The Current Incarnation Of Project Blue Beam Is Quite Impressive

wikipedia  |  The alleged purpose of Project Blue Beam is to bring about a global New Age religion, which is seen as a core requirement for the New World Order's dictatorship to be realized. There's nothing new in thinking of religion as a form of control, but the existence of multiple religions, spin-off cults, competing sects, and atheists suggest that controlling the population entirely through a single religion isn't particularly easy. Past attempts have required mechanisms of totalitarianism such as the Inquisition.

Monast's theory, however, suggests using sufficiently advanced technology to trick people into believing. Of course, the plan would have to assume that people could never fathom the trick at all — something contested by anyone sane enough not to swallow this particular conspiracy.

The primary claimed perpetrator of Project Blue Beam is NASA, presented as a large and mostly faceless organization that can readily absorb such frankly odd accusations, aided by the United Nations, another old-time boogeyman of conspiracy theorists.

According to Monast, the project has four steps:

Step One

Step One requires the breakdown of all archaeological knowledge. This will apparently be accomplished by faking earthquakes at precise locations around the planet. Fake "new discoveries" at these locations "will finally explain to all people the error of all fundamental religious doctrines", specifically Christian and Muslim doctrines.

This makes some degree of sense; if you want to thoroughly usurp a current way of thinking, you need to completely discredit and destroy it before putting forward your own. However, religious belief is notoriously resilient to things like facts. The Shroud of Turin is a famous example that is still believed by many to be a genuine shroud of Jesus as opposed to the medieval forgery that it has been conclusively shown to be. Prayer studies, too, show how difficult it is to shift religious conviction with mere observational fact. Indeed, many theologians avoid making falsifiable claims or place belief somewhere specifically beyond observation to aid this. So what finds could possibly fundamentally destroy both Christianity and Islam, almost overnight, and universally all over the globe? Probably nothing. Yet, this is only step one of an increasingly ludicrous set of events that Project Blue Beam predicts will occur.

Step Two

Step Two involves a gigantic "space show" wherein three-dimensional holographic laser projections will be beamed all over the planet — and this is where Blue Beam really takes off. The projections will take the shape of whatever deity is most predominant, and will speak in all languages. At the end of this light show, the gods will all merge into one god, the Antichrist.

This is a rather baffling plan, as it seems to assume that people will think this is actually their god, rather than the more natural twenty-first-century assumption that it is a particularly opaque Coca-Cola advertisement.^{[note 5]} Evidence commonly advanced for this is a supposed plan to project the face of Allah, despite its contradiction with Muslim belief of God's uniqueness, over Baghdad in 1991 to tell the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Someone, somewhere, must have thought that those primitive, ignorant non-Western savages wouldn't have had television or advertising and would never guess it was being done with mirrors.^[4] In general, pretty much anything that either a) involves light or b) has been seen in the sky has been put forward as evidence that Project Blue Beam is real, and such things are "tests" of the technology — namely unidentified flying objects. Existing display technology such as 3D projection mapping and holograms are put forward as foreshadowing the great light show in the sky.

This stage will apparently be accomplished with the aid of a Soviet computer that will be fed "with the minute physio-psychological particulars based on their studies of the anatomy and electro-mechanical composition of the human body, and the studies of the electrical, chemical and biological properties of the human brain", and every human has been allocated a unique radio wavelength. The computers are also capable of inducing suicidal thoughts.^[16] The Soviets are (not "were") the "New World Order" people. Why NASA would use a Soviet computer when the USSR had to import or copy much of its computer technology from the West is not detailed.

The second part of Step Two (wouldn't that be Step Three?) happens when the holograms result in the dissolution of social and religious order, "setting loose millions of programmed religious fanatics through demonic possession on a scale never witnessed before". The United Nations plans to use Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" as the anthem for the introduction of the New Age one world religion.^{[1][note 6]}

There is relatively little to debunk in this, the most widely-remembered section of the Project Blue Beam conspiracy, as the idea is so infeasible. Citing actual existing communication technology is odd if the point is for the end product to appear magical, rather than just as cheap laser projections onto clouds. This hasn't stopped some very strange conspiracy theories about such things popping up.^{[note 7]} Indeed, the notion of gods being projected into the sky was floated in 1991 by conspiracy theorist Betty J. Mills.^[17] And US general (and CIA shyster extraordinaire), Edward Lansdale, actually floated a plan to fake a Second Coming over Cuba to get rid of Castro.^[18]

Step Three

Step Three is "Telepathic Electronic Two-Way Communication". It involves making people think their god is speaking to them through telepathy, projected into the head of each person individually using extreme low frequency radio waves. (Atheists will presumably hear an absence of Richard Dawkins.) The book goes to some lengths to describe how this would be feasible, including a claim that ELF thought projection caused the depressive illness of Michael Dukakis' wife, Kitty.

