Yesterday I blogged about the effort of NASA to study the technological avenues to the creation of a practical "tractor" beam, and noted the phenomenon long known to optical scientists of particles traveling backward along a beam in the opposite direction to its propagation. Well, scientists are also exploring the possibility of an ultra-powerful laser to rip apart the vacuum itself, in order to test one of the planks of quantum mechanics:

World\'s most powerful laser to tear apart the vacuum of space

Note those opening paragraphs: this laser would be (1) 200 times more powerful than any currently in existence, (2) it would be powerful enough to "boil" the fabric of space-time at a pin point, and thus (3) powerful enough to detect the particles that quantum mechanics states continuously pop in and out of existence, by maintaining them in existence long enough to detect their tiny electrical fields, and (4) powerful enough to detect if "extra dimensions" exist, those very extra dimensions so crucial to the mathematical formulation of so many theories, including string theory with its ten or twenty-six dimensions (depending on which rotational version is in view).

I hope you looked at that diagram carefully, and understand the implications of what is being suggested here. Note that in the diagram, ten lasers are being used -apparently in interferometric configuration- to produce a super-intense laser beam at a point, shades of George Lucas' "Death Star" from Star Wars. And the result - boiling a point of the vacuum in order to detect those "ghost particles" - should give on equal pause, for quite literally, scientists are proposing a laser capable of ripping apart a tiny piece of the fabric of the vacuum... deadly stuff any way one slices it.

If successful, the experiments could be progressively refined, perhaps to the extent that, yes, the principle being investigated could conceivably be weaponized. Add to the mix the usual techniques investigated ever since Ronald Reagan's  "Strategic Defense Initiative" such as phase conjugation and so on. This is one to watch folks, and to watch very carefully, for several key points of the standard model of physics could be verified - or indeed, falsified - by this experiment, and from there, dark minds in black places could develop the results for nefarious purposes. My guess? the experiment will demonstrate the current theories and perhaps find evidence of those extra dimensions.

The experiment also raises, once again, the specter that, if it's being talked about openly now, it perhaps has already been done in secret... after all, if this super laser costs a mere one billion pounds, we already know that the black budget of America is in excess of that ever year, by several billion. Could such a laser have already been built, and could the theory have already been tested? Again, my guess is....yes....



  1. AND
    Remember your math?
    A subset of infinity [set] is ALWAYS an infinity.

    Brian Greene skirts around that in an
    article on Parallel Universes.

    Sorry, I forgot.
    It’s easy enough to google him.

    1. If I remember correctly — the {U} is a subset or should I say can be used as a subset of of the U.

      I always thought of ths trick, this slight of hand as being sneaky-logic.


      Answer that one for me? (no usual baloney allowed)

      (maybe I wasn’t paying attention or daydreaming or just plain dozing off when this was discussed in my Algebra One Class. I don’t think I was?)

      1. paul degagne:

        You have a point about bracketing, and it’s one of the great weaknesses in J P Farrell’s point.

        1. I think BRACKETING or framing is a good heuristic “ruler” used to measure. I wouldn’t want to give it up. I just like to keep it in mind it is only a tool and not get caught concrete(zing) an abstraction.

          Here I go again implying the opposite. Sometimes what only appears to be some Unconscious content or Abstraction as we find out more turns out to have a very concrete BASIS [ (essence????) = (its as if we were being led to it) ].<<<<<<<<There's the brackets? (elementary algebra is not so elementary?)

          EVERYBODY has WEAKNESSES —- It " IS "( that troublesome word) a given! Do we use our weaknesses as a strength by learning or do we use them to discredit something we rather not deal with. (it's too hideous to look at or we're too smart and we have no need to look kind of thing)

          It's TOUCHY or should I SAY, 'Touch and Go?" I do prefer the TACTILE approach but watch out for the CURRENT because one could end up ELECTRICUTED! Others, say for an example, prefer or are PREDISPOSED to a Visual Sense when trying to comprehend.

          What is the most IMPORTANT aspect, at least I think so for this chap writing this down, is we are often probably looking at the EXACT SAME FEE-NOM-MEN-AH in a COLLECTIVE SENSE BUT AS INDIVIDUALS WE SEE it DIFFERENTLY!

          1. I might add the reason I prefer the TACTILE APPROACH is because I am blind as a bat when it comes to SUB-QUANTUM PHYSICAL SCIENCe. I feely-meely in the dark! Some one once said, “Turn on the light switch in the room.” Well, I cant find the light switch anywhere! So for us poor creatures such as myself we have to make due with the cards dealt to us in life

            An example; When the power goes off in some office in Manhattan they go underground to find the source or problem. There are huge electrical layouts down there next to the SEWERS. So when something blows they don’t REPLACE the whole section they just REWIRE around the faulty connections. That’s my BRAIN. A faulty connection waiting to happen after it has already happened, ha, ha!

            ( I even heard there are supliments to restore the black empty spaces that show up on the computer screen in a brain-scan. A before and a after — which blows me away —the possibility that is in ALTERNATE MEDICINE.

            Well I am going off in a TANGENT as usual.

            I am in the DARK. [[[[[[[[I’ll never catch up to you people with all this linguistic tech-talk?]]]]]]]]

            ADVAITA HINDUISM (is it hinduism??? not so sure) in a nutshell! Or as they supposedly ask SOCRATES this question, What do you KNOW?

            He pulled a SARGENT SCHYLZE (spelt wrong) from HOGAN’S HEROS and said, —-I am embelishing here—- I know nothing, I hear nothing, I see nothing.)

            Or the third option (in 3’s) NO-THING! (is no-thing a NEUTRAL?)

          2. I am white by the way.

            As if that really MATTERS. Go walk in CAMBRIDGE, massachusetts with a certain attitude and see BLACK MEN say, “IS THAT SO, where are your credentials.”

            Just like Jefferson Douglas but in a more modern SENSE. (but white people better smart(en) up fast or they will learn the hard way just as some Jews are learning the hard way about Rothschild and Illuminati Zionism. The rest are too timid to see with their own eyes.

          3. paul degagne:

            The point is that the brackets are something and that something is itself a differentiation. So for starters wouldn’t that bracket itself be more than a single differentiation.

            Some of the problems with calculus are infinities, but another less remarked upon problem is zero. Differential calculus involves dividing by zero (a version of infinity) and integral calculus is multiplying by zero–two things one is not allowed to do elsewhere.

            Leibniz noted this problem and called that thing/nothing the Monad; Newton didn’t really deal with this problem.

          4. Jay –Thank You very much for responding.

            I read your comments to my wife?

            This division and multiplication of ZERO (representing infinity) —She told me Infinity is represented by a figure eight laid sideways. She says and I agree zero is the NULL SET – it is NOTHING. Zero cant divide anything because zero is nothing. 19 divided by zero is still zero because zero is nothing. Zero is zero. ( Zero = Zero is not truly identical because the first Zero is situated in another spot than the other AZerobut I’m not going to go into a Non-Aristotle ‘thing,”)

            I say this is all very ZANNY?

            I think the difficulty here is in philosophy or the concept of SYMBOLIC LOGIC or INSTUMENTAL REASONING. We both agreed that zero is something so we can construct a problem using that as a basic premise and then be strictly logical thereafter in assuming for convenience sake the premise is correct. As long as we both agree then zero is infinite. End of the problem for us,


            I think I will go back to what my wife mentioned — a figure 8 laid side-ways IS the PROPER SYMBOL for iNFINITY AND LEAVE the KNOTS for someone brighter than myself to UNTIE.

            Again, thank you very much for showing an interest in my posts for it is very gracious of You!

            Have a Good Evening! I wish you well.

        2. On and on I go.

          I once thought about studying the mathematical field of “TOPOLOGY” but gave it up? There was a free video lesson on the net. (It is suggested the student take CALCULUS before this class. NEVER HAPPEN – too difficult and not enough TIME FOR THAT. (time is getting shorter and shorter as I grow older and older)

          Instead of going over the USUAL beginning elementary principles in a introductory course the TEACHER tried to IMPRESS on the class that the ELEMENTALS were entirely the FOCUS?

