Sunday, December 8, 2013

Quantum Entangled Wormholes in Your Wallet

In their recently published work, Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria, Canada, Andreas Karch of the University of Washington, Seattle and, Julian Sonner of MIT, Cambridge have been offering theoretical models regarding the nature of quantum entanglement of quarks “separated” by considerable distances.  Describing the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) pair dynamic in which the measurement of one particle simultaneously imparts an effect on the other in the pair, they applied two different mathematical models to ‘measure’ entanglement.  Using different approaches, Jensen & Karch’s model of quarks accelerating through oppositional distance and Sonner’s model of the Schwinger effect of quark/antiquark creation, both suggest that wormholes (in which space, time and other dimensions are extremely contorted) may be capable of facilitating transfer dynamics between black holes.  The theoretical framework suggesting that black holes (massive matter and energy dynamos) and quarks (infinitesimally minute subatomic particles) traffic in wormhole-laced interactions is a delightful reprise of millennia’s past wisdom stating that things are more connected than they seem.

Now before you get concerned that you are reading the wrong blog here, rest easy.  There’s a wormhole between this preamble and the economics to which you’ve become accustomed.  And I’m being a bit more literal here than you might first expect.  The Einstein-Rosen (ER) Bridge that theoretically links two (or more) points in space for simultaneity of existence is thought to be devoid of information transfer potential.  In other words, while parallel universe expressions are certain, progressive or simultaneous sentience is theoretically implausible.

This week, WikiLeaks released information from Stratfor, a strategic advisory consultancy serving government, energy, and industrial clients.  Their threat anticipation advice regarding environmental groups’ opposition to fracking and other North American fossil fuel ventures failed to anticipate their own ‘black swan’ event of being hacked and having their advice made public.  Apparently, they also failed to anticipate being stiffed $14,890 for work that they had done for Suncor.  They correctly estimated that energy firms should pay limited attention to most environmental activist efforts because many of these groups have “too little political influence” to rise to the level of concern.  They bet on the quantum entanglement between fuel ventures and politicians (near infinite mass and energy condensing in infinitely dense space) and won.  But they seemed to overlook that what’s good for the black hole is also good for the quark. 

It was amusing to see that the purported clients sponsoring the presentations that were leaked deny having seen them.  The hubris (the idea that information cannot be deciphered through wormholes) of giving misleading or false responses when ‘caught’ or ‘found out’ is a malignancy that seems to be metastasizing throughout the political and corporate ecosystem.  Sociopathic self-preservation at all costs seems to be the default mode rather than the nostalgic Watergate extravagance it once was.  Extractive industries lie about environments and profits, Apple lies about innovation, Government Sponsored Enterprises lie about fiduciary liquidity, and We the People are simply supposed to accept this fare of deceit as the status quo.

But here’s the problem that strikes me as the evident conclusion from the work of Jensen, Karch, and Sonner; what if events are connected?  What if a $4 trillion Federal Reserve balance sheet actually has to be monetized?  What if tens of millions of permanently discouraged workers get tired of being told that unemployment is stabilizing or improving because they’re no longer being counted in any statistic?  What if the apparent ineffectiveness of intervention is actually building an amazing amount of energy in a system we’re not perceiving nor measuring? 

These are theoretical and rhetorical questions on one level but they’re quite tangible on another.  In 2008-2009, the public was awestruck with the notional value of credit default swaps (CDS) which exceeded the world’s GDP by a considerable margin.  Now, if you go back to 2006, you’ll see that the public was in love with CDS – they just didn’t know it by its name.  Back then it was called mortgage refinancing and it was all the rage.  I heard numerous friends and colleagues celebrating massive ‘interest only’ loans, super jumbos, and other irrationally labeled products.  They were building black holes in one dimension without discerning the worm holes connecting excesses of the mid-2000s to 2008.  When was the crisis?  Spoiler alert – it’s not when you are paying for the consequences of bad behavior; rather, it’s during the mindless preamble during which care and attention is neglected.

In the dimension in which Stratfor operated – a dimension in which their own self-importance is a reflection of the arrogance and confidence of their clients – their assessment was correctly focused on the risk of getting caught by someone who could have sufficient influence to alter behavior they and their clients knew had damaging consequences.  Like last week’s post reflecting on the Union Carbide environmental liabilities, it was not about whether behavior should or should not be engaged.  Their focus was on getting caught and the associated risk to self-interest.

But we’re not better for WikiLeaks.  We didn’t find out anything that we didn’t already know.  And now that we know that a few oil companies didn’t give any mind to a few environmental groups, is there anything about our behavior that we’ll change?  Is there any action that will be altered?  The same protestors will protest.  The same condescending business executives will hold humanity in disdain while cashing the funds flowing out of the self-righteous wallets of fuel-addicted protestors.  And neither will be paying attention to the point in space across the wormhole – that space where consequence and consciousness actually cohabitate.

The Stratfor-gate (doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it?) is another example of irrelevant vigilante fuel on both sides of the fracking battleground.  The likelihood that any part of North Dakota or Canada will be undrilled because of this week’s revelations is measured in single digits, … to the right of the decimal point.  The likelihood that consumers will pay more for their fuel addiction is certain.  Like the patent litigation, agriculture subsidies, and trade wars that tack immoral tariffs on our various addictions, we mysteriously pay more for behavior that we appreciate less and less.  We are entangled particles in an entangled ecosystem.   The more you defend yourself in ‘not knowing’ or ‘not caring’, the more you’re fueling the problem – and giving Stratfor more reason to hold you and your world in contempt.


1 comment:


    1) “What if the apparent ineffectiveness of intervention is actually building an amazing amount of energy in a system we’re not perceiving nor measuring?”

    Thank you for helping me understand the tremendous constructive potential of this kind of energy build-up during our recent visit to M-CAM. Now I understand that with the right understanding and preparation, a build-up of “negative energy” can be flipped and used to generate tremendous constructive movement—without the effort or struggle that we often assume is necessary. Rather, the energy itself can do the work for us, once the understanding is in place to enable the various elements to be appropriately aligned.

    2) “. . . that space where consequence and consciousness actually cohabitate”

    What an elegant, effective, profound and inspiring expression. Someone should make a piece of artwork, or compose a piece of music, or post a blog comment (that's me!) to develop this further.

    When I first read this phrase when you posted it in December it reminded me immediately of the thoughts you expressed passionately in your talk at the 2013 Breakthrough Energy Movement conference in Boulder. You were explaining to a roomful of innovators that one’s mindset cannot be separated from the results of actions undertaken from that mindset. (You were referring specifically to the connection between innovators’ perceived lack of funding being given as an explanation for lack of progress, and their lack of success in obtaining the desired resources.)

    I am glad your 2013 BEM talk is now online. It’s on YouTube at (2013 Global BEM Day 2 Tent 1 Livestream). Your talk starts at 4:05:22.

    3) It seems that the shift in one’s mindset to “that space where consequence and consciousness actually cohabitate” may be the crucial ingredient that allows the eventual “flipping” of a buildup of static energy towards a constructive purpose.

    Alchemy, indeed.

    I am grateful for the work you are doing.


Thank you for your comment. I look forward to considering this in the expanding dialogue. Dave