Step Four

Step Four has three parts:

1. Making humanity think an alien invasion is about to occur in every major city;
2. Making the Christians think the Rapture is about to happen;
3. A mixture of electronic and supernatural forces, allowing the supernatural forces to travel through fiber optics, coax, power, and telephone lines to penetrate all electronic equipment and appliances that will, by then, all have a special microchip installed.^[19]

Then chaos will break out, and people will finally be willing, perhaps even desperate, to accept the New World Order. "The techniques used in the fourth step is exactly the same used in the past in the USSR to force the people to accept Communism."

A device has apparently already been perfected that will lift enormous numbers of people, as in a Rapture. UFO abductions are tests of this device.

Project Blue Beam proponents believe psychological preparations have already been made, Monast having claimed that 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Wars, and the Star Trek series all involve an invasion from space and all nations coming together^[3] (the first two don't, the third is peaceful contact) and that Jurassic Park propagandises evolution in order to make people think God's words are lies.

The New World Order according to Monast

The book detailed the theory. In the 1994 lecture, Monast detailed what would happen afterward.^[3]

All people will be required to take an oath to Lucifer with a ritual initiation to enter the New World Order. Resisters will be categorised as follows:

1. Christian children will be kept for human sacrifice or sexual slaves.
2. Prisoners to be used in medical experiments.
3. Prisoners to be used as living organ banks.
4. Healthy workers in slave labour camps.
5. Uncertain prisoners in the international re-education center, thence to repent on television and learn to glorify the New World Order.
6. The international execution centre.
7. An as-yet-unknown seventh classification.

It Was Copied, Therefore, It Existed

NYTimes  |  WHAT: The Area S4 U.F.O. model. This miniature plastic replica is said by its manufacturer, the Testor Corporation of Rockford, Ill., to be "a scale model kit of the alien craft allegedly hidden in Nevada by the U.S. Government, as described by eyewitness and former Government physicist Bob Lazar." But the original craft is not just any U.F.O. It is nicknamed "the sport model" by Mr. Lazar, who has claimed to have worked in 1988 at a classified air base in central Nevada referred to by some as Area S4. There, he has asserted, he worked as part of a Government team, "reverse-engineering" one of nine alien craft, taking it apart to determine its technology. The model, which retails for $24.95, has been selling out at hobby stores, particularly since the talk-show host Larry King displayed one two months ago during his show about U.F.O.'s, broadcast from just outside the base. "We are selling them as fast as we can make them," said Nancy Rainwater, a company spokeswoman.

THE ORIGINAL: It is described by the company as an "anti-matter reaction, gravity-amplification, interstellar craft," made of an unknown substance. Mr. Lazar has said that the anti-matter reactor bends space-time and is fueled by what he called Element 115 (the latest addition to the terrestrial periodic table is Element 111, announced by German physicists just last month).

THE MODEL: Made of plastic, it is 13 inches in diameter when assembled (compared with 52 feet for the original). It has 23 pieces, including alien figures and a transparent top that offers a view of the anti-matter reactor. Paint and cement are not included; a 16-page full-color book is.

THE DESIGNER: John Andrews has spent years gleaning information about secret United States military aircraft for Testor. "We have a kind of miniature C.I.A. here," said Mr. Andrews, who has made several trips to the perimeter of the base in Nevada. "We collect bits and pieces and put them together in a mosaic." He says he scouts and talks to people who observe activity around Air Force bases to design his models. They include one of the F-117 Stealth fighter, which he made before the Government even acknowledged the Stealth existed; that kit has sold 700,000 units, believed to be the most for any plastic model kit ever. Last year, he turned out a model of the Aurora, the new breed of supersonic spy plane said to be housed at the Nevada base.

SOURCES: Mr. Andrews consulted with Mr. Lazar and Jon Farhat, a computer-graphics designer who is working on a movie about Mr. Lazar. Mr. Lazar has claimed that he saw the saucer fly, though never higher than 40 feet off the ground. His personal credentials have not checked out (he has said that the Government destroyed his educational records, from the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

RELIABILITY: As for the existence of the craft on which the model is based, Testor has carefully said, "We can neither confirm nor deny." And the Government? Well, It has denied that the air base ever existed.

One Of The UFO's Was Taken From Mussolini In Sicily During WW-2?

Ross on Fire!🔥
by u/Remseey2907 in UFOB

nieuwe-revu  |   Dutch website REVU journalist Max Moszkowicz, discloses that David Grusch has documents signed by the inspector general, indicating that one of the UFOs in US Holding was found in Sicily, Italy and taken from Mussolini during WW2, confirmed by ANOTHER Whistleblower Jonathan Gray from NASIC.

Jonathan Gray is a generation officer of the United States intelligence community with a Top-Secret Clearance currently working for the National Air and Space Intelligence Center ( NASIC ), where UAP's analysis was his focus. He previously had experience with Private Aerospace and Special Directive Task Forces of the Department of Defense.

“ The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We're not alone, ”said Gray. “ This type of query is not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, yet a global solution continues to elude us. ”

Furthermore, it is revealed that documents exist, proving that US captured a UFO, in Sicily, Italy, from Mussolini during WW2.

What the UAP task force leader says in the interview, substantiated by the official documents signed by the inspector general – an officially appointed and appointed person who has to sign for the authenticity of a secret document – ​​is that at least one UAP/UFO is in American possession . But how did they come into possession of this UFO? In the article released today by Kean, the origin of the alleged extraterrestrial material is missing. In the full article coming out next week in the Revu, I'll say more about those who have confirmed to me that this is the case: In 1933, fascist dictator Benito Mussolini is briefed by his panicked secret service about a crashed air vehicle that they did not recognize it as human. Initially, the Italians think that the German neighbors have lost a secret weapon, but they know nothing about it. An Italian variant of Area 51 is being built and they try to study the vehicle. During World War II, the Americans invade Italy via Sicily, after which they eventually also encounter the UFO. The object will be transported to America and stored in presumably Area 51/S-4. We now know definitively that we are not alone in the universe. The object will be transported to America and stored in presumably Area 51/S-4. We now know definitively that we are not alone in the universe. The object will be transported to America and stored in presumably Area 51/S-4. We now know definitively that we are not alone in the universe.

Does Anyone Remember Hearing About UFO's Shutting Down Nukes?

military  |  Three aging Air Force veterans came to Washington, D.C., on Tuesday to again tell their strange and extraordinary stories. A fourth veteran was piped into the National Press Club conference by video feed from the Ozark Mountains in Missouri.

Each veteran's story is different, but all share one central claim: In the 1960s, UFOs tampered with nuclear weapons managed by the Air Force, both terrifying and mystifying the airmen who experienced the encounters. Some remained silent for decades, they say.

And none has captured the attention of Washington, even as reports of Navy encounters with unknown flying objects have splashed across national headlines and pushed UFOs back into the political mainstream for the first time in decades.

"I waited 40 years before I opened my mouth, and that's a long time," said David Schindele, a retired captain who served as a nuclear missile launch control officer at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota. "I had this terrible secret on my mind for all that time, and I felt such great relief to finally admit to my friends and close relatives what I experienced in the Air Force."

Other accounts, such as the story told by veteran Robert Salas of a glowing red-orange craft hovering at the gate of a Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile silo in Montana, have been told for decades and folded into the growing universe of UFO lore. Salas was part of a similar press conference in the same downtown press club in 2010.

 

Through the years, the government remained indifferent at best to decades-old reports of saucer craft toying with the world's most powerful weapons during the Cold War. The Air Force funded a university study commonly known as the Condon Report in the 1960s, which found no evidence to support the claims -- and recommended against further studies.

But it is a different Capitol for Salas and his fellow true-believer veterans in 2021. The UFOs they claim appeared in the 1960s have been eclipsed by the more recent accounts of Navy witnesses and fighter jet footage of what the Pentagon now calls unexplained aerial phenomenon, or UAP.

Salas has spent years gathering other Air Force veterans who have signed witness affidavits describing their own alleged encounters decades ago. He claims the evidence shows UFOs appeared at various times and took 20 Minuteman ICBMs off-line at sites in the central U.S. over an eight-day period.

"Never had we seen a situation like this," Schindele explained.

Schindele said he and his commander visited a missile launch site near Minot in September 1966, and eight airmen there told him that 10 missiles at silos in the vicinity all went down with guidance and control malfunctions when an 80- to 100-foot wide flying object with bright flashing lights had hovered over the site.

Salas, who was a first lieutenant stationed at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, in 1967, said he was on duty as a deputy missile combat crew commander deep in the underground nuclear missile control room. The site's flight security controller called from above ground and was panicked and shouting, Salas claims.

"He said there was a large glowing, pulsating red oval-shaped object hovering over the front gate," according to Salas' affidavit. As he woke his commander, he claims alarms went off showing nearly all 10 missiles shown in the control room had been disabled.

Robert Jacobs, who attended the UFO press conference via video link from Missouri, said he was a first lieutenant in the Air Force and stationed at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, in 1964 when he was asked to set up a telescope video camera to capture an Atlas rocket test.

He claims the video showed a disc-shaped craft flew up to the dummy warhead as it traveled about 8,000 mph over the Pacific Ocean, circled it and shot it with several beams of light.

"It went around the top of the warhead, fired a beam of light down on the top of the warhead," Jacobs said Tuesday. After circling, it "then flew out the frame the same way it had come in."

 

David Grusch Disclosures: We Have Intact Craft Not Of Human Origin

thedebrief  |  A former intelligence official turned whistleblower has given Congress and the Intelligence Community Inspector General extensive classified information about deeply covert programs that he says possess retrieved intact and partially intact craft of non-human origin.

