RuderferM · Source catalogue

A letter of about 1.5 pages in Lettere al Nuovo Cimento vol. 5 n. 1, pp. 86-88 (2 Sept 1972; received 8 March 1972), not the main Nuovo Cimento [read: deep read p.1]. It is a theoretical estimate with no experiment, figure or table. Motivation: Pontecorvo and Smorodinskii (1961) noted that experiments limit only the high-energy part of the neutrino spectrum, so the total energy in a low-energy 'neutrino sea' (all unbound neutrinos and antineutrinos in the Universe) could exceed the observable energy of the Universe. Earlier treatments (Weinberg 1962, Marx 1963) used Fermi-Dirac statistics. Ruderfer argues that the exclusion principle needs each particle to 'know' the states of its neighbours, by exchange of virtual photons obeying Maxwell's equations; neutrinos all travel at c in local coordinates, so one neutrino slightly behind another travelling the same way cannot signal it, and Fermi-Dirac statistics cannot apply to a gas of unbound neutrinos unless information travels faster than c. He therefore abandons Fermi-Dirac statistics for unbound neutrinos (keeping them for neutrinos from bound states such as beta decay) and adopts Bose-Einstein statistics. He then takes Planck's radiation law for the sea, substituting for every photon of energy hf a pair of neutrinos of energy hf/2 with aligned spins, citing his own phasor description of the photon as a neutrino-antineutrino structure (Electronics and Power 11, 164 (1965); Am. J. Phys. 39, 116 (1971)) and Bandyopadhyay and Ray Chaudhuri (1971). With observable energy density rho = 3e-31 g/cm^3 = 2.7e-10 erg/cm^3 (Oort) and closure density rho_m = 1e-29 g/cm^3 (Zel'dovich), the maximum sea-to-observable energy ratio is alpha_m = rho_m/rho - 1 = 32. Using S = alpha*rho*c/4 and T = (alpha c rho/4 sigma)^(1/4) he obtains S_m = 64 erg/cm^2 s and T_m = 33 K. Conclusion: the spectrum puts very low energy in most neutrinos, so the sea is effectively decoupled from matter and Weinberg's restrictions do not fully apply. The deep reader re-derived the numbers (S_m = 64.7 erg/cm^2 s, T_m = 32.7 K, alpha_m = 32.3) and found them to follow from the stated inputs; eqs. (4)-(5) are dimensionally right only if rho means energy density, which is how he defines it [read: deep read sec. 5-7]. The Hubble constant behind the closure density is not stated; the deep reader computed about 73 km/s/Mpc [read + computed]. Ruderfer himself notes that alpha_m is not necessarily an absolute maximum (Boccaletti, de Sabbata, Gualdi 1964 questioned the cosmological limit).

Key claims

• Neutrinos that are not bound (not from a bound state such as beta decay) cannot obey Fermi-Dirac statistics because they cannot exchange information to enforce the exclusion principle, so they obey Bose-Einstein statistics.
• A photon of energy hf can be replaced by a pair of spin-aligned neutrinos of energy hf/2 each, so Planck's radiation law gives the power spectrum of an isotropic equilibrium neutrino sea.
• The neutrino sea may carry up to about 32 times the energy density of all observable matter and radiation (alpha_m = 32) without conflicting with closure of the Universe.
• Such a sea would have a maximum flux of about 64 erg/cm^2 s and a temperature of about 33 K.
• Most neutrinos in this spectrum have very low energy, so the sea is effectively decoupled from matter and Weinberg's restrictions do not fully apply.

Relevance: Ruderfer's central neutrino-physics statement and the source of the 'photon is a neutrino pair' and 'neutrino sea' ideas that his psychotronic paper builds on. It shows how he reasons: a relativity-based argument (no faster-than-light information) used to change quantum statistics.

Mainstream conflict: Yes on the first step. Mainstream view [memory, high]: the exclusion principle follows from antisymmetry of the many-particle wavefunction (spin-statistics theorem), not from a signal between particles, and holds for neutral fermions such as neutrons and helium-3; neutrinos are fermions. The photon is a boson with spin 1 and is not a composite of two neutrinos in the standard model (the neutrino theory of light of de Broglie and Jordan is historical [memory, high]). The standard cosmic neutrino background is about 1.95 K with Fermi-Dirac statistics [memory, high]. The arithmetic of this 1972 letter is consistent; the premises are what conflict. (This does not hold for the 1980 paper: its Table 1 temperatures and its f/M coefficient do not follow from its stated definitions, see the 1980 entry.) Judging this is the Physicist's job.

A one-page scan of the errata page of Phys. Rev. Letters 7 (9), p. 361. The first item is an unrelated erratum to Luers, Mittra, Willis and Yamamoto on K2^0 decays (sign of the value a). The second item is Ruderfer's short comment on his own earlier proposal (Phys. Rev. Letters 5, 191 (1960)) to detect first-order terrestrial ether drift with the Mossbauer effect on a turntable. He says the theory of the proposed experiment was incomplete because the first-order variation of frequency with motion was not considered. In the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction theory a moving clock has frequency f = f0 (1 - w^2/c^2)^(1/2), w being its velocity through the ether. For a radiator at the turntable centre w = v; for the absorber w = |v + omega s|, giving a clock-motion shift |df/f| = omega s v sin(theta)/c^2 (symbols omega, s, theta not defined on this page). He says this also holds off-centre and equals the shift from the phase shift in rotation, so contraction theory predicts a null effect, as relativity does, for a one-way rotating terrestrial experiment, and the proposed experiment is not a crucial test between the two theories. He proposes reading the null result as: detection of an ether is precluded (special relativity) and existence of an ether is permitted (contraction theory); 'detection' and 'existence' are underlined. The 1960 proposal itself is not in the folder. The note is a retraction of the 1960 proposal's theory: Ruderfer himself says the theory of the proposed experiment was incomplete. His 1960 affiliation (Phys. Rev. Letters 5, 191) was Dimensions, Incorporated, Brooklyn; Hempstead is from 1965 [web via Investigator; QE].

Key claims

• In Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction theory a clock moving at speed w through the ether runs at f = f0 (1 - w^2/c^2)^(1/2).
• For a rotating Mossbauer radiator-absorber pair, contraction theory predicts the same null first-order shift as special relativity, so the experiment cannot discriminate between them.
• A null result is compatible with both 'an ether cannot be detected' (relativity) and 'an ether may exist' (contraction theory).

Relevance: Shows Ruderfer's early position: he treats the ether as permitted, not refuted, by relativity's null results, and corrects his own proposal. This is the earliest dated item and the ether strand of the project.

Mainstream conflict: Mild. Treating Lorentz's contraction theory as a viable alternative to special relativity is a historical position; mainstream physics regards the two as experimentally equivalent for such tests and prefers relativity on simplicity [memory, high]. The comment itself concedes the equivalence.

Open Access Library Journal 2018, vol. 5, e4379 (received 26 Jan 2018, published 13 Feb 2018, CC BY 4.0) [read: p.1]. The deep read established that this is not a Ruderfer paper: Ruderfer is not named and not among its 15 references (Feynman, Vavilov, Whittaker, Laughlin, Einstein, Bohm, Dirac, Heisenberg, Nikolskiy's own three books, Thomas et al. 2010, Zeldovich and Novikov, Llanes-Estrada and Navarro, Schelkin, Valantin) [read: p.9]. Why it sits in the Ruderfer folder is not stated; unknown. It shares only the themes of a material aether and the neutrino. Nikolskiy's 'objective dualism': everything is electric charges of two polarities bound in structures. Electron = three charges (spinning triangle), neutrino = a charge pair, proton = seven charges (hexagon with centre), neutron = eight (cube). Stated formulas: electron rest 'energy' as frequency nu_e = alpha c/(2 pi R_e) = 1.23e20 /s (E = h nu = 0.511 MeV); neutrino E_n = E_e alpha^3 = 0.2 eV; proton E_p = E_e (alpha^-2 - 3 alpha^-1)/10 = 938 MeV; 'mass of rest' M_e = alpha/(2 pi R_e c) = 1370 s/m^2; a cubic aether charge lattice with spacing about 1.4 mm and about 380 charges/cm^3 derived from the microwave background; radioactivity and K-40 decay by charge-count bookkeeping. The deep reader checked the arithmetic and found it correct to rounding, but reported that the electron formula is an identity (m_e c^2 = h nu rewritten, because R_e is defined from m_e), the proton formula is a two-integer fit, the 380/cm^3 'charge density' equals the CMB photon-energy density over the peak photon energy, the 'speed' c_e = R_e c has units m^2/s, the charge-count balance follows from conservation of A and Z, and the stated K-40 electron-capture channel (positron plus neutrino) differs from the standard description [read + memory, high]. The author says an experimental verification of ether inertia 'has not been possible' [read: p.5]. The paper reports no experiment; its one stated numerical prediction is E_n = 0.2 eV per neutrino, while a 2010 bound it cites (sum of masses below 0.28 eV) would be exceeded by three species [read + memory, high].

Key claims

• The electron's rest energy equals h times a rotation frequency alpha c/(2 pi R_e) of a three-charge structure.
• The neutrino rest energy is the electron's times alpha cubed, about 0.2 eV.
• The proton's rest energy is E_e (alpha^-2 - 3 alpha^-1)/10, reproducing the proton-electron mass ratio to about 0.02%.
• The aether is a cubic lattice of electric charge pairs with spacing about 1.4 mm, and the cosmic microwave background is an oscillation of that lattice.
• Beta decays and K-40 decay balance when the electron counts as 3 charges, the neutrino as 2, the proton as 7 and the neutron as 8.

Relevance: Thematically related (material aether plus neutrino) but a different author; included in the folder by the collector. Not evidence for Ruderfer's claims and not his work. Must not be attributed to Ruderfer in later steps.

Mainstream conflict: Yes. No luminiferous aether lattice is accepted [memory, high]; the electron is treated as pointlike in the standard model; the neutrino mass is not set by an alpha^3 rule; the proton mass comes from QCD binding. The numerology agrees with data by construction (see summary).

A 226-page JPRS translation (distribution marked 'U.S. Government users only', sold by NTIS) of Part II of the Prague conference proceedings (401 pages, Czech, Russian, French and English papers) [read: p.2-3]. The contents pages list Martin Ruderfer's 'Neutrino Theory of Extrasensory Perception' at p.138 of the whole conference volume, between Benson Herbert 'New Application of Physics' (p.130) and Alejandro Silva 'Postrelativistic and PSI Phenomenon' (p.145) [read: p.5]. That paper's text is NOT in this PDF. This volume is Part II only: its papers carry printed page numbers from about 215 to 430 ('Continued from Part I' at printed p.215 [read: digest p.12]), and the text of the PDF contains no neutrino, phasor, Bose or Ruderfer text except the contents entry. Part I (printed pp.1-214, which would include Ruderfer's p.138 paper, Jungerman, Monteith, Kirlian, Backster, Inyushin and others) is not in the folder. The contents of Part II that were digested include: acupuncture-point conductivity (Vereshchagin, Bresler, Pyatkin, Adamenko), dowsing and the Soviet 'biophysical method' (Bradna, Kaderavek, Prokhorov, Sochevanov), a holographic brain model, eyeless vision training (Duplessis), psi-facilitating states (Braud and Braud), creativity and psychotronics (Gulas, Duron, Rejdak), spontaneous cases in Estonia, environment and paranormal phenomena (Mora-Vargas), ESP development (Reus-Ponce), a survey of English publications (Cassirer), an evolutionary view of psi (Miklos), 'The Subject and His Environment' (Maxey), 'Coincidental States in Psychotronics' (Doskocil) and 'Preteritology' (Komarek). A few mention 'ether' in passing (Maxey, printed p.403: the ether 'science is beginning to accept and prove'; a J. J. Pages electron-in-ether remark). None cites or discusses Ruderfer's neutrino theory in the digests. The volume matters to the project as the context in which Ruderfer's psychotronic paper was published and as an example of a Czechoslovak/Soviet-bloc psychotronics conference with Western attendees; the interest of a U.S. government translation service in the volume is a record, not an explanation. Further contents-page entries from digest 01 (pp.3-6) and 07 (p.120): Ingo Swann, 'Scientological Techniques: A Modern Paradigm for the Exploration of Consciousness and Psychic Integration' (printed p.325, in this Part II volume) [read: digest 07 p.120]. Swann is separately named in a memoir found by the Investigator as listing Ruderfer as a volunteer engineer on ASPR out-of-body research c.1972-73, so Ruderfer and Swann contributed to the same 1973 conference [read + web via Investigator]. Related Part I titles near Ruderfer's (titles only, texts not in the folder): J. A. Jungerman, 'A Nuclear Physicist Looks at Psychotronics' (p.14); H. C. Monteith, 'Consciousness and Modern Theoretical Physics' (p.38); C. Muses, 'Communication of Consciousness Necessitates the Vacuum as Transducer'; A. Dubrov, 'Biogravitation'; Benson Herbert (p.130) and Alejandro Silva (p.145), already named above. Muses's vacuum-as-transducer idea parallels Ruderfer's 'primordial intelligence' in the vacuum; this is a lead, not a finding. Second citation of Ruderfer's 1973 paper: NBIT 1976 cites it as 'Abstracts: 1st International Conference on Psychotronics, Vol. 2, Prague, pp. 9-13, June 1973' [read via Investigator: research/files CIA-RDP79-00999A000300070001-4 text].

Key claims

• The First Conference on Psychotronic Research (Prague, 1973) included a paper by Martin Ruderfer titled 'Neutrino Theory of Extrasensory Perception' (printed p.138 of the volume).
• Psychotronic papers in the volume report acupuncture-point conductivity, dowsing/biophysