Physics Headquarter                                                  Kassel 2017      translation

Now that the uni Kassel and documenta have refused support, I simply start a paper headquarter.
Here the upcoming breakthroughs in physics shall be coordinated, in the fields relativity/quantum mechanics/consciousness. Only a few dozens researchers worldwide contribute to the headquarter so far, and they don´t get much support.
The question superluminal speed of information is being investigated, despite fear of death penalty, and it´s about the prediction “Theoretical physics does not work without 4 spatial dimensions and time as localized variable.“ Experiments, which prove this, are practically the end of the world as we know it (Armageddon).

Letters, texts, chronology
2007 http://volkscomputer.biz/4/4.html   physics, psycho exchange particels, superluminal speed through randomness influencing
2012 Zeilinger comes to Kassel, presumably on behalf of the international physics community (=crowd of graduates), in order to install me as successor of Heisenberg. On talking, he instantly ran away, but at least he was actually here.
2012 http://volkscomputer.biz/10/10.html documenta-concept
2013 http://volkscomputer.biz/13/13.html documenta-concept2
2016 http://volkscomputer.com/aktuell/Mai16/mai16.html Letters to Heisenberg a.o.
2016 http://volkscomputer.biz/23/23.html   Chinese
2017 http://volkscomputer.biz/25/25.html documenta leaflets

The Headquarter Program (for research, studying, results) has as ansatz the extensive occupation with the following scientific publications:

Peoch1979      Suarez 2009 and other articles about entanglement, time order and such
                           https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.0871.pdf

Suarez thinks about influences from outside spacetime, but renounces twice the thinking about superluminal speed of information.
To that I have two research proposals, firstly a simple experiment (unsure), then the randomness influencing, as explained to Chinese a.o..

1 That measurement on a single photon depends on the entanglement of the photon is well-known. But that measurement results can also depend on the fact that the photon was entangled a short time ago, might be new (please look up this yourself in the internet, I am sabotaged and cannot study/research quickly because of missing money respectively missing university-collaboration).

The following arrangements of the experiments described by Suarez are supposed to confirm or disconfirm the quantum mechanical predictions (or to just promote studying):

2 Now the program with the chicken experiment:

3 Comment: Suarez meant “I can influence the quantum randomness in my brain, but not in your brain“. Well, he seems to be an expert on what is not possible. Probably he studied that. On the topic consciousness and physics, he metaphorically has to constantly shoot himself in the leg, for security reasons. If he could do more, they would already have dropped bombs on his ancestors. Then he suddenly stands there without body and nobody knows him. At least that would be a reason to get really upset, and wide awake, together with people who understand his situation.

Explanation Relativity to laymen:

”If it´s 3:00 by me, then it´s 5:00 by you. Because one of us is moving with high speed, time is skewed.” - Well okay.
”And if it´s 5:00 by you, then it´s 7:00 by me” - I don´t believe it. - ”Yes I swear. We sort of live in different worlds. You live in a world, where it´s 7:00 by me if it´s 5:00 by you, and I live in a world where it´s 3:00 by me if it´s 5:00 by you. Now think about it.” - No thanks.
 

3.9.17

Inner photon frame, non-local non-temporal hidden variable:

In Princeton photons had informations which were choosen half a year later by participants. The informations were recorded, but not shown to the participants. If you show them, and they change decision, do you maybe get a local parallel universe? This was not investigated, and they left out the work on theoretical physics, to perceive the full spectrum. As I reported to Chinese, they do not have the coordinated ansatz.
A Nobelpricer was against the institute, it was closed after 10years, a year later the Nobelprice physicist died. If the institute had carried on another 2years, he would have probably lived 2years longer.

The institute was supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, against the mainstream. A foundation partner gave a lecture at the documenta 2012, about economic strategies. Like the principle that one has to run faster and faster in order to not fall back (i.e. working more for less money, and how to “explain“ to voters, it´s all exactly calculated). But this too remained relatively unclear and without consequences, like the physics involvement. Thus they should support me, to make America great again:

letter to Rockefeller Foundation New York:
volkscomputer.biz/25/25.html
 

11.9.17

The experiment descriptions leave out coincidence counters, I try to look at it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_counting_(physics)
MITOpenCourseWare
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP60cspQn3N9dYRPiyVWDd80G u.a.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.5098v2.pdf
 

15.9.17

Cleaning the channel:
If a pretty high frequency laser photon hits a detector in a half-dark laboratory every x ns, the detector can probably make it. Without asking (my) technicians, I assume the measurement precision is high enough. So you don´t always need a coincidence counter, it´s not a fundamental proof against superluminality.

Go on Superluminality by Entanglement/Superposition:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.1367v2.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0711.4538v3.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0099v1.pdf
Please always read cited sources. Often that is $1000/article, except if you have connections to an institute. Here I unfortunately only have a paper headquarter without article access.

I´ve not yet read part3, and nobody commented it.
Then at the end of the discussion they do not even tell where the experiment was tried and how it worked out.
My experiment-arrangement above is treated in the article by Cramer, Herbert: P.9, absorber on, Phase- and Polarisationtwister off: “We found Pr(D1)=50%.“ Well how, by calculation or experiment?
QM without relativity probably delivers a wrong result. My as-simple-as-possible arrangement is brought up for the question how they attached relativity to QM. (quantum field theories).
I´m just reading Cramer/Herbert also mean, coincidence counters are partially dispensable.
The discussion on superluminality is obviously not finished, and I should look at ghost-interference/ Dopfer experiments.
I thought that´s undergraduate stuff, instead scientific articles have to be done (with EU-money). Another example: Only in the last two years, it came out that wave/particle-dualism and other basic things directly follow from wave function. (phys.org). I thought that is part of basic study. It seems I have to found a university myself, in order to do decent studies.
 

3.1.19

16.1.19

Deposited at Academia.edu:           volkscomputer.biz/DraftArticlesOnRetrocausality.pdf

(no idea, who or where that is)