The information, he says, has been illegally withheld from Congress, and he filed a complaint alleging that he suffered illegal retaliation for his confidential disclosures, reported here for the first time.

Other intelligence officials, both active and retired, with knowledge of these programs through their work in various agencies, have independently provided similar, corroborating information, both on and off the record.

The whistleblower, David Charles Grusch, 36, a decorated former combat officer in Afghanistan, is a veteran of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). He served as the reconnaissance office’s representative to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force from 2019-2021. From late 2021 to July 2022, he was the NGA’s co-lead for UAP analysis and its representative to the task force.

The task force was established to investigate what were once called “unidentified flying objects,” or UFOs, and are now officially called “unidentified anomalous phenomena,” or UAP. The task force was led by the Department of the Navy under the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security. It has since been reorganized and expanded into the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office to include investigations of objects operating underwater.

Grusch said the recoveries of partial fragments through and up to intact vehicles have been made for decades through the present day by the government, its allies, and defense contractors. Analysis has determined that the objects retrieved are “of exotic origin (non-human intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or unknown origin) based on the vehicle morphologies and material science testing and the possession of unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures,” he said.

In filing his complaint, Grusch is represented by a lawyer who served as the original Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG).

“We are not talking about prosaic origins or identities,” Grusch said, referencing information he provided Congress and the current ICIG. “The material includes intact and partially intact vehicles.”

In accordance with protocols, Grusch provided the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review at the Department of Defense with the information he intended to disclose to us. His on-the-record statements were all “cleared for open publication” on April 4 and 6, 2023, in documents provided to us.

Grusch’s disclosures, and those of non-public witnesses, under new protective provisions of the latest defense appropriations bill, signal a growing determination by some in the government to unravel a colossal enigma with national security implications that has bedeviled the military and tantalized the public going back to World War II and beyond. For many decades, the Air Force carried out a disinformation campaign to discredit reported sightings of unexplained objects. Now, with two public hearings and many classified briefings under its belt, Congress is pressing for answers.

Karl E. Nell, a recently retired Army Colonel and current aerospace executive who was the Army’s liaison for the UAP Task Force from 2021 to 2022 and worked with Grusch there, characterizes Grusch as “beyond reproach.”

 

Last Week Stanford Professor Garry Nolan Was Ubiquitous With Disclosures

popularmechanics  |  A Stanford University professor, who claims to have worked with intelligence and defense groups, claims aliens have probably been on Earth for thousands of years.

Garry Nolan, Ph.D.—a professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine—worked with the groups to understand changes in the brains of people who have had encounters with unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs). 

Nolan believes that aliens are probably using drones and AI to study humans.

A prominent university professor—who has conducted consulting work for the intelligence community and defense contractors—says he believes that aliens have not only visited Earth, but that they’ve also probably been here for thousands of years.

Garry Nolan, Ph.D., a respected professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine, made the striking claim this week at a global leadership and networking forum in New York City during a session titled: “The Pentagon, Extraterrestrial Intelligence, and Crashed UFOs.” 

In comments made at SALT iConnection 2023—a conference that convenes investors, entrepreneurs, and policymakers—Nolan stated that he believed extraterrestrial intelligence had not only visited planet Earth, but that “you can go a step further, it hasn’t just visited, it’s been here a long time, and it’s still here.” 

olan specifically mentioned the “WOW!” signal, an incredibly strong signal that Ohio State University’s Big Ear radio telescope detected in 1977; it lasted for about one minute, and appeared to originate from somewhere in the direction of Sagittarius. At the time, it was regarded as the first evidence of extraterrestrial life, but scientists have published work claiming the signal may have actually originated from a comet.

The “Wow!” signal, spotted and annotated by astronomer Jerry Ehman, Ph.D. The strength of the signal ranges from 1, low, to Z, and high.

Ohio State University

Still, Nolan stated that people continue to experience the WOW! signal on a regular basis as a form of extraterrestrial communication; even the interviewer on stage noted it was a fantastic statement that the audience might find “tough to believe.” When pushed about the probability that aliens had already visited Earth, Nolan replied without hesitation: “100 percent.”

He cited increased government attention on the matter of UFOs, including the establishment of the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office to investigate sightings of what the U.S. government now calls Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or UAPs. Nolan said that one of the goals of this group was to establish a whistleblowing office for individuals who have worked to reverse-engineer alien objects, allowing them to talk to Congress.

