|
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 602
Location: Toon Town
|
http://qedcorp.com/APS/ureye.gif
re: My final remarks in http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022
I first started thinking about retro-causality back at Brandeis in 1961
when I read David Inglis's Rev Mod Phys paper on the Tau-Theta puzzle
from a remark on the EPR effect. I had seen it previously when I read
David Bohm's "Quantum Theory" at Cornell in the summer of 1958 when I
was Robert Wilson's apprentice at the Synchrotron helping it take it
apart and running it at night when it was not in pieces. They had a
shower there and I would sing Gilbert and Sullivan loudly.
http://www.rso.cornell.edu/savoyards/58prin.htm
Photos from the 1958 Princess Ida with me as Prince Hilarion opposite
Jeremy Bernstein's sister Alice, with Ronnie Peierls in the chorus - see
if you can find him.
Reading Inglis it suddenly dawned on me that there seemed to be a faster
than light effect here, that there had to be. I had not yet understood
the real intent of Einstein in 1935 that indeed there had to be such an
effect in order not to violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The
problem was that Sylvan Schweber discouraged me to think along those
lines. I suppose he thought it was too philosophical, yet at the same
time he was trying to get David Bohm to come to Brandeis.
From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Date: January 25, 2007 1:57:33 PM PST
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Cramer's Upcoming Retrocausality Experiment Back From The
Future - new twist 4
"To use this setup to send a signal, it needs to work without a
coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame
University, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double
slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of measuring photons
as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs. The double
slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let
pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon
arriving at one detector should have its twin appear at the other. As
before, the way you measure one should affect the other. Jensen
suggested that such a setup might let you send a signal from one
detector to another instantaneously -- a highly controversial claim,
since it would seem to demonstrate faster-than-light travel."
"Shape of photon" is really the shape of its landscape quantum potential
Q or mode function or "wave packet." In a laser pulse each photon has
identical shape - the shape of the macro pulse itself. This is same as a
Bose-Einstein condensate - all the photons in the pulse are in the same
"single particle wave packet" (equivalent to a Q) i.e. collapse in phase
space what we call macroquantum ODLRO "more is different".
However, even in the incoherent micro-quantum "ensemble" without
macroquantum ODLRO all the quanta in the experiment must be prepared in
same way.
"One can imagine the photons as bulletlike cylinders fired at the
target, Howell says, only each cylinder is two-to-three
millimeters in diameter and up to a meter long. As the cylinders
pass through the stencil, the parts that hit the opaque material
are absorbed and no longer represent locations at which the photon
can potentially be measured."
Controlled collapse?
'It's just like when you put Play-Doh through one of those
stencils,' Howell says. Like the Play-Doh, each pulse that passes
through the stencil does carry the whole "UR" shape, but, as with
the two-slit diffraction pattern, one photon does not produce the
whole image on being detected.
Howell says the experiment is the first demonstration that optical
buffering, or delaying of light, can reliably transmit two-dimensional
information in this case an image. The kind of information sent down
optical fibers is normally encoded along the length of the pulse, he says.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=5116CF53-E7F2-99DF-3B64CF41CFBB5B91
On Jan 25, 2007, at 2:50 AM, AB wrote from Moscow:
Dear Jack,
I belive that the core of a photon may apparently be bullet like a
string, but I do not believe that information on the image may be
encoded in one photon. I can suppose that this photon excites many other
weak photons on the bound of the stencil image, which may produce this
image on target.
Yours, AB
Let me clarify this and try to be more precise. Of course any single
photon detection is a localized point like event and all information on
the shape of the wave function. I am using Bohm's pilot wave theory
here. Of course it's more complicated for the photon, let's use an
electron instead to make it as simple as possible.
The electron really is an extended hard massy ball like in Newton - to
the first approximation. It is equivalent to a "string".
Think of it as your Kerr vacuum solution "geon" except Lp* ~ 10^-17 cm
not 10^-33 cm
e.g. Abdus Salam's "f-gravity" sort of picture with Wheeler's "Mass
without mass" etc.