          This struck me kind of funny. It’s almost like working from the top and working one’s way down. I found it very different indeed for I felt the TEACHER considered his students as being very bright — A WELCOMED CHANGE. BUT from what I gather TOPOLOGY as a mathematical science is TOTALLY DIFFICULT because the SIMPLICITY of IT is so incredibly COMPLEX.

          Like the ELEMENTS in ALCHEMY.


          1. Back to the DRAWING BOARD;

            Yesterday I advised a fellow seeker to go online at MIT’s website if he wanted to go back to school.

            I don’t know if any of You that are scientifically inclined already know this? It may be a good TIP?

            MIT offers FREE and I mean FREE online-courses in most of what it offers in regular day classes. (not including the top-secret material reserved for WHO?)

            FOR FREE MIND YOU! ( a couple of reasons I believe this is so because it’s good policy and also they want to attract or are ‘GOOD WILL HUNTING for those geniuses way out in the margins who don’t know their geniuses ( That doesn’t include me because I am convinced (I sometimes think I am Emperor of the NORTH JUST LIKE LEE MARVIN did in that HOBO MOVIE until he had to pay his PALIMONY, ha, ha!) (How’s that for a PILE of false modesty)

            Well anyway I need to take a second look at the course offerings for it’s been a couple of years since I last inquired. I was seeking a freebie in ANTHROPOLOGY but I was not impressed with their offerings in that Area. ( My wife is a History buff and took two complete video courses on the CIVIL WAR. I learned a few things overhearing what was said on the computer through osmosis about that war. Interesting but not my cup of tea?

            If your into ENGINEERING then you will be BURIED in course OFFERINGS!

            It’s never too late to brush off or brush up on…?

            Now someone will come along in this site and say ‘I got a phd from there or some European University and add what’s the big deal?

            One more reason I come into this internet ROOM? (to get the low-down)

          2. While I don’t have a phd I use to hang around in my BUM days on the steps of that huge Arch-pillared building over at MIT loafing and looking and listening. Kind of like a do-it-your-self field Sociologist or Anthropologist. I use to roam the halls and sit in once in a while in a class and never got kicked out but of course I made myself presentable.

            Nowadays one can look like their from outer space and still be admitted, all this wild fashion!

            if the lecturer fascinated me I stayed. That was until this one building’s second floor got fussy and demanded I show a badge to him.

            This was a couple of decades ago when the Japanese were stealing everything in site from the US. The US Government would spend millions on research and the Chinese and Japanese would just come over here and do a little snooping and get IT for practically FREE. (do they still confiscate computers in dumps or now printing machines. I am thinking I am out of date for security prob. has this covered but they didn’t then) If not they bought procedures for like 50 grand that cost millions to develop.

            But they did get stuck buying Rocker-fel(low) Plaza or did they so I heard.

            They, the Japanese bought up a good chunk of property around Baniff (is it Alberta or British Columbia I forgot).

            The Japanese aren’t no fools — They know BEAUTY when they see it. Westerners are fools when they allow themselves to be BRIBED INTO SUBMISSION. (so much for you WHITE FOLKS unlike me Who have RESENTMENTS in the cultural WARS battlefronts!

            ANTOINE IS NOT WRONG!.

            He’s just showing us the FACTS OF LIFE even if it’s slightly off the mark.

            OH yes, I was reminded of that COMEDIAN from the title of one of these above Farrell articles—

            ANTOINE — YOU LOOK LIKE —-BILL MURRY! (At least to me you do)

      2. Sorry, I had ‘set theory’ taught separately from algebra
        and your logic, Paul, is a one day, one time only deal.

        Now you have to wait for another ‘infinity’ to bring it up
        what the heck are you talking ABOUT?

        And Jay………….
        I take it that Bob Dylan was high on LSD when he ‘said’ that (?)

        1. HAL838

          Yes drugs are an excuse used by those who can’t imagine comprehension.

          Did you see what Steve Jobs said about LSD?

          1. No, but I just acquired his bio, so haven’t read it yet.
            Some of the things I DID hear sounded interesting.

            I’ve got 2 biographies to finish yet.