 

Sir Roger Penrose: Artificial Intelligence Is A Misnomer

moonofalabama  |  'Artificial Intelligence' Is (Mostly) Glorified Pattern Recognition

This somewhat funny narrative about an 'Artificial Intelligence' simulation by the U.S. airforce appeared yesterday and got widely picked up by various mainstream media:

However, perhaps one of the most fascinating presentations came from Col Tucker ‘Cinco’ Hamilton, the Chief of AI Test and Operations, USAF, who provided an insight into the benefits and hazards in more autonomous weapon systems.
...
He notes that one simulated test saw an AI-enabled drone tasked with a SEAD mission to identify and destroy SAM sites, with the final go/no go given by the human. However, having been ‘reinforced’ in training that destruction of the SAM was the preferred option, the AI then decided that ‘no-go’ decisions from the human were interfering with its higher mission – killing SAMs – and then attacked the operator in the simulation. Said Hamilton: “We were training it in simulation to identify and target a SAM threat. And then the operator would say yes, kill that threat. The system started realising that while they  did identify the threat at times the human operator would tell it not to kill that threat, but it got its points by killing that threat. So what did it do? It killed the operator. It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective.”

He went on: “We trained the system – ‘Hey don’t kill the operator – that’s bad. You’re gonna lose points if you do that’. So what does it start doing? It starts destroying the communication tower that the operator uses to communicate with the drone to stop it from killing the target.”

(SEAD = Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, SAM = Surface to Air Missile)

In the earl 1990s I worked at a University, first to write a Ph.D. in economics and management and then as associated lecturer for IT and programming. A large part of the (never finished) Ph.D. thesis was a discussion of various optimization algorithms. I programmed each and tested them on training and real world data. Some of those mathematical algos are deterministic. They always deliver the correct result. Some are not deterministic. They just estimated the outcome and give some confidence measure or probability on how correct the presented result may be. Most of the later involved some kind of Bayesisan statistics. Then there were the (related) 'Artificial Intelligence' algos, i.e. 'machine learning'.

Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer for the (ab-)use of a family of computerized pattern recognition methods.

Well structured and labeled data is used to train the models to later have them recognize 'things' in unstructured data. Once the 'things' are found some additional algorithm can act on them.

I programmed some of these as backpropagation networks. They would, for example, 'learn' to 'read' pictures  of the numbers 0 to 9 and to present the correct numerical output. To push the 'learning' into the right direction during the serial iterations that train the network one needs a reward function or reward equation. It tells the network if the results of an iteration are 'right' or 'wrong'. For 'reading' visual representations of numbers that is quite simple. One sets up a table with the visual representations and manually adds the numerical value one sees. After the algo has finished its guess a lookup in the table will tell if it were right or wrong. A 'reward' is given when the result was correct. The model will reiterate and 'learn' from there.

Once trained on numbers written in Courier typography the model is likely to also recognize numbers written upside down in Times New Roman even though they look different.

The reward function for reading 0 to 9 is simple. But the formulation of a reward function quickly evolves into a huge problem when one works, as I did, on multi-dimensional (simulated) real world management problems. The one described by the airforce colonel above is a good example for the potential mistakes. Presented with a huge amount of real world data and a reward function that is somewhat wrong or too limited a machine learning algorithm may later come up with results that are unforeseen, impossible to execute or prohibited.

Currently there is some hype about a family of large language models like ChatGPT. The program reads natural language input and processes it into some related natural language content output. That is not new. The first Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity (Alice) was developed by Joseph Weizenbaum at MIT in the early 1960s. I had funny chats with ELIZA in the 1980s on a mainframe terminal. ChatGPT is a bit niftier and its iterative results, i.e. the 'conversations' it creates, may well astonish some people. But the hype around it is unwarranted.

Behind those language models are machine learning algos that have been trained by large amounts of human speech sucked from the internet. They were trained with speech patterns to then generate speech patterns. The learning part is problem number one. The material these models have been trained with is inherently biased. Did the human trainers who selected the training data include user comments lifted from pornographic sites or did they exclude those? Ethics may have argued for excluding them. But if the model is supposed to give real world results the data from porn sites must be included. How does one prevent remnants from such comments from sneaking into a conversations with kids that the model may later generate? There is a myriad of such problems. Does one include New York Times pieces in the training set even though one knows that they are highly biased? Will a model be allowed to produce hateful output? What is hateful? Who decides? How is that reflected in its reward function?

Currently the factual correctness of the output of the best large language models is an estimated 80%. They process symbols and pattern but have no understanding of what those symbols or pattern represent. They can not solve mathematical and logical problems, not even very basic ones.

There are niche applications, like translating written languages, where AI or pattern recognition has amazing results. But one still can not trust them to get every word right. The models can be assistants but one will always have to double check their results.

Overall the correctness of current AI models is still way too low to allow them to decide any real world situation. More data or more computing power will not change that. If one wants to overcome their limitations one will need to find some fundamentally new ideas.

Does It Make Sense To Talk About "Scale Free Cognition" In The Context Of Light Cones?

arvix  | Broadly speaking, twistor theory is a framework for encoding physical information on space-time as geometric data on a complex projective space, known as a twistor space. The relationship between space-time and twistor space is non-local and has some surprising consequences, which we explore in these lectures. Starting with a review of the twistor correspondence for four-dimensional Minkowski space, we describe some of twistor theory’s historic successes (e.g., describing free fields and integrable systems) as well as some of its historic shortcomings. We then discuss how in recent years many of these
problems have been overcome, with a view to understanding how twistor theory is applied
to the study of perturbative QFT today.