The electron has a definite classical path rolling like a stone on the
landscape of its quantum potential Q made from its wave function PSI.
The quantum potential Q encodes the "message" we want to send using
entanglement.
The particle here is a test particle without direct back-reaction
changing the landscape it rolls on in a self-organizing way - in the
orthodox approximation of "no cloning," i.e. "signal locality" in spite
of nonlocal entanglement.
Of course we need a large statistical sample of particles all on the
same landscape with chaotic initial conditions that populate all final
possible positions on the landscape's basins of attraction where the
detection is made. This is similar to the chaotic inflation of
Susskind's cosmic landscape whose minima contain actual universes. As
Above, So Below.
So each quantum particle does not encode the image in the EXPLICATE
ORDER (detected as a point), but it does in the IMPLICATE ORDER of the
WAVY Quantum Potential Q.
An entangled pair state electrons a & b does not factorize.
In terms of a basis set of modes, one possible class of entangled states is
(1a) Psi(a,b) = Sum over k psi(a)kpsi(b)k
We can write this same thing in the equivalent Q representation
(1b) Q(a,b) = Sum over k Qk(a)Qk(b)e^i@k
including the relative phases @k that for our initial arbitrary choice
of convenience has all @k = 0.
Where the complex mode functions psi(...)k and their corresponding real
Qk landscapes are the same shape, but have widely separated supports in
the actual nonlocal measurement. This special unnormalized form is
maximally entangled assuming equal probabilities to measure each k-mode.
However, the real experiment with delayed choice UR Stencil will not in
general measure those modes. The UR Stencil is a filter that will change
the above initial entangled state into
(2a) Psi(a,b) = Sum over k A(k)psi(a)kpsi(b)k
(2b) Q(a,b) = Sum over k A(k)Qk(a)Qk(b)e^i@k
where A(k) are a set of complex UR stencil modulation coefficients
defining the shape of the nonlocal signal violating the no-cloning theorem.
In this case, we have a counter-factual, if we did a different
experiment other than the one we do here, we would get a different
definite result. In particular if we measure the k-modes, then the
von-Neumann projection postulate of what Antony Valentini calls the
"sub-quantal heat death" of the "boring universe" (Matt Visser's term)
gives the Born probability spectrum
(3) P(k) = |A(k)|^2
However, this may do if we assume that the above states are nonlocal in
time as well as space.
Let A(k) be inserted by delayed choice (in the relative future of the
detection of receiver photon "b") in the path of sender photon "a" in a
large ensemble of pairs emitted in an intense pulse where each pair in
the ensemble obeys (1). Assume the result is (2). Execute Stapp's
algorithim, i.e. integrate over all the orthogonal Q modes. The result
in the past is an incoherent mixture of modes each with quantum
potential landscape Qk(b). The Born probability of each mode in the past
is then precisely (3) using von Neumann's rule. The nonlocal signal is
|A(k)|^2 that is the image (b) in
http://qedcorp.com/APS/URstencil.jpg
That is, even using von Neumann's rule, if the future delayed choice
filter (AKA stencil) is imaged by the twin photons in the entangled
pairs then we are home free. We do not seem to need a coincidence
circuit. The no-cloning theorem is possibly wrong. In any case this is
what the popular descriptions of Dopfer's experiment seem to suggest and
what seems to be in Cramer's mind at least subliminally or implicitly. R
Srikanth seems to have a similar idea. Hepburn & Peacock also set the
stage that the unitary operators U generated by Hamiltonians H may not
be local. Whether or not they are is purely empirical.
If any of this is true then as I said in my archive paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022 Lenny Susskind needs to go back to
the drawing board. Information can leak out of the black hole much
faster than the Hawking radiation. We can even see beyond the deSitter
observer horizons.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/desitter.jpg
Now the Dopfer experiment + the recent UR experiment seem to say that we
can control the collapse at the sender a with a stencil so that for k = UR
Q(a,b) collapses controllably to Qur(a)Qur(b) =
http://qedcorp.com/APS/URstencil.jpg
Now this step violates von Neumann's "projection postulate", but it
obtains in a NEW total experimental arrangement not conceived by von
Neumann.
