analogy [14], it is conceivable that all relativistic “elementary particles” of the Standard Model (photons, electrons, etc, which are relativistic with ˜c = c) can be derived, in a similar way, from some hypothetic more fundamental non-relativistic particles. If so, then the world looks “fundamentally” relativistic only because we do not yet see those more fundamental degrees.

Such a theory can be thought of as a neo-Lorentzian ether theory. (For other theories of that kind in modern literature see e.g. [40, 41, 42].) The 19th century Lorentzian ether theory [43] was ruled out by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which ruled out the possibility that the Earth moves through the ether. What we propose here is that the Earth (and everything else) is made of ether. No experiment so far ruled out that possibility, so such a neo-Lorentzian ether theory is a viable possibility."

In my sci-fi book. I'd use this model and build an entire new physics out of it to match all the available "data". Like for example, demystifier neo-Lorentzian ether is made of sentient substance, etc.

Planck started the revolution solving the Ultraviolet Catastrophe. In my sci-fi book. The equivalent of the Ultraviolet Catastrope are all those things and it will just take one shot in the silence of the night by a bonafide physicist to launch the next physics revolution. However, if the end result would the demise of the human race, then a program must be started to suppress all knowledge including influencing the physicist to make him take another path (for example, starting at the Particle Desert and just dreaming about string theory and quantum gravity like the rest is doing).

Btw, is demystifier idea of more fundamental particles where lorentz invariance is just emergent his own? Because I seemed to read this elsewhere in Hossenfelder blogs. Who actually started the idea so I can make proper credit or is this not required if the idea is just so general?

 

[PeterDonis]

If I want to use Demystifier basic theory. I should mention his name in the book?

Before even doing that I would ask @Demystifier if he is OK with you using his theory in your book.

 

[jlcd]

Before even doing that I would ask @Demystifier if he is OK with you using his theory in your book.

Witten has written a similar idea.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.01791.pdf
"We can see the relation between gauge symmetry and global symmetry in another way if we imagine whether physics as we know it could one day be derived from something much deeper – maybe unimaginably deeper than we now have. Maybe the spacetime we experience and the particles and fields in it are all “emergent” from something much deeper.

Condensed matter physicists are accustomed to such “emergent” phenomena, so to get an idea about the status of symmetries in an emergent description of Nature, we might take a look at what happens in that field. Global symmetries that emerge in a low energy limit are commonplace in condensed matter physics. But they are always approximate symmetries that are explicitly violated by operators of higher dimension that are “irrelevant” in the renormalization group sense. Thus the global symmetries in emergent descriptions of condensed matter systems are always analogous to Le −Lµ or Lµ −Lτ in the Standard Model – or to strangeness, etc., from the point of view of QED or QCD."

I must also ask Witten whether I can include his theory?

But then it seems many authors put the same kind conjecture at the same time. Who originated it. And who are the othe authors with similar ideas? I'm tracing the root of these ideas.

 

[PeterDonis]

I must also ask Witten whether I can include his theory?

If you're going to connect it to your claims about remote viewing, storing thoughts in crystals, etc., IMO you should either ask the scientists whose work you are misusing, or at the very least make it absolutely clear that you are making use of published science in a work of fiction and are not implying that the scientists who published the actual science in any way support what you're doing.

 

[hmmm27]

Any examples of your work on the web ? A short story, maybe.

I wouldn't put money on the reality of your claims (though I'm not disputing your personal veracity; nor first-person accounts, and that isn't to avoid a conflict : I simply don't actually disbelieve you) but I do, quite often, put money into the hands of booksellers of speculative fiction (which I think is the latest label for SF/Fantasy).

Concerning your laudable plan to credit the parts of your Universe based on extant pararesearch ... somebody who enjoys a book always reads the Afterword.

Lastly, what I originally planned to write after starting to read this thread : I'll posit that the difference between modern and RV societies wouldn't be as big as the difference between pre-Internet and modern societies.

 

[jlcd]

One doesn't need to store thoughts in crystals to be perceived by sensitives to duplicate my experiences.

One can do the following simple experiment. Ask your closest friend or spouse to write the word of any object in the planet and hide it inside a book. Then let him/her imagine the object about two feet from you. Still your mind, suddenly the image of the object can surface in your mind. I actually tried this. I asked my cousin to imagine any object in the planet. She imagined a certain fruit which I guessed right. The image just suddenly crossed my mind.

How come physicists can believe the galaxy once fitting into the volume of a basement yet can't even believe such simple thing as Telepathy.

Do you guys know the inventor of the EEG experienced it which made him discover EEG?

I happened to read this article the other day in Discover October 2018 (I later found out in wikipedia the story was really true):

"Hans Berger could do nothing as the huge field gun rolled toward him.