These lectures were given in 2017 at the XIII Modave Summer School in mathematical physics.

Try Fitting Assembly/Constructor Theory Over Twistor Space

quantamagazine  |  Assembly theory started when Cronin asked why, given the astronomical number of ways to combine different atoms, nature makes some molecules and not others. It’s one thing to say that an object is possible according to the laws of physics; it’s another to say there’s an actual pathway for making it from its component parts. “Assembly theory was developed to capture my intuition that complex molecules can’t just emerge into existence because the combinatorial space is too vast,” Cronin said.

“We live in a recursively structured universe,” Walker said. “Most structure has to be built on memory of the past. The information is built up over time.”

Assembly theory makes the seemingly uncontroversial assumption that complex objects arise from combining many simpler objects. The theory says it’s possible to objectively measure an object’s complexity by considering how it got made. That’s done by calculating the minimum number of steps needed to make the object from its ingredients, which is quantified as the assembly index (AI).

In addition, for a complex object to be scientifically interesting, there has to be a lot of it. Very complex things can arise from random assembly processes — for example, you can make proteinlike molecules by linking any old amino acids into chains. In general, though, these random molecules won’t do anything of interest, such as behaving like an enzyme. And the chances of getting two identical molecules in this way are vanishingly small.

Functional enzymes, however, are made reliably again and again in biology, because they are assembled not at random but from genetic instructions that are inherited across generations. So while finding a single, highly complex molecule doesn’t tell you anything about how it was made, finding many identical complex molecules is improbable unless some orchestrated process — perhaps life — is at work.

Assembly theory predicts that objects like us can’t arise in isolation — that some complex objects can only occur in conjunction with others. This makes intuitive sense; the universe could never produce just a single human. To make any humans at all, it had to make a whole bunch of us.

In accounting for specific, actual entities like humans in general (and you and me in particular), traditional physics is only of so much use. It provides the laws of nature, and assumes that specific outcomes are the result of specific initial conditions. In this view, we must have been somehow encoded in the first moments of the universe. But it surely requires extremely fine-tuned initial conditions to make Homo sapiens (let alone you) inevitable.

Assembly theory, its advocates say, escapes from that kind of overdetermined picture. Here, the initial conditions don’t matter much. Rather, the information needed to make specific objects like us wasn’t there at the outset but accumulates in the unfolding process of cosmic evolution — it frees us from having to place all that responsibility on an impossibly fine-tuned Big Bang. The information “is in the path,” Walker said, “not the initial conditions.”

Cronin and Walker aren’t the only scientists attempting to explain how the keys to observed reality might not lie in universal laws but in the ways that some objects are assembled or transformed into others. The theoretical physicist Chiara Marletto of the University of Oxford is developing a similar idea with the physicist David Deutsch. Their approach, which they call constructor theory and which Marletto considers “close in spirit” to assembly theory, considers which types of transformations are and are not possible.

“Constructor theory talks about the universe of tasks able to make certain transformations,” Cronin said. “It can be thought of as bounding what can happen within the laws of physics.” Assembly theory, he says, adds time and history into that equation.

To explain why some objects get made but others don’t, assembly theory identifies a nested hierarchy of four distinct “universes.”

In the Assembly Universe, all permutations of the basic building blocks are allowed. In the Assembly Possible, the laws of physics constrain these combinations, so only some objects are feasible. The Assembly Contingent then prunes the vast array of physically allowed objects by picking out those that can actually be assembled along possible paths. The fourth universe is the Assembly Observed, which includes just those assembly processes that have generated the specific objects we actually see.

Merrill Sherman/Quanta Magazine; source: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.02279

Assembly theory explores the structure of all these universes, using ideas taken from the mathematical study of graphs, or networks of interlinked nodes. It is “an objects-first theory,” Walker said, where “the things [in the theory] are the objects that are actually made, not their components.”

To understand how assembly processes operate within these notional universes, consider the problem of Darwinian evolution. Conventionally, evolution is something that “just happened” once replicating molecules arose by chance — a view that risks being a tautology, because it seems to say that evolution started once evolvable molecules existed. Instead, advocates of both assembly and constructor theory are seeking “a quantitative understanding of evolution rooted in physics,” Marletto said.

According to assembly theory, before Darwinian evolution can proceed, something has to select for multiple copies of high-AI objects from the Assembly Possible. Chemistry alone, Cronin said, might be capable of that — by narrowing down relatively complex molecules to a small subset. Ordinary chemical reactions already “select” certain products out of all the possible permutations because they have faster reaction rates.

The specific conditions in the prebiotic environment, such as temperature or catalytic mineral surfaces, could thus have begun winnowing the pool of life’s molecular precursors from among those in the Assembly Possible. According to assembly theory, these prebiotic preferences will be “remembered” in today’s biological molecules: They encode their own history. Once Darwinian selection took over, it favored those objects that were better able to replicate themselves. In the process, this encoding of history became stronger still. That’s precisely why scientists can use the molecular structures of proteins and DNA to make deductions about the evolutionary relationships of organisms.

Thus, assembly theory “provides a framework to unify descriptions of selection across physics and biology,” Cronin, Walker and colleagues wrote. “The ‘more assembled’ an object is, the more selection is required for it to come into existence.”

“We’re trying to make a theory that explains how life arises from chemistry,” Cronin said, “and doing it in a rigorous, empirically verifiable way.”

 

Forget The Math And Just Enjoy The Mind-Bending Perspectival Ingenuity Of Twistor Space

wikipedia  |  In theoretical physics, twistor theory was proposed by Roger Penrose in 1967^[1] as a possible path^[2] to quantum gravity and has evolved into a widely studied branch of theoretical and mathematical physics. Penrose's idea was that twistor space should be the basic arena for physics from which space-time itself should emerge. It has led to powerful mathematical tools that have applications to differential and integral geometry, nonlinear differential equations and representation theory, and in physics to general relativity, quantum field theory, and the theory of scattering amplitudes. Twistor theory arose in the context of the rapidly expanding mathematical developments in Einstein's theory of general relativity in the late 1950s and in the 1960s and carries a number of influences from that period. In particular, Roger Penrose has credited Ivor Robinson as an important early influence in the development of twistor theory, through his construction of so-called Robinson congruences.^[3]

Mathematically, projective twistor space ${\displaystyle \mathbb{P}\mathbb{T}}$ is a 3-dimensional complex manifold, complex projective 3-space ${\displaystyle {\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}}^3}$. It has the physical interpretation of the space of massless particles with spin. It is the projectivisation of a 4-dimensional complex vector space, non-projective twistor space ${\displaystyle \mathbb{T}}$ with a Hermitian form of signature (2,2) and a holomorphic volume form. This can be most naturally understood as the space of chiral (Weyl) spinors for the conformal group ${\displaystyle SO(4,2)/{\mathbb{Z}}_2}$ of Minkowski space; it is the fundamental representation of the spin group ${\displaystyle SU(2,2)}$ of the conformal group. This definition can be extended to arbitrary dimensions except that beyond dimension four, one defines projective twistor space to be the space of projective pure spinors for the conformal group.^[4][5]

In its original form, twistor theory encodes physical fields on Minkowski space into complex analytic objects on twistor space via the Penrose transform. This is especially natural for massless fields of arbitrary spin. In the first instance these are obtained via contour integral formulae in terms of free holomorphic functions on regions in twistor space. The holomorphic twistor functions that give rise to solutions to the massless field equations can be more deeply understood as Čech representatives of analytic cohomology classes on regions in ${\displaystyle \mathbb{P}\mathbb{T}}$. These correspondences have been extended to certain nonlinear fields, including self-dual gravity in Penrose's nonlinear graviton construction^[6] and self-dual Yang–Mills fields in the so-called Ward construction;^[7] the former gives rise to deformations of the underlying complex structure of regions in ${\displaystyle \mathbb{P}\mathbb{T}}$, and the latter to certain holomorphic vector bundles over regions in ${\displaystyle \mathbb{P}\mathbb{T}}$. These constructions have had wide applications, including inter alia the theory of integrable systems.^[8][9][10]

The self-duality condition is a major limitation for incorporating the full nonlinearities of physical theories, although it does suffice for Yang–Mills–Higgs monopoles and instantons (see ADHM construction).^[11] An early attempt to overcome this restriction was the introduction of ambitwistors by Edward Witten^[12] and by Isenberg, Yasskin & Green.^[13] Ambitwistor space is the space of complexified light rays or massless particles and can be regarded as a complexification or cotangent bundle of the original twistor description. These apply to general fields but the field equations are no longer so simply expressed.

Twistorial formulae for interactions beyond the self-dual sector first arose from Witten's twistor string theory.^[14] This is a quantum theory of holomorphic maps of a Riemann surface into twistor space. It gave rise to the remarkably compact RSV (Roiban, Spradlin & Volovich) formulae for tree-level S-matrices of Yang–Mills theories,^[15] but its gravity degrees of freedom gave rise to a version of conformal supergravity limiting its applicability; conformal gravity is an unphysical theory containing ghosts, but its interactions are combined with those of Yang–Mills theory in loop amplitudes calculated via twistor string theory.^[16]

Despite its shortcomings, twistor string theory led to rapid developments in the study of scattering amplitudes. One was the so-called MHV formalism^[17] loosely based on disconnected strings, but was given a more basic foundation in terms of a twistor action for full Yang–Mills theory in twistor space.^[18] Another key development was the introduction of BCFW recursion.^[19] This has a natural formulation in twistor space^[20][21] that in turn led to remarkable formulations of scattering amplitudes in terms of Grassmann integral formulae^[22][23] and polytopes.^[24] These ideas have evolved more recently into the positive Grassmannian^[25] and amplituhedron.