This would be a post-quantum theory beyond 20th century quantum theory.
Signal locality is based on premise of uncontrollable collapse - here we
have a new set of conditions. Ultimately it's an empirical issue.
Signal nonlocality violating the no-cloning theorem says you can use
entanglement as a stand-alone C^3 system without needing any coincidence
circuits that prevent real faster than light and retro-causal back from
the future local decoding of the "UR" message.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/in_laser_1.jpg
They are saying local fringes on both sides without a coincidence
circuit on both sides when delayed movable detector is close to lens,
and no fringes on both sides when that movable detector is far from the
detector. This is close to the setup I had in Gary Zukav's Dancing Wu Li
Masters in 1979 before the little creep deleted it in later editions. If
the pulses are intense enough, you do not have to wait. You get a lot
of photons identically prepared in a short time. That objection you
raised is not crucial, though it probably won't work for other reasons.
My new suggestion is to replace the delayed double slit by different
shaped stencils at different times - provided only that Cramer's
original version works as he thinks it might, but probably won't.
This would seem to contradict pair correlation interferometry
experiments where you only see the fringes indirectly in the correlation
data output from the coincidence circuit. See math below.
So now we have this new extraordinary "Dopfer" claim:
"Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were 'entangled', or linked by
their properties such as momentum, showed the same wave-or-particle
behavior as one another. ... The double slits should filter out most
unentangled photons and either block or let pass both members of an
entangled pair, at least in theory."
And also on the "coincidence circuit":
To use this setup to send a signal, it needs to work without a
coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame
University, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double
slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of measuring photons
as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs. The double
slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let
pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon
arriving at one detector should have its twin appear at the other. As
before, the way you measure one should affect the other. Jensen
suggested that such a setup might let you send a signal from one
detector to another instantaneously -- a highly controversial claim,
since it would seem to demonstrate faster-than-light travel.
Patrick Barry wrote this piece for the New Scientist, where it first
appeared. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
Page E - 1
URL:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL
The usual argument that this cannot happen is that integrating over all
possible detections of the the delayed sender photon will destroy any
local fringes at the receiver photon unless you have the coincidence
circuit running so later you can put all the receiver photons
corresponding to the same landing place of the sender photon in the same
batch - and then you do see the conditional fringes in that
"sub-ensemble" of the total. Now Dopfer seems to have evaded this
"no-cloning proof" with a new experimental technique?
|a,b> = Sum over k of c(k)|k>|-k>
<x,x'|a,b> = Sum over k of c(k)<x|k><x'|-k>
The joint nonlocal probability is
P(x,x') = |<x,x'|a,b>|^2 = |Sum over k of c(k)<x|k><x'|-k>|^2
Now integrate P(x,x') over all x' and use orthogonality of the |-k>
states to get P(x)
This washes out any relative interference terms in P(x) - that is no
local fringes.
With the coincidence circuit, you can measure
P(x,x') for fixed x' and see the fringes for variable x.
PS One other step in the formal proof below at end, is that any encoding
you attempt at the delayed photon like inserting a stencil perhaps is a
local unitary operator U(x'). Therefore,
Integral of <'k|x'>U(x')*U(x')<x'|k> = Integral of <'k|x'><x'|k>
Essentially, linearity of superposition, local unitarity changes in
experimental arrangement, completeness and orthogonality of the local
modes seem to conspire to prevent any kind of nonlocal entanglement
signaling including retro-causal.
So how does Dopfer's experiment evade this general no-go proof?
"One can imagine the photons as bulletlike cylinders fired at the
target, Howell says, only each cylinder is two-to-three millimeters in
diameter and up to a meter long. As the cylinders pass through the
stencil, the parts that hit the opaque material are absorbed and no
longer represent locations at which the photon can potentially be measured."