    2. HAL838:

      “Inside the museums infinity goes up on trial.” and also “Love minus zero over no limit, you see it’s a fraction.”

      Bob Dylan

  2. BTW
    “mind” and “conciousness” are, perhaps technically, two different thngs,
    although they usually come together; it is a very important
    tecchnicality. !!

  3. Yes, Joseph.
    Right again.

    Along with Quantum Computers.
    THEY have been there, done that.

    Not content to ‘own’ the people and destroy the planet,
    THEY have already moved on to ‘capture’ the Universe.

    INSANE GREED knows no bounds.
    Never forget that !

  4. Part of the problem here, as often happens when terms are used in both science and “common” life, is that definitions have to be understood and reconciled first. This confusion is made worse by the near total lack of understanding by those who are reporting these ideas and trying to reframe the language to make it “understandable” to the “Great Unwashed.”

    The “vacuum” as meant in physics is NOT about “empty space;” it is about the entire energetic geometry of our physical universe. “The vacuum” exists right where you sit, in the middle of the Sun, and everywhere. It is not about empty space – it is about a layer of geometric and energetic existence. The confusion is generated by common usage of the word. Everything you see, touch, hear, etc., is part of the vacuum. Actually, more properly called the active vacuum.

    The particles in question are virtual, NOT non-existent. They are “non-observable” from our “normal” energetic state in what we think of as reality. The so-called “fabric of spacetime” is created as these virtual particles “bubble” up into observable states, and ‘disappear” again as their energy state changes. That flux, the sea of quantum foam, as it has been called, is the stuff from which our entire physical existence springs forth. It is the canvas upon which our energetic natures impress themselves to create a physically perceivable world. It is not limited to a certain number of dimensions. (But that is even harder to grasp.)

    And who says energy can neither be created nor destroyed? That is an observation based on technology before the electron was even dreamt of. We need to get over the idea that our scientific models are “universal Laws” – they are not. It may or may not be true. The only way to be sure it to be able to measure the entire Universe for all time. Not likely.

    So, forget about solid matter – there ain’t no such animal. It is all energetic interactions between various kinds of extremely complex waveforms which form nodes and standing waves we “perceive” as solid. It is all energy fields bumping into each other – no “matter” ever touches. All matter is very intricate, very dense patterns of standing waves, bumping into each other’s energetic fields.

    If it helps, think of ocean waves – they are “virtual” until the energetic conditions are right for them to form – then they go away. The ocean is the sum of all possible virtual waves, non-observable until their energy allows them to create a physical form we can see. The waves come and go, but the ocean stays – forever changing – forever the same. The surface is the “event horizon” of the ocean wave – the threshold for the wave to become observable.

    There are deep ocean currents which we cannot perceive – they are “non-observable.” They move and turn and create massive effects on our planet, yet without the understanding and (more importantly) the instrumentation to detect them, they are little more than myth. We can observe their effects and try to make sense of them, but without the entire picture, we cannot completely understand the true nature of their reality.

    This is “The Void” of certain philosophies – the sum total of all possible things in a virtual state – non-observable, but real and actual, ready to form under the right conditions. The patterns for all possible forms exist, waiting to be manifest when the right conditions present themselves. This is where mysticism and physics meet. I believe this is what the Greeks were talking about when they discussed “perfect forms.”

    This might also have something to do with the ancients’ references to the ocean as regards their technology.

    1. So when this news article refers to ripping apart “the vacuum of space ” then it is NOT talking about ripping space apart but IS talking about ripping an aether-like medium that exists within space, this aether-like medium being referred to as ‘the vacuum’.

      Is this what you mean?

      1. OIC.

        vac·u·um [vak-yoom, -yoo-uhm, -yuhm]

        6. Physics. a state of lowest energy in a quantum field theory.

      2. There is no vacuum.
        There is no ‘space.’

        ALL is contained within a singularity,
        which is an infinity, which = zero.

        A complete circle is an infinite line.
        Once it is broken, it becomes finite.

        A subset of infinity is always infinity.
        Zero is the only infinity there can be.