In 1892, the 19-year-old German had enlisted for military service. One spring morning, while pulling heavy artillery for a training session, Berger’s horse suddenly threw him to the ground. He watched, helpless and terriied, as the rolling artillery came toward him, only to stop at the very last minute.

At precisely the same moment, Berger’s sister — far away in his hometown of Coburg — was struck by a premonition, an overwhelming sense that something tragic had befallen her brother.

She begged her father to send him a telegram to make sure he was OK. Berger was stunned by the coincidence. “It was a case of spontaneous
telepathy,” he later wrote of the incident.

Determined to make sense of the event and what he called “psychic energy,” Berger began to study the brain and the electrical signals it gave off during wakefulness. In a sense, he succeeded. His efforts to record the small electrical signals that escape from the brain and ripple across the scalp have given us one of the key tools for studying sleep, the electroencephalogram (EEG), or, as Berger described it, “a kind of brain mirror."

See similar account in wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Berger

Do you consider him as crackpot?

I'm now 50 years old. I planned to get a degree in physics and Ph.D. to explain the last half century of my life and maybe get a Nobel or two (in my 80s since the rest wouldn't do it). But it seemed schools wouldn't accept me so I'm pissed off and want to let out steam by writing a science fiction book. It will not be for laymen but for professionals in multidisciplinary fields. I own over 50 books in neuroscience and I'm familiar with the dogma all thoughts can be explained by the working of neurons.

So in my science fiction book. I'll succeed where even Hans Berger failed. I need to explain it that can stand scrutiny of experts. I don't waste time with fabrications. The science fiction book would be to make me things clearer and debate with myself about it and the all the ramifications. The reason it's science fiction is I plan to get it to Hollywood. We need movies that can make us think even long after we watched it.

 

[jlcd]

Back to my sci-fi book.

A world where all citizens would have access to remote viewing, bilocation etc would put the nuclear arsenals at risk.

But there are equally frightening ramifications.

I'll use the context of Demystifer more fundamental non-relativistic particles in Neo-Lorentzian ether theory he described in his paper (don't worry I will ask him before I''d write that part of the book and if he refused.. then I can just used Witten idea (Yes Peterdonis, I'll emphasize the stuff in my book is not Witten ideas). In occultism, this is simply called "etheric", "etheric plane" or astral plane.

What's the frightening ramifications? For those with experience with the occult. There are just too many entities in the etheric plane. I and many others I know have communicated to mediums with these entities temporary using the bodies (I used to belong to an occult group but chicken out when i couldn't take it anymore). Even Scott Peck wrote about this in his book "Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption."

So a world where all citizens would have access to the Neo-Lorentzian ether or etheric plane would face these entities who can host them.

Some of these entities are so powerful. So powerful that they could disguise as UFOs. Now read this latest CNN news about US Senators being briefed by the recent NAVY released videos and details.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/20/politics/ufo-sightings-navy-briefs-us-senators/index.html
Do you know that as early as May 1969. It's already well known UFOs were related to the paranormal. Why does the Navy has such short memory? Even in World War II, these things were already there as detailed by John:

"Apparently the U.S. Air Force intelligence teams realized early in the game (1947-49) that it would be logistically impossible for any foreign power, or even any extraterrestrial source, to maintain such a huge force of flying machines in the Western Hemisphere without suffering an accident that would expose the whole operation, or without producing patterns which would reveal their bases. There was never any real question about the reliability of the witnesses. Pilots, top military men, and whole crews of ships had seen unidentified flying objects during World War II and had submitted excellent technical reports to military
intelligence.

The real problem remained: What had these people seen? The general behavior of the objects clearly indicated that they were paraphysical (i.e. , not composed of solid matter). They were clocked at incredible speeds within the atmosphere but did not produce sonic booms. They performed impossible maneuvers that defied the laws of inertia. They appeared and disappeared suddenly, like ghosts. Because there was no way in which their paraphysicality could be supported and explained scientifically, the - Air Force specialists were obliged to settle upon an alternate hypothesis that could be accepted by the public and the scientific community. Dr. J . Allen Hynek, an astronomer and AF consultant, suggested the "natural phenomena" explanation after finding they could successfully fit most of the sighting descriptions into explanations of meteors, swamp gas, weather balloons and the like, to everyone's satisfaction-except the original witnesses. This left them with only a small residue of inexplicable
"hard" sightings, which they shelved with a shrug.".