UR optical buffer experiment without entangled photon pairs
"Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were 'entangled', or linked by
their properties such as momentum, showed the same wave-or-particle
behavior as one another. ...The double slits should filter out most
unentangled photons and either block or let pass both members of an
entangled pair, at least in theory."
Cramer's retrocausal experiment with entangled pairs.
Dopfer allegedly finds empirically that entanglement is a nonlocal lens
that faithfully images the diffraction pattern of one photon to the
other photon apparently non-metrically across any space-time barrier in
a controllable way. No ordinary signal has to propagate energy through
the 4D space-time to allow post-quantum nonlocal communication without
the coincidence circuit as I suggested in Robert Anton Wilson's "Cosmic
Trigger" and Martin Gardner's 1976 MIT Technology Review Letter and in
Lawry Chickering's March 12, 1982 letter to Richard DeLauer at DOD. This
is what is seen of course in spooky telepathic "remote viewingbetween
entangled minds." If this really happens,it overthrows mainstream
opinions on how quantum physics really works at the most fundamental
level. John Cramer is bringing back all of these heretical "voodoo"
ideas on Gnostic Magick without magic in physics today.
Dirac wrote in his classic text book "Quantum Mechanics" that 'the
photon interferes with itself." Even though each photon when measured
leaves a tiny localized imprint in a collapse, nevertheless before the
collapse the photon is spread out in a what can be a large complex wave
packet, e.g.
"two-to-three millimeters in diameter and up to a meter long"
whose shape can encode a message. For example, not knowing which slit
the photon passes, in the low intensity double slit experiment, one
photon at a time, the wavy fringe pattern builds up pixel by pixel
because each photon has the information diffraction pattern of the total
experimental arrangement. Therefore, we need a lot of photons to see the
pattern, the "message" provided that each photon in the large
statistical sample is prepared in the same way, in the same pattern. In
terms of Bohm's pilot wave theory, the message is imprinted in the shape
of the nonlocal quantum potential Q. In the case of the photon, as
distinct from an electron or a neutron etc. it's a "super Q" rather than
the plain Q. Encode the message of the nonlocal retrocausal signal in
the shape of the diffraction pattern. Does Nature forbid?
Consider the famous double-slit experiment, in which individual photons
are beamed through a pair of adjacent gaps (slits) in a screen. As long
as researchers do not try to determine which of the two slits each
photon is passing through, light shined through the screen will create a
so-called diffraction pattern of alternating bright and dark spots.
The double-slit experiment demonstrates that a photon can in some sense
"feel" both slits, just like a wave passing through both at once. Like a
wave, each individual photon propagates away from the screen spread out
and carrying the whole diffraction patternbut that does not mean each
photon creates a weak image of the whole diffraction pattern when it
hits the far wall. Instead, each photon lands in just one spot, and many
photons together create the pattern.
The new technique worked similarly. The group prepared weak pulses of
light that on average contained less than one photon. (That's possible
because the pulses were each in a superposition, or mixture of quantum
states; some pulses did not contain any photons and others contained one
photon, Howell says.)
The researchers shined the pulses through a stencil of the initials "UR"
and into a four-inch-long cavity filled with hot cesium vapor, which
acted as a drag on the light, slowing it down. After emerging from this
cavity, the pulses struck a four-square-millimeter region in a single
pinpoint location.
Each pulse struck the region somewhere in the "UR" shape carved out of
the light pulses by the stencil. But generating the whole image required
up to 100 million pulses, in part because a single photon detector had
to scan back and forth over the whole detection region, as described in
the January 26 edition of Physical Review Letters.
One can imagine the photons as bulletlike cylinders fired at the target,
Howell says, only each cylinder is two-to-three millimeters in diameter
and up to a meter long. As the cylinders pass through the stencil, the
parts that hit the opaque material are absorbed and no longer represent
locations at which the photon can potentially be measured.