        I think I put up some books on this earlier.
        I will again, if asked.

        1. And infinity has nothing to do with time,
          such as forever and such.

          Infinity MAY be thought of ‘all within.’

          1. Since infinity = zero
            timelessness, you could also
            imply / infer that set ‘zero’ and set ‘infinity’
            are also equal as the subset of each also equals
            the original set.

            My “nonsense” is now complete.
            Thank you for your patience.

          2. Here’s more nonsense from R. Antone Wilson:

            If not, let us proceed. Alfred Korzybski, mentioned here several
            times (and a strong influence even when not mentioned), urged that
            our thinking could become more scientific if we used mathematical
            subscripts more often.
            Thinking about this one day, I came up with the following
            analog of Dunne’s argument without even using his infinite time
            I observe that I have a mind. Following Korzybski, let us call
            this observed mind, mind 1 (one).
            But I observe that I have a mind that can observe mind1. Let us
            call this self-observing mind, mind2(two).
            Mind2 which observes mind1 can in turn become the object of
            observation. (a little experience in Buddhist self-observation will
            confirm this experimentally.) The observer of mind2 then requires
            its own name, so we will call it mind3(three).
            And so on… to infinity, once again.
            Of course, having mentioned Buddhism, I might in fairness add
            that the Buddhist would not accept “I observe that I have a
            mind.” The Buddhist would say “I observe that I have a tendency
            to posit a mind.”
            But that, perhaps, allows the FELIX DOMESTICUS to escape the
            gunnysack, as Mr. Fields would say.

          1. Not really. All is mind (consciousness), this is why it is infinite, this is why it was called illusion, hologram, etc.

  5. Hasn’t this already been written about by that guy from Oxford…what’s his name… ah, Farrell or something like that? Isn’t this what caused the asteroid belt when that that husband and wife team got into a cosmic squabble all those years ago?

  6. Robert Barricklow

    Jay Leno did a joke on this Friday night, in quipping, that the experimental ripping apart the very fabric of space-time itself: “Well …

    WHAT could possibly go wrong with THAT!?”.

  7. and (4) powerful enough to detect if “extra dimensions” exist, those very extra dimensions so crucial to the mathematical formulation of so many theories, including string theory with its ten or twenty-six dimensions (depending on which rotational version is in view).

    Anyone who has taken LSD can tell you there are indeed ‘extra dimensions.’

  8. I have always had difficulty believing that particles, whether in electrically coupled pairs or as singularities, can come into existence and go out of existence from “the vacuum.” The vacuum is portrayed as NOTHING, nothing but space.

    Space, as such, has NO fabric. It is simply…space. On the other hand, if space does have a “fabric” as in “from the fabric of space itself,” then “space” is something more than just space; it is a medium that space…SPACE…is just a component of.

    Also, it is commonly taught, in college if not in elementary school (I was taught this in the latter.), that “Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. It merely changes form.” So how then can particles be “pop in and out of existence?”

    It stands to reason that concentrating enough energy into a small enough space will impart [via E = mc^2(?)] this energy into that space and this energy can convert into mass and become a particle. However, this is NOT what quantum mechanics is talking about when it speaks of “particles that pop in and out of existence.”

    What IS being referred to is that space, the “vacuum,” a vacuum being defined at the very least as something with all the air and other matter pumped out of it and therefore exhibiting zero force against anything else, is particles popping into and out of existence due to space being STRESSED. How can “nothing” be stressed?

    But this takes us right back to the beginning and voids the premise that “space” is just space and implies that space is more than just space; space, geometric space, being a component of what is referred to as the vacuum of space. Otherwise there is NO “fabric.”

    As far as I know, geometric space is a collection of points. So what are points? I was taught that “points are undefined.” What, exactly, are we talking about here?

    “Where’s all this leading to, Mr. Garrison?”
    —Clay Shaw in the movie ‘JFK’

    1. “Space is empty”? That’s a mistake, well even Tesla appears to have made that one.

      Read: Feynman, David Bohm or Wheeler, or the Michelson-Morely experiment, or alternatively Wilhelm Reich, T Beardan, etc, or just ask how a magnet pulls at a piece of iron across empty space. The answer to that last is NOT that the spins of electrons are lined up in the magnetic material, that condition is only a doorway to a form of vacuum coherence.