The Navy sightings disclosure last month showed the Tic Tac exhibiting incredible speeds without sonic boom consistent with the above descriptions. It is called paraphysical hypothesis. It can best be summarized by the remarks of RAF Air Marshal S ir Victor Goddard, KCB, CBE, MA , a very high-ranking member of the British government. On May 3, 1969, he gave a public lecture at Caxton Hall in London, in which he cited these main points :

"That while it may be that some operators of UFO are normally the paraphysical denizens of a planet other than Earth, there is no logical need for this to be so. For, if the materiality of UFO is paraphysical (and consequently normally invisible), UFO could more plausibly be creations of an invisible world coincident with the space of our physical Earth planet than creations in the paraphysical realms of any other physical planet in the solar system. . . . Given that real UFO are paraphysical, capable of reflecting light like ghosts; and given also that (according to many observers) they remain visible as they change position at ultrahigh speeds from one point to another, it follows that those that remain visible in transition do not dematerialize for that swift transition, and therefore, their mass must be of a diaphanous (very diffuse) nature, and their substance relatively etheric . . . . The observed validity of this supports the paraphysical assertion and makes the likelihood of UFO being Earth-created greater than the likelihood of their creation on another planet. . . . The astral world of illusion, which (on psychical evidence) is greatly inhabited by illusion-prone spirits, is well known for its multifarious imaginative activities and exhortations. Seemingly some of its denizens are eager to exemplify principalities and powers . Others pronounce upon morality, spirituality, Deity, etc . All of these astral exponents who invoke human consciousness may be sincere, but many of their theses may be framed to propagate some special phantasm, perhapa or to indulge an inveterate and continuing technological urge toward materialistic progress , or simply to astonish and disturb the gullible for the devil of it."

In my sci-fi book. The world population fully psi aware would come face to face with these entities. Is it good or bad? I don't know. You give me ideas if the physicist characters really need to suppress the physics or promote it worldwide. This is the main plot and won't complicate it further to you.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Do you know that as early as May 1969. It's already well known UFOs were related to the paranormal.

In your fictional book, right?

 

[jedishrfu]

Since youre planning to write a scifi novel, I found a resource that you might be interested in.

Save the Cat: Writes a Novel by Jessica Brody

It explains how stories are structured from dual mini stories that weave a powerful narrative that readers will enjoy.

The original Save the Cat was written by Blake Snyder taught readers how to write winning screenplays. He identified ten story types, cataloged hundreds of movies and described the themes and beats that work and those that dont.

 

[jlcd]

Since youre planning to write a scifi novel, I found a resource that you might be interested in.

Save the Cat: Writes a Novel by Jessica Brody

It explains how stories are structured from dual mini stories that weave a powerful narrative that readers will enjoy.

The original Save the Cat was written by Blake Snyder taught readers how to write winning screenplays. He identified ten story types, cataloged hundreds of movies and described the themes and beats that work and those that dont.

Yes I will read it.

I'm still considering the suggestion of some it's just some sector of dark matter that is self interacting and has interactions with baryonic matter. I could use this explanation instead of non-relativistic Neo-Lorentian ether stuff. But I need a critical reason why I should choose one over the other (at least in my sci-fi book).

Exotic dark matter or neo ether? That is the question.

 

[jedishrfu]

Stop fretting about the details and start writing the story. Choose what science you need to make it work.

 

[jlcd]

Yes. I'm starting to get into initial conceptual map to write it. it. One half will be physics and I have to be consistent. It should solve simultaneously many puzzles. For example, black hole information paradox, Bell's theorem, QM measurement problem, LET and special relativity. Here's how.

Black Hole Information paradox is solved because information is available outside the black hole [edited at the request of the OP]

Bell's theorem is explained because the non-local correlations use the ether frame for simultaneity. At least for default equilibrum mode.

About LET. It should answer why it is believed to be indistinguishable to the geometric interpretation of general relativity. The answer is simply the dynamics of the ether and due to symmetry conservations in baryonic matter required it to obey lorentz transformation. As to why we can't observe the LET frame. The ordinary physicists can't observe it simply because they are using physical observer, but not ether observers which can detect the ether frame (any fault with this concept Peterdonis? :) )

Now does all this violates relativity. Not if lorentz invariance effects is just emergent to the fundamental non-relativistic particles as described by Demystifier (which solves the QM measurement problem).

However I still need to illustrate what would happen in relativity when twins in relative motions use the ether to send signal to the other. In ordinary special relativity, this would correspond to some frames going back in time. But not if one uses the ether frame. I think this is explained in one of the long threads about LET a few years ago so will need to review it thoroughly.

Please give advises regarding the accuracy of any physics. Remember it is hard sci fi or i won't waste time on it.

Back to the Black Hole information paradox. Compared this to the different postulated solutions in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
"Postulated solutions

* Information is irretrievably lost[14][15]
Advantage: Seems to be a direct consequence of relatively non-controversial calculation based on semiclassical gravity.
Disadvantage: Violates unitarity. (Banks, Susskind and Peskin argued that it also violates energy-momentum conservation or locality, but the argument does not seem to be correct for systems with a large number of degrees of freedom.[16])

* Information gradually leaks out during the black-hole evaporation[14][15]
Advantage: Intuitively appealing because it qualitatively resembles information recovery in a classical process of burning.
Disadvantage: Requires a large deviation from classical and semiclassical gravity (which do not allow information to leak out from the black hole) even for macroscopic black holes for which classical and semiclassical approximations are expected to be good approximations.

* Information suddenly escapes out during the final stage of black-hole evaporation[14][15]
Advantage: A significant deviation from classical and semiclassical gravity is needed only in the regime in which the effects of quantum gravity are expected to dominate.
Disadvantage: Just before the sudden escape of information, a very small black hole must be able to store an arbitrary amount of information, which violates the Bekenstein bound.

* Information is stored in a Planck-sized remnant[14][15]
Advantage: No mechanism for information escape is needed.
Disadvantage: To contain the information from any evaporated black hole, the remnants would need to have an infinite number of internal states. It has been argued that it would be possible to produce an infinite amount of pairs of these remnants since they are small and indistinguishable from the perspective of the low-energy effective theory.[17]

* Information is stored in a large remnant[18][19]
Advantage: The size of remnant increases with the size of the initial black hole, so there is no need for an infinite number of internal states.
Disadvantage: Hawking radiation must stop before the black hole reaches the Planck size, which requires a violation of semi-classical gravity at a macroscopic scale.

* Information is stored in a baby universe that separates from our own universe.[15][20]
Advantage: This scenario is predicted by the Einstein–Cartan theory of gravity which extends general relativity to matter with intrinsic angular momentum (spin). No violation of known general principles of physics is needed.
Disadvantage: It is difficult to test the Einstein–Cartan theory because its predictions are significantly different from general-relativistic ones only at extremely high densities.

* Information is encoded in the correlations between future and past[21][22]
Advantage: Semiclassical gravity is sufficient, i.e., the solution does not depend on details of (still not well understood) quantum gravity.
Disadvantage: Contradicts the intuitive view of nature as an entity that evolves with time."

 

[PeterDonis]

Please give advises regarding the accuracy of any physics.

You're making up all of the "physics" described in your post. So it's pointless to ask us whether it's accurate.

 

[jlcd]

You're making up all of the "physics" described in your post. So it's pointless to ask us whether it's accurate.

No. I didn't make it up. It was from idea of Demystifier about the black hole informaiton paradox.

Someone said: "Demystifier idea of our particles like electron, quark as relativistic quasiparticles (like phonons) from condense matter physics is great with the real Bohmian particles as non-relativistic ontology.. actually I first heard of it early this year from his paper... and I'd like to ask Demystifier what is the speed limit of the real bohmian particles.. is it not limited by c?"

Demystifier answered: "No speed limit at the fundamental level. (Which, as a byproduct, may also solve the the black-hole information paradox.)"

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...odox-quantum-mechanics-comments.924068/page-5

It's just elegant. The LET stuff is mentioned in his paper too. Hope Demysitifer can expand on how his ether works as I mentioned a few messages back quoted right from his paper. Or requoting it: In his peer reviewed:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11643
"By analogy [14], it is conceivable that all relativistic “elementary particles” of the Standard Model (photons, electrons, etc, which are relativistic with ˜c = c) can be derived, in a similar way, from some hypothetic more fundamental non-relativistic particles. If so, then the world looks “fundamentally” relativistic only because we do not yet see those more fundamental degrees.

Such a theory can be thought of as a neo-Lorentzian ether theory. (For other theories of that kind in modern literature see e.g. [40, 41, 42].) The 19th century Lorentzian ether theory [43] was ruled out by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which ruled out the possibility that the Earth moves through the ether. What we propose here is that the Earth (and everything else) is made of ether. No experiment so far ruled out that possibility, so such a neo-Lorentzian ether theory is a viable possibility."

If matter was ether. Doesn't this imply the geometry of SR can be explained by the same ether?

 

[jedishrfu]

You're making up all of the "physics" described in your post. So it's pointless to ask us whether it's accurate.

Not only that but I feel his mission is to push these ideas on the unsuspecting reader and in doing so the story will suffer a most horrible death and the reader will be traumatized for life and never want to read another sci-fi story again.

Bringing some humor here with some extended hyperbolean functions.

 

[PeterDonis]

I didn't make it up. It was from idea of Demystifier about the black hole informaiton paradox.

What you wrote doesn't look to me like @Demystifier's speculative hypothesis. But in any case, you do realize that what @Demystifier proposed is a speculative hypothesis, right? It's not established physics.

If matter was ether. Doesn't this imply the geometry of SR can be explained by the same ether?

Discussion of LET is prohibited at PF. Trying to disguise it as a discussion of your proposed sci-fi novel does not change that.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.