"It's just like when you put Play-Doh through one of those stencils,"
Howell says. Like the Play-Doh, each pulse that passes through the
stencil does carry the whole "UR" shape, but, as with the two-slit
diffraction pattern, one photon does not produce the whole image on
being detected.
<images.jpg>
Howell says the experiment is the first demonstration that optical
buffering, or delaying of light, can reliably transmit two-dimensional
informationin this case an image. The kind of information sent down
optical fibers is normally encoded along the length of the pulse, he says.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=5116CF53-E7F2-99DF-3B64CF41CFBB5B91
The experiment builds on work done in the late 1990s in Anton
Zeilinger's lab, when he was at the University of Innsbruck, Austria.
Researcher Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were "entangled", or
linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same
wave-or-particle behavior as one another. Using a crystal, Dopfer
converted one laser beam into two so that photons in one beam were
entangled with those in the other, and each pair was matched up by a
circuit known as a coincidence detector. One beam passed through a
double slit to a photon detector, while the other passed through a lens
to a movable detector, which could sense a photon in two different
positions.
The movable detector is key, because in one position it effectively
images the slits and measures each photon as a particle, while in the
other it captures only a wave-like interference pattern. Dopfer showed
that measuring a photon as a wave or a particle forced its twin in the
other beam to be measured in the same way.
The claim here is that the shape of the diffraction pattern or quantum
potential Q is transmitted by entanglement from one photon to the other.
Of course, we need many photon pairs all prepared this same way in order
to decode the prophetic message from the future.
You can, perhaps, think of it something like this. Sender photon (a) has
Bohm quantum potential Qk(a) and receiver photon (b) has the same shape
quantum potential Qk(b) in the same kth diffraction pattern mode.
However, the entangled state of both photons does not factorize, it is a
superposition with spatio-temporal cross correlation summed over many
modes (many possible diffraction pattern shapes)
Q(a,b,t,t') = Sum over k Qk(a,t)Qk(b,t')
where t and t' are moments of detection of the individual photons in the
pair.
Passing (a) through the UR stencil in the future collapses the above
superposition into the single mode corresponding to
Qk(a) = UR stencil shape.
What is new here contradicting orthodox quantum measurement theory is
the assumption that the stencil forces a controlled collapse into a
desired mode or diffraction pattern (2D information pattern) that is the
message. Previous experiments have not had this feature and because of
the no-cloning theorem most physicists will say this will not happen -
an empirical question.
<URstencil.jpg>
Does sender photon (a) in the future retrocausally imprint the delayed
choice inserted stencil "UR" on receiver photon (b) in the past. Is
entanglement Magick without magic Play Doh?
The superposition then collapses to the factorized quantum potential
Q(a,b,t,t') -->Qur(a,t)Qur(b,t')
This appears Rube Goldberg, contrived, but does Nature work that way?
Let experiments decide.
Also, why does the future delayed choice of stencil for (a) override
what happens to (b) in the past?
To use this setup to send a signal, it needs to work without a
coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame
University, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double
slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of measuring photons
as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs. The double
slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let
pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon
arriving at one detector should have its twin appear at the other. As
before, the way you measure one should affect the other. Jensen
suggested that such a setup might let you send a signal from one
detector to another instantaneously -- a highly controversial claim,
since it would seem to demonstrate faster-than-light travel.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Date: January 24, 2007 1:18:10 PM PST
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
<Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Fwd: Cramer's Upcoming Retrocausality Experiment Back From
The Future - new twist 4
"One can imagine the photons as bulletlike cylinders fired at the
target, Howell says, only each cylinder is two-to-three
millimeters in diameter and up to a meter long. As the cylinders
pass through the stencil, the parts that hit the opaque material
are absorbed and no longer represent locations at which the photon
can potentially be measured."
UR optical buffer experiment without entangled photon pairs
"Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were 'entangled', or
linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same
wave-or-particle behavior as one another. ... The double slits
should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or
let pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory."
