The Physics of UFOs: Eric Weinstein + Hal Puthoff

YouTube ^ | February 11, 2022 | Jesse Michels

[SunkenCiv]

[snip] Eric Weinstein is a Managing Director at Thiel Capital, creator of geometric unity, a unified theory in physics, and the intellectual dark web, a loose coalition of intellectuals dedicated to free thought. Hal Puthoff is former CIA, NSA and AATIP (the government's official UFO investigation program). In the 70's, he oversaw Stargate: the government's psychic spy program at Stanford Research Institute. In this conversation, we discuss the physics of UFO's, private aerospace as the keepers of fundamental science and Hal's experience with parapsychology. Please enjoy 🛸👽

*** AMERICAN ALCHEMY is an original series hosted by Jesse Michels that explores the frontier of science and tech. Each week, we bring you exclusive interviews with some of the leading thinkers of our time. [/snip]

The Physics of UFOs: Eric Weinstein + Hal Puthoff | 58:21
Jesse Michels | 83K subscribers | 543,274 views | February 11, 2022

[RoosterRedux]

Watch.The.Video

[ifinnegan]

Are you unable to say what you find interesting or compelling?

[RoosterRedux]

I don’t think my opinion would be relevant to you.

[RoosterRedux]

I don’t think my opinion would be relevant to you.

[RoosterRedux]

"You're here to help"?

In what way are you here to help?

Just curious.

[ifinnegan]

“ I don’t think my opinion would be relevant to you.”

Why not?

I might disagree but I wouldn’t ask if it’s irrelevant to me.

I’m just trying to understand what is interesting or compelling or solid about what these two guys are saying.

[Crusher138]

You don't "update physics"!

Yeah...yeah, you do.

Newton did.

Einstein did.

The list of updates is very, very long.

Our understanding of quantum physics is changing fairly regularly.

If you think otherwise...SMH...

[RoosterRedux]

If you are interested in the video or the subject under discussion, take a brief look at it. You've already spent a great deal of time on this thread so obviously the reason you haven't taken a gander at the video isn't a lack of time.

If you are not interested in the subject under discussion or the video, one has to wonder why you keep asking questions.

Your behavior raises doubts as to your honesty.

[RoosterRedux]

See post #91 above.

[steve86]

“We call time a fourth dimension but it is the only one forcing us to move through it.”

It might force us to move through it, but doesn’t determine the direction. Certain particle operations, when reversed, reverse direction through time. IOW, first particle exchange moving forward through time is exactly equivalent to opposite-valence operation moving backward through time. The two can’t be distinguished. There is no more “reality” to the forward operation than the backward one.

[G Larry]

Did you read my post?

"Our understanding of physics may be updated....."

Physics remains unchanged!

[muir_redwoods]

Let me know when you turn 18 again

[stremba]

Special Relativity doesn’t actually say that nothing can move faster than light. It says energy (which includes matter via the famous E=mc2 equation) cannot move faster than light. Quantum entanglement doesn’t involve any actual motion of matter or energy at faster than light speed. Observer A can observe the state of his entangled particle. We know that the state of observer B’s particle is determined by this measurement, but this doesn’t involve the physical motion of any matter or energy. It is analogous to an experiment where I send one glove from a pair to two different people. When the first person looks at his glove, we immediately know which glove the second person has, but nothing has moved faster than light.

We also cannot use such a method for FTL communication. The glove analogy also is illustrative here. The first person cannot use a series of “left” and “right” gloves to encode a message since he has no control over which glove he gets. Similarly when an observer measures an entangled particle, he measures either of two states (usually a spin up or spin down state), but the value that he measures is random. Observer A cannot send a meaningful message since all he can do is generate a random series of up and down states.

Observer B will have his measurements determined immediately by this, but unless he knows he is observing an entangled particle, it will appear to be a completely random set of observations indistinguishable from what he would observe with a non-entangled particle. Only by actually communicating with A (using normal light speed or slower methods) would he see that his particle is entangled with A’s

[steve86]

It is a continuing mystery why there is a bias in the direction of flow of time.. OTOH, is there a complementary form of us that is biased in the reverse direction.. wonders what it would be like to move forward through time or if such a thing is even possible...

[stremba]

You do almost hit on the interesting an most problematic part of modern physics though. We know that within its domain quantum mechanics always gives the right answer. We also know that within its domain General Relativity always gives the right answer. The really interesting and problematic thing is that we also know that NEITHER of these is a complete theory. They both give right answers, but they are completely incompatible with each other.

We know that quantum mechanics is completely compatible with SPECIAL relativity. That is it works at high energies so long as gravity can be safely ignored, or alternatively QM works on flat spacetime. QM cannot be used when gravity is non-negligible, that is when spacetime curvature is important.

Remembering that the domain of overlap for these two is very small distances and very large gravitational fields, it is easy to see why we did not realize that this was an issue at all for most of the history of physics. The systems we use QM for are ones like molecules, atoms, nuclei, and subatomic particles, all of which have very small masses, and thus negligible gravity. The systems we use GR for by contrast tend to be very large ones, like stars, galaxies and even the whole universe, ones for which quantum effects are negligible.

There really are only two cases where there is overlap. The Big Bang cosmology posits a very small dense initial state, small enough to require QM but energetic enough to make spacetime highly curved, requiring GR. The other is black holes; we can do well enough outside the event horizon with just GR, but inside the event horizon, we are dealing with the possibility of all the mass occupying a single point - the singularity, requiring QM.

The two appear to be non-reconcilable; trying to do quantum calculations on curved spaces leads to nonsensical answers. Likely there is an overarching theory that would incorporate both of these successful theories. String theory was the first attempt at such a theory and showed promise initially. The calculations gave good answers and appeared to account for both domains, but experiments have refused to cooperate. Most string theories were based on ideas known as supersymmetry, in which the known particles in the universe had massive “supersymmetric partners”. The masses of these partners were calculated, and we built particle accelerators that could reach energies sufficient to generate these partners, but they failed to show up. It’s possible that there still are supersymmetric partners at higher mass, but the presence of such particles would no longer allow reconciliation of QM and GR - back to the drawing board.