[Paleopsych] Re: Ashafar experiment - need help

[HowlBloom at aol.com]

Here's a quick and possibly ignorant interpretation of the Afshar experiment.

Sometimes my mind thinks in English.  Sometimes it thinks in French.  When it 
thinks in French it thinks in ways that it can't think in English.  Language 
has amazing properties--properties to constrict us and properties that set us 
free.

Back to the Afshar experiment.  We're asking a question based on metaphor.  
Which metaphor do the characteristics of a photon fit--the metaphor of a tiny 
crumb, a particle, or the metapor of a ripple in a pond, a wave.  

As the centuries roll on the number of metaphors in our vocabulary increase. 
And with new metaphors come new terms, new ways to use language to comprehend. 
 Descartes could not think of things in terms of software versus hardware.  
There were no computers in his day.  

We use computers all the time.  Software versus hardware thinking comes to us 
with ease.  Our rapidly evolving technology has given us new metaphors and 
new language--a new vocabulary.

Our problem is that we don't yet have a metaphor for something that "acts 
like a particle", a crumb, when we use one sort of detection contraption and 
"acts like a wave" of water when we use another detection device entirely.

So let's make our own metaphor.  Let's call it a "wavicle".  A wavicle is a 
thing or a process (or both--as most things are).  It is a thing or a process 
that shows the characteristics of a wave when viewed with one detection gadget 
and the characteristics of a particle when we switch to another gangle of 
gadgetry.

Now let's shuffle our deck of metaphors and yank out that metaphorical wonder 
called the elephant.  If the hairs on the tip of the tail act like particles 
and the trunk ripples like a wave, what does the elephant look like?  

The elephant whose shape 
we're seeking right now is the wavicle--or at least one wavicle, the photon.  
There may well be other wavicles out there.

Is the invisible linkage between the scattershot bristles of the tail and the 
woobling wavery of the trunk simply still invisible because we haven't 
invented enough new detection devices with which to touch, test, and see 
photons--wavicles-- in their full glory? Or is the body of the wavicle in another 
dimension entirely?

There's an old Bloom theory about non-locality.  It says that when you part a 
stream of photons they still seem linked to each other because they ARE 
linked in a fifth dimension.  Here's the sort of thing I mean. Imagine that you are 
of dragging a tuning fork sideways through Flatland.  To the Flatlanders it 
looks as if your tuning fork is just one straight line.  If the Flatlanders put 
an obstacle in the tuning fork's path, you, the tuning-fork dragger, can 
twist the tuning fork around 90 degrees. 

A tuning fork is shaped like an upside-down U. One arm of the tuning fork can 
go around the obstacle to the left.  Another can go around the obstacle to 
the right.  

To the Flatlanders, it looks as if the tuning fork has split in two. If the 
branches continue to show the same characteristics, the Flatlanders might 
wonder how faster-than-the-speed-of-light communication between the two occurs.  
You wouldn't have to wonder.  You'd see that the connection has never been 
broken.  The right and left branches of the tuning fork, the upside-down U, are 
connected in a dimension the Flatlanders can't perceive.

(I wish I could show you this with a flash animation.)

I've just used a small barrage of metaphors on you: waves, particles, 
elephants, Flatlanders, and tuning forks.  I can use them easily because you know 
their stories and their shapes.  You know the tale of the five blind scientists 
arguing about the shape of the elephant.  And you know the story of Flatland.  
They are part of your vocabulary. 
Now we have a new story--the story of the mystery thing--the story of the 
unknown what's-this that sometimes appears like a particle and sometimes appears 
like a wave.  It's simply a wavicle.  Now we have to determine what a wavicle 
is.  

New vocabulary and new metaphor, new way of asking questions and of solving 
them.  New ways of seeing lead to new ways of being.  And new ways of being 
lead to new ways of seeing.  

Perception is a collective thing that oscillates like a wave.  Or does it 
oscillate like a wavicle?