Cramer's retrocausal experiment with entangled pairs.
Dopfer allegedly finds empirically that entanglement is a nonlocal
lens that faithfully images the diffraction pattern of one photon
to the other photon apparently non-metrically across any space-time
barrier in a controllable way. No ordinary signal has to propagate
energy through the 4D space-time to allow post-quantum nonlocal
communication without the coincidence circuit as I suggested in
Robert Anton Wilson's "Cosmic Trigger" and Martin Gardner's 1976
MIT Technology Review Letter and in Lawry Chickering's March 12,
1982 letter to Richard DeLauer at DOD. This is what is seen of
course in spooky telepathic "remote viewing between entangled
minds." If this really happens,it overthrows mainstream opinions on
how quantum physics really works at the most fundamental level.
John Cramer is bringing back all of these heretical "voodoo" ideas
on Gnostic Magick without magic in physics today.
Dirac wrote in his classic text book "Quantum Mechanics" that 'the
photon interferes with itself." Even though each photon when
measured leaves a tiny localized imprint in a collapse,
nevertheless before the collapse the photon is spread out in a what
can be a large complex wave packet, e.g.
"two-to-three millimeters in diameter and up to a meter long"
whose shape can encode a message. For example, not knowing which
slit the photon passes, in the low intensity double slit
experiment, one photon at a time, the wavy fringe pattern builds up
pixel by pixel because each photon has the information diffraction
pattern of the total experimental arrangement. Therefore, we need a
lot of photons to see the pattern, the "message" provided that each
photon in the large statistical sample is prepared in the same way,
in the same pattern. In terms of Bohm's pilot wave theory, the
message is imprinted in the shape of the nonlocal quantum potential
Q. In the case of the photon, as distinct from an electron or a
neutron etc. it's a "super Q" rather than the plain Q. Encode the
message of the nonlocal retrocausal signal in the shape of the
diffraction pattern. Does Nature forbid?
Consider the famous double-slit experiment, in which individual
photons are beamed through a pair of adjacent gaps (slits) in a
screen. As long as researchers do not try to determine which of
the two slits each photon is passing through, light shined through
the screen will create a so-called diffraction pattern of
alternating bright and dark spots.
The double-slit experiment demonstrates that a photon can in some
sense "feel" both slits, just like a wave passing through both at
once. Like a wave, each individual photon propagates away from the
screen spread out and carrying the whole diffraction pattern-but
that does not mean each photon creates a weak image of the whole
diffraction pattern when it hits the far wall. Instead, each
photon lands in just one spot, and many photons together create
the pattern.
The new technique worked similarly. The group prepared weak pulses
of light that on average contained less than one photon. (That's
possible because the pulses were each in a superposition, or
mixture of quantum states; some pulses did not contain any photons
and others contained one photon, Howell says.)
The researchers shined the pulses through a stencil of the
initials "UR" and into a four-inch-long cavity filled with hot
cesium vapor, which acted as a drag on the light, slowing it down.
After emerging from this cavity, the pulses struck a four-square-
millimeter region in a single pinpoint location.
Each pulse struck the region somewhere in the "UR" shape carved
out of the light pulses by the stencil. But generating the whole
image required up to 100 million pulses, in part because a single
photon detector had to scan back and forth over the whole
detection region, as described in the January 26 edition of
Physical Review Letters.
One can imagine the photons as bulletlike cylinders fired at the
target, Howell says, only each cylinder is two-to-three
millimeters in diameter and up to a meter long. As the cylinders
pass through the stencil, the parts that hit the opaque material
are absorbed and no longer represent locations at which the photon
can potentially be measured.
'It's just like when you put Play-Doh through one of those
stencils,' Howell says. Like the Play-Doh, each pulse that passes
through the stencil does carry the whole "UR" shape, but, as with
the two-slit diffraction pattern, one photon does not produce the
whole image on being detected."
Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784 |
|
|