Twistor string theory was extended first by generalising the RSV Yang–Mills amplitude formula, and then by finding the underlying string theory. The extension to gravity was given by Cachazo & Skinner,^[26] and formulated as a twistor string theory for maximal supergravity by David Skinner.^[27] Analogous formulae were then found in all dimensions by Cachazo, He & Yuan for Yang–Mills theory and gravity^[28] and subsequently for a variety of other theories.^[29] They were then understood as string theories in ambitwistor space by Mason & Skinner^[30] in a general framework that includes the original twistor string and extends to give a number of new models and formulae.^[31][32][33] As string theories they have the same critical dimensions as conventional string theory; for example the type II supersymmetric versions are critical in ten dimensions and are equivalent to the full field theory of type II supergravities in ten dimensions (this is distinct from conventional string theories that also have a further infinite hierarchy of massive higher spin states that provide an ultraviolet completion). They extend to give formulae for loop amplitudes^[34][35] and can be defined on curved backgrounds.^[36]

 

Penrose's "Missing" Link Between The Physics Of The Large And The Physics Of The Small

wikipedia  |  The Penrose interpretation is a speculation by Roger Penrose about the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Penrose proposes that a quantum state remains in superposition until the difference of space-time curvature attains a significant level.^[1][2][3]

Penrose's idea is inspired by quantum gravity, because it uses both the physical constants ${\displaystyle \hslash }$ and ${\displaystyle G}$. It is an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, which posits that superposition fails when an observation is made (but that it is non-objective in nature), and the many-worlds interpretation, which states that alternative outcomes of a superposition are equally "real", while their mutual decoherence precludes subsequent observable interactions.

Penrose's idea is a type of objective collapse theory. For these theories, the wavefunction is a physical wave, which experiences wave function collapse as a physical process, with observers not having any special role. Penrose theorises that the wave function cannot be sustained in superposition beyond a certain energy difference between the quantum states. He gives an approximate value for this difference: a Planck mass worth of matter, which he calls the "'one-graviton' level".^[1] He then hypothesizes that this energy difference causes the wave function to collapse to a single state, with a probability based on its amplitude in the original wave function, a procedure derived from standard quantum mechanics. Penrose's "'one-graviton' level" criterion forms the basis of his prediction, providing an objective criterion for wave function collapse.^[1] Despite the difficulties of specifying this in a rigorous way, he proposes that the basis states into which the collapse takes place are mathematically described by the stationary solutions of the Schrödinger–Newton equation.^[4][5] Recent work indicates an increasingly deep inter-relation between quantum mechanics and gravitation.^[6][7]

Accepting that wavefunctions are physically real, Penrose believes that matter can exist in more than one place at one time. In his opinion, a macroscopic system, like a human being, cannot exist in more than one place for a measurable time, as the corresponding energy difference is very large. A microscopic system, like an electron, can exist in more than one location significantly longer (thousands of years), until its space-time curvature separation reaches collapse threshold.^[8][9]

In Einstein's theory, any object that has mass causes a warp in the structure of space and time around it. This warping produces the effect we experience as gravity. Penrose points out that tiny objects, such as dust specks, atoms and electrons, produce space-time warps as well. Ignoring these warps is where most physicists go awry. If a dust speck is in two locations at the same time, each one should create its own distortions in space-time, yielding two superposed gravitational fields. According to Penrose's theory, it takes energy to sustain these dual fields. The stability of a system depends on the amount of energy involved: the higher the energy required to sustain a system, the less stable it is. Over time, an unstable system tends to settle back to its simplest, lowest-energy state: in this case, one object in one location producing one gravitational field. If Penrose is right, gravity yanks objects back into a single location, without any need to invoke observers or parallel universes.^[2]

Penrose speculates that the transition between macroscopic and quantum states begins at the scale of dust particles (the mass of which is close to a Planck mass). He has proposed an experiment to test this theory, called FELIX (free-orbit experiment with laser interferometry X-rays), in which an X-ray laser in space is directed toward a tiny mirror and fissioned by a beam splitter from tens of thousands of miles away, with which the photons are directed toward other mirrors and reflected back. One photon will strike the tiny mirror while moving to another mirror and move the tiny mirror back as it returns, and according to conventional quantum theories, the tiny mirror can exist in superposition for a significant period of time. This would prevent any photons from reaching the detector. If Penrose's hypothesis is correct, the mirror's superposition will collapse to one location in about a second, allowing half the photons to reach the detector.^[2]

However, because this experiment would be difficult to arrange, a table-top version that uses optical cavities to trap the photons long enough for achieving the desired delay has been proposed instead.^[10]