In a message dated 10/13/2004 3:23:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, Howl Bloom 
writes:
Hopefully I can write more tomorrow.  But here' the compilation I picked up 
by following your leads. It's very intriguing:

Retrieved October 13, 2004, from the World Wide Web  
http://www.philosophersnet.com/magazine/article.php?id=819  Sci-Phi 28: Is the Copenhagen 
interpretation under threat?  Click for a printer friendly version of this article  Mathew 
Iredale  Since it was first developed, some 70 years ago, the “Copenhagen 
interpretation” of quantum theory has been the cause of significant disagreement 
amongst both physicists and philosophers.  Its main architect, the physicist 
Niels Bohr, summed up the typical response to it when he said “Anyone who is 
not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.”  Einstein disliked it 
because of its probabilistic implications, but also because he believed that it 
was the task of science to provide us with knowledge of the world that is 
independent of observers and their acts of observation. And this is something that 
the Copenhagen interpretation expressly forbids.  Bohr insisted that the only 
way to make sense of the mathematics of quantum theory is to assume that 
nothing really exists until it is measured. We cannot talk about an objective 
reality independent of observers because our observations make a difference to what 
we will see.  Another of the architects of quantum theory, Erwin Schrödinger, 
was unimpressed by this interpretation. He created a celebrated thought 
experiment, now referred to as Schrödinger’s Cat, to make plain the absurdity 
inherent in it.  He imagined a closed room, or box, containing a live cat and a tiny 
radioactive sample connected to a container of cyanide. The whole thing is 
set up in such a way that there is a fifty-fifty chance that the radioactive 
sample will trigger the release of the cyanide and kill the cat.  Common sense 
tells us that the cat inside the box is either dead or alive, depending upon 
whether the radioactive trigger has fired. But according to the Copenhagen 
interpretation, one cannot say this until an observer actually looks into the box 
and sees that the cat is dead (or that it is alive). Until then, the cat is 
taken to be both dead and alive at the same time.  Clearly, this is an 
extraordinary state of affairs and yet it has been part of scientific orthodoxy for the 
last 80 years. But perhaps not for much longer, if the results of a 
controversial experiment by the physicist Shahriar Afshar prove to be valid.  One of the 
strange features of the fundamental building blocks of reality is that under 
some circumstance they behave as particles, whereas under other circumstances 
they have clear wave-like properties. This is most clearly shown in the “
double-slit” experiment, in which electrons are fired at a thin metal plate with two 
narrow slits in it. The electrons pass through one or other of the slits to 
arrive at a phosphor coated screen, where they produce a flash of light that is 
picked up by a detector.  The experiment is carried out in three stages. In 
stage one, only one of the slits is open, and the electrons form a pattern on 
the screen similar to that which is seen when bullets are fired at a target. 
There is a concentration of “hits” centred on one part of the screen which 
gradually fades as one moves away from this centre. In the second stage of the 
experiment the first slit is closed, the second slit is opened, and the electrons 
form a pattern on the screen similar to that observed in stage one, but with 
the concentration of “hits” in a different position on the screen, 
corresponding to the different position of the slit on the metal plate.  So far, so 
good. Nothing out of the ordinary here. The fun begins when you open both slits in 
the metal plate and fire electrons at the screen. If electrons always behaved 
like particles (as they did in stages 1 and 2) you would expect to see a 
combination of the results from stage 1 and stage 2. That is, the screen would 
have two concentrated areas of “hits” corresponding to the electrons passing 
through the two slits, with the concentration of hits gradually fading away from 
each area of concentration. But this is not what you observe. What you observe 
is a classic interference pattern, such as that obtained when two water waves 
meet. That is, you observe a collection of peaks and troughs of “hits” on 
the screen, inconsistent with the firing of simple particles through the two 
slits. The electrons appear to start out as particles when they are fired from 
the electron gun, and to end up as particles when they hit the phosphor screen, 
but to transform themselves into some sort of wave as they travel between the 
two.  From such experiments it might appear as if electrons can be both waves 
and particles, but Bohr believed that it is more likely that they are 
something else entirely, something so novel that our ordinary, everyday experiences do 
not equip us to describe or understand them. [hb: a failure of metaphor—we 
need more tools in our kit of concepts.]  Nor can our experimental equipment 
adequately capture them. When measured, a quantum entity will behave either like 
a particle or a wave. Bohr argued that it was the way in which you set up your 
experiment that determined which sort of behaviour you would observe and that 
you would never see both at the same time in one experiment. He called this 
the “principle of complementarity”. Einstein objected to this, but was not 
able to refute it experimentally. It now appears as if Shahriar Afshar has done 
so.  Afshar’s experiment, recently described in New Scientist, is a variation 
of the “double-slit”experiment. Laser light falls on two pinholes in an opaque 
screen. On the far side of the screen is a lens that takes the light coming 
through each of the pinholes (another opaque screen stops all other light 
hitting the lens) and refocuses the spreading beams onto a mirror that reflects 
each onto a separate photon detector. In this way, Afshar gets a record of the 
rate at which photons are coming through each pinhole. According to the 
principle of complementarity, that means that there should be no evidence of an 
interference pattern. But according to Afshar, there is, as he has specifically 
designed the experiment to test for its presence. As he says, “This flies in the 
face of complementarity…Something everyone believed and nobody questioned for 
80 years appears to be wrong.”  When he was invited to repeat the experiment at 
Harvard University earlier this year he got the same results and has now 
submitted his work for peer-reviewed publication. This is, of course, the acid 
test of his research and will determine whether his ideas are accepted or 
rejected by the wider scientific community, although a number of physicists have 
already voiced their support.  Afshar is confident that his research will be 
accepted and that for many this will come as a relief. “Many physicists have found 
Bohr’s ideas either vague or intolerable, but until now nobody has been able 
to show in an experiment that complementarity fails,” says Afshar.  However, 
before anyone starts celebrating the apparent victory of common sense over 
quantum weirdness, it should be noted that, for example, we are still left with the 
situation in which a particle is a wave and a wave a particle. One part of 
the Gordian knot that is quantum theory may be slowly unravelling, but much of 
the rest remains as tightly bound as at any time in the last 80 years.  
Suggested reading The Quantum Universe , Tony Hey & Patrick Walters (Cambridge 
University Press) ‘Quantum Rebel‘, Marcus Chown, New Scientist 2457, 24 July 2004  
Comment on this article here.  Join our Mailing List  Enter your email address 
into the box on your right and click on the button labelled 'Subscribe'.* 
*Note: we do not give out email addresses to third parties.  Email Address 
 TPM Online is The Philosophers' Magazine on the net It is edited by Dr 
Jeremy Stangroom © The Philosophers' Magazine Contact Us 
________
Retrieved October 13, 2004, from the World Wide Web 
http://www.analogsf.com/0410/altview2.shtml
 Analog Science Fiction