        1. In “functionality of reality?” This is a meaningless statement.

          One thing that Tesla did say, and Dr. Farrell quotes this in one of his books, is that, regarding gravity bending space through relativistic effects, “This would mean that SOMETHING acts on NOTHING which is impossible.”

          I ask you to please quote Tesla’s remark that you reference so that I can read what Tesla actually said rather than for me to have to rely on your hearsay.

          1. HERE YE, HERE YE.

            O-YAY…O-YAY…O-YAY !!!

            WEB-BOT alert:

            Not only is “Jay” a web-bot, designed to obtain a reply from you, but so is “Spirit Splice.” I have already ceased responding to Jay-bot. Now I am going to cease wasting my time with “Spirit Splice.”

          2. Correction:

            Should I have said “HEAR Ye?” Oh well. Take it up with the “AY-Leet” if you don’t like it. It’s JUST a web blog.

          3. You seem to be becoming more unhinged each week. Is this how you ignore those who disagree with you?

          4. Perhaps I am incorrect. Perhaps you are just one of those people who do everything they possibly can to keep from answering someone else’s question. And then they call this answering the question that was just asked.

            So here, for all to see that I am true and correct, is my question again:

            I ask you to please quote Tesla’s remark that you reference so that I can read what Tesla actually said rather than for me to have to rely on your hearsay.

        2. Spirit Splice:

          I have to say that I agree with Citizen Quasar here. There is that big problem with Tesla’s objection to General Relativity. Tesla said space is nothingness.

          If you know that Tesla quotation to be made up, please provide a reference.

          1. I think you two are misunderstanding his use of words. Since tesla clearly believed in need for an aether, through which longitudinal waves were required to propagate, he would not have considered space to be empty. So I think it is clear that Tesla did not mean what you are assuming him to mean.

            What the Einstein reference was speaking to, IMO, is that if Einstein were to throw out the Aether, there would be nothing left to bend, as space would then be completely empty, hence his incredulity.

            Tesla, like most all before Einstein, took the Aether (which Joseph calls the physical medium) as a given, a given that was inherent to physical reality and necessary to their system of thought. Waves cannot propagate through nothing, ergo aether.

          2. Spirit Splice:

            Yes, you are pointing to a logical problem with Tesla’s purported critique of General Relativity; I’d long ago thought of the same problem.

            Now you have to explain why Tesla said what he said about General Relativity and nothingness. And the problem is that Einstein did basically throw out the ether (with the possible exception of the cosmological constant, which he called a mistake.)

            Current public physics most certainly has waves propagating thru nothing. (Don’t forget my example of simple magnet stuck on your fridge door, then there’s the whole sun’s radiation heating the earth thing.)

            A trick, of course, is to call the ether time.

          3. Quasar, are you suggesting that Tesla was not a proponent of Aether? Good luck getting traction with that assertion.

        3. Hey Spirit,
          Do you want to help complete my
          ‘incomplete nonsense’?

          YOU are catching on !
          Definately with “functionality of Reality.”
          oooooooo weeeeeeeeee……….
          I love it !

          1. I have a ‘start-up’ information business.

            “HAL Enterprises”
            Want to share?
            Where did you get such an esoteric expression?

            It’s beautiful !
            [Only an English and Physics major would think that way]
            I mean me, of course 🙂

            Thanks, I’ll stay on the board for now and
            explain later.

  9. Dashiell Cabasa

    i reckon your guess, is spot on Jo…given the usual form: as Dad used to say, anything they tell you about is already out of date etc etc

    Riveting as ever Sir

  10. Kinda of sad that it probably already exists and is not being used to say clean up nuclear waste in quantity.

    Then think of the possibilities for such a device miniaturized and perfected as a surgical tool–retweaking the quantum states of the atoms comprising say a spinal nerve, and thereby fixing paralysis.

    Or one could simply intersect beams of cohered vacuum and do many of the same things, probably a lot cheaper too.

Comments are closed.