The Alternate View
John G. Cramer
 
A FAREWELL TO COPENHAGEN?
 
This column is about experimental tests of the various interpretations of 
quantum mechanics. The question at issue is whether we can perform experiments 
that can show whether there is an "observer-created reality" as suggested by the 
Copenhagen Interpretation, or a peacock’s tail of rapidly branching alternate 
universes, as suggested by the Many-Worlds Interpretation, or 
forward-backward in time handshakes, as suggested by the Transactional Interpretation? Until 
recently, I would have said that this was an impossible task, but a new 
experiment has changed my view, and I now believe that the Copenhagen and 
Many-Worlds Interpretations (at least as they are usually presented) have been falsified 
by experiment.
 
The physical theory of quantum mechanics describes the behavior of matter and 
energy at the smallest distances. It has been verified by more than 70 years 
of experiments, and it is trusted by working physicists and regularly used in 
the fields of atomic, nuclear, and particle physics. However, quantum 
mechanics is burdened by a dismaying array of alternative and mutually contradictory 
ways of interpreting its mathematical formalism. These include the orthodox 
Copenhagen Interpretation, the currently fashionable Many Worlds Interpretation, 
my own Transactional Interpretation, and a number of others.
 
Many (including me) have declared, with almost the certainty of a 
mathematical theorem, that it is impossible to distinguish between quantum 
interpretations with experimental tests. Reason: all interpretations describe the same 
mathematical formalism, and it is the formalism that makes the experimentally 
testable predictions. As it turns out, while this "theorem" is not wrong, it does 
contain a significant loophole. If an interpretation is not completely 
consistent with the mathematical formalism, it can be tested and indeed falsified. As 
we will see, that appears to be the situation with the Copenhagen and 
Many-Worlds Interpretations, among many others, while my own Transactional 
Interpretation easily survives the experimental test.
 
The experiment that appears to falsify these venerable and widely trusted 
interpretations of quantum mechanics is the Afshar Experiment. It is a new 
quantum test, just performed last year, which demonstrates the presence of complete 
interference in an unambiguous "which-way" measurement of the passage of light 
photons through a pair of pinholes. But before describing the Afshar 
Experiment, let us take a backward look at the Copenhagen Interpretation and Neils Bohr
’s famous Principle of Complementarity.
 
Quantum mechanics was first formulated independently by Erwin Schrödinger and 
Werner Heisenberg in the mid-1920s. Physicists usually have a mental picture 
of the underlying mechanisms within theory they are formulating, but 
Heisenberg had no such picture of behavior at the atomic level. With amazing intuition 
and remarkable good luck, he managed to invent a matrix-based mathematical 
structure that agreed with and predicted the data from most atomic physics 
measurements. On the other hand, Schrödinger did start from a definite picture in 
constructing his quantum wave mechanics. Making an analogy with massless 
electromagnetic waves, he constructed a similar wave equation describing particles 
(e.g., electrons) with a rest mass. However, it soon was demonstrated by Bohr 
and Heisenberg that while Schrödinger’s mathematics was valid, his underlying 
mass-wave picture was unworkable, and he was forced to abandon it. The net 
result was that the new quantum mechanics was left as a theory with no underlying 
picture or mechanism. Moreover, its mathematics was saying some quite bizarre 
things about how matter and energy behaved at the atomic level, and there 
seemed no way of explaining this behavior.
 
In the Autumn of 1926, while Heisenberg was a lecturer Bohr’s Institute in 
Copenhagen, the two men walked the streets of the ancient city almost every day, 
arguing, gesturing, and sketching pictures and equations on random scraps of 
paper, as they struggled to come to grips with the puzzles and paradoxes that 
the quantum formalism presented. How could an object behave as both a particle 
and a wave? How could its wave description spread out in all directions, then 
"collapse" to a location where it was detected like a bubble that had been 
pricked. Did an electron smoothly make the transition from one atomic orbit to 
another or did it undergo a "quantum jump", abruptly disappearing from one 
orbit and appearing in the other? How could the occurrence of seemingly random 
quantum events be predicted?
 
The Copenhagen autumn phased into winter, and no solution was found. In 
February on 1927, Bohr went away on a skiing vacation, and while he was gone, 
Heisenberg discovered a key piece to the puzzle concealed in the mathematics of 
Schrödinger’s wave mechanics. When one tried to "localize" the position of an 
electron by specifying its location more and more precisely, the mathematics 
required that the momentum (mass times velocity) of the electron must become less 
localized and more uncertain. One had to add more and more wave components 
with different momentum values to make the position peak sharper. Knowledge of 
position and momentum were like the two ends of a seesaw: lowering one raised 
the other. The product of the uncertainties in position and momentum could not 
be reduced below a lower limit, which was Planck’s constant. The mathematics 
required that any attempt to do so must fail. This became the essence of the 
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, first published in early 1927.
 
When Bohr returned to Copenhagen, he was presented with the new idea. At 
first he was skeptical, because of problems with Heisenberg’s "gamma ray 
microscope" example used in the paper, but he finally convinced himself that, example 
or not, the basic idea was correct. The Uncertainty Principle brought Bohr to a 
new insight into quantum behavior. Position and momentum were 
"complementary", in the sense that precise knowledge of one excluded knowledge of the other, 
yet they were jointly essential for a complete description of quantum events. 
Bohr extended the idea of complementary variables to energy and time and to 
particle and wave behavior. One must choose either the particle mode, with 
localized positions, trajectories, and energy quanta, or the wave mode, with 
spreading wave functions, delocalization and interference. The Uncertainty Principle 
allowed both descriptions within the same mathematical framework because each 
excluded the other. Bohr’s Complementarity and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty, 
along with the statistical interpretation of Schrödinger’s wave functions and the 
view of the wave function as observer knowledge were all interconnected to 
form the new Copenhagen Interpretation.
 
In Bohr’s words: ". . . we are presented with a choice of either tracing the 
path of the particle, or observing interference effects . . . we have to do 
with a typical example of how the complementary phenomena appear under mutually 
exclusive experimental arrangements." In the context of a two-slit welcher weg 
(which-way) experiment, the Principle of Complementarity dictates "the 
observation of an interference pattern and the acquisition of which-way information 
are mutually exclusive." By 1927 the Copenhagen Interpretation was the big 
news in physics and the subject of well-attended lectures by Bohr, Born, and 
Heisenberg. In the next decade, through many more lectures and demonstrations of 
the effectiveness of the ideas and despite the objections of Albert Einstein, 
it was canonized as the Standard Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it 
has held this somewhat shaky position ever since.
 
The Afshar experiment was first performed last year by Shariar S. Afshar and 
repeated while he was a Visiting Scientist at Harvard. In a very subtle way it 
directly tests the Copenhagen assertion that the observation of an 
interference pattern and the acquisition of particle path which-way information are 
mutually exclusive. The experiment consists of two pinholes in an opaque sheet 
illuminated by a laser. The light passing through the pinholes forms an 
interference pattern, a zebra-stripe set of maxima and zeroes of light intensity that 
can be recorded by a digital camera. The precise locations of the interference 
minimum positions, the places where the light intensity goes to zero, are 
carefully measured and recorded.
 
Behind the plane where the interference pattern forms, Afshar places a lens 
that forms an image of each pinhole at a second plane. A light flash observed 
at image #1 on this plane indicates unambiguously that a photon of light has 
passed through pinhole #1, and a flash at image #2 similarly indicates that the 
photon has passed through pinhole #2. Observation of the photon flashes 
therefore provides particle path which-way information, as described by Bohr. 
According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, in this situation all wave-mode 
interference effects must be excluded.
 
However, at this point, Afshar introduces a new element to the experiment. He 
places one or more wires at the previously measured positions of the 
interference minima. In one such setup, if the wire plane is uniformly illuminated, 
the wires absorb about 6% of the light. Then Afshar measures the difference in 
the light received at the pinhole images with and without the wires in place.
 
We are led by the Copenhagen Interpretation to expect that the positions of 
the interference minima should have no particular significance, and that the 
wires should intercept 6% of the light they do for uniform illumination. 
Similarly, the usual form of the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics 
leads us to expect 6% interception and no interference, since a photon detected at 
image #1 is in one universe while the same photon detected at image #2 is in 
another universe, and since the two "worlds" are distinguished by different 
physical outcomes, they should not interfere.
 
However, what Afshar observes is that the amount of light intercepted by the 
wires is very small, consistent with 0% interception. There are still 
locations of zero intensity and the wave interference pattern is still present in the 
which-way measurement. Wires are placed at the zero-intensity locations of the 
interference minima intercept no light. Thus, it appears that both the 
Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many-Worlds Interpretation have been falsified by 
experiment.
 
Does this mean that the theory of quantum mechanics has also been falsified? 
No indeed! The quantum formalism has no problem in predicting the Afshar 
result. A simple quantum mechanical calculation using the standard formalism shows 
that the wires should intercept only a very small fraction of the light. The 
problem encountered by the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds Interpretations is that 
the Afshar Experiment has identified a situation in which these popular 
interpretations of quantum mechanics are inconsistent with the quantum formalism 
itself.
 
What about the Transactional Interpretation, which describes each quantum 
process as a handshake between a normal "offer" wave (_) and a back-in-time 
advanced "confirmation" wave (_*)? The offer waves from the laser pass through both 
pinholes and cancel at the positions of the zeroes in the interference 
pattern. Therefore, no transactions can form at these locations, and the wires can 
intercept only a very small amount of light. Thus, the Transactional 
interpretation is completely consistent with the results of the Afshar Experiment and 
with the quantum formalism.
 
Does this mean that the Copenhagen and Many Worlds Interpretations, having 
been falsified by experiment, must be abandoned? Does it mean that the physics 
community must turn to an interpretation like the Transactional Interpretation 
that is consistent with the Afshar results? Perhaps. I predict that a new 
generation of "Quantum Lawyers" will begin to populate the physics literature with 
arguments challenging what "is" is and claming that the wounded 
interpretations never said that interference should be completely absent in a quantum 
which-way measurement. And most practicing physicists who learned the Copenhagen 
Interpretation at the knee of an old and beloved professor will not abandon that 
mode of thinking, even if it is found to be inconsistent with the formalism 
and with experiment.
 
But nevertheless, the rules of the game have changed. There is a way of 
distinguishing between interpretations of quantum mechanics. It will take some time 
for the dust to settle, but I am confident that when it does we will have 
interpretations of quantum mechanics that are on a sounder footing than the ones 
presently embraced by most of the physics community.
 
AV Columns On-line: Electronic reprints of over 120 "The Alternate View" 
columns by John G. Cramer, previously published in Analog, are available on-line 
at: http://www.npl.washington.edu/av. Electronic preprints of papers listed 
below are available at: http://arxiv.org.
 
Reference:
 
The Copenhagen Interpretation:
 
Neils Bohr, Nature 121, 580 (1928).
 
Neils Bohr, in: Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, P. A. Schlipp, Ed. 
(Library of Living Philosophers, Evanston, Illinois, 1949).
 
The Transactional Interpretation:
 
John G. Cramer, Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 647 (1986); 
http://www.npl.washington.edu/TI
 
The Afshar Experiment
 
Shariar S. Afshar, (submitted to Physical Review Letters, July, 2004); See 
also http://users.rowan.edu/~afshar
 

In a message dated 10/12/2004 3:00:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
kurakin.pavel at gmail.com writes:
Howard -- happy to hear You! 

Oh yes, You are right. Right is "Asfar", and here is what Google finds:

http://users.rowan.edu/~afshar/
http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000674.html
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2004/Jul/hour2_073004.html
http://www.analogsf.com/0410/altview2.shtml

Not only this, but in fact this covers web-available information. No
original papers, just discussions and\or advertisment to buy the
hard-copy magazine. Here's the problem.

Here's why I am so much excited. From web-discussions I've picked up
that Prof. John Cramer is highly optimist about Ashfar results, since
this experimant confirms (in some way! - in which exactly I can't find
out) his transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM), in
preference to Copenhagen.

And John Cramer's TIQM is one step from my (and Yours!) idea of "talks
of particles". In short, a _talk_ (what we two You and me believe in)
implies questions and answers, i.e. -- two-directional flow of
information, two-sided waves. TIQM just introduces those 2-sided
waves.

And then, my "hidden time" idea, as I believe, makes such waves fully
lawfull in physical sence.


On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 02:35:45 EDT, howlbloom at aol.com <howlbloom at aol.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Pavel-- Are you sure the spelling is correct?  I couldn't find it in the NY
> Public library computer system, in Questia, or in Google.  Google will
> usually return results on anything in this cosmos that has a name.  But on
> Ashafar it comes up blank.  Onward--Howard
>  
> In a message dated 10/11/2004 3:00:55 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> kurakin.pavel at gmail.com writes:
> May I ask Your help to find out what Ashafar experiment is. I have
> found out that it is a kind of 2-slits experiment, but in some way it
> falsifies Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is widely discussed
> in web-forums.
>  
>  
> ----------
> Howard Bloom
> Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of
> History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to
> the 21st Century
> Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core
> Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute
> www.howardbloom.net
> www.bigbangtango.net
> Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic
> of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder:
> The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American
> Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society,
> Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society,
> International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member:
> Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series.
> For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see:
> www.paleopsych.org
> for two chapters from 
> The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History,
> see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer
> For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big
> Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net
>

----------
Howard Bloom
Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of 
History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 
21st Century
Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core 
Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute
www.howardbloom.net
www.bigbangtango.net
Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic 
of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The 
Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy 
of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International 
Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive 
editor -- New Paradigm book series.
For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: 
www.paleopsych.org
for two chapters from 
The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, 
see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer
For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang 
to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net

----------
Howard Bloom
Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of 
History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 
21st Century
Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core 
Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute
www.howardbloom.net
www.bigbangtango.net
Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic 
of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The 
Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy 
of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International 
Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive 
editor -- New Paradigm book series.
For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: 
www.paleopsych.org
for two chapters from 
The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, 
see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer
For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang 
to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/paleopsych/attachments/20041014/9b13ff32/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 47834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/paleopsych/attachments/20041014/9b13ff32/attachment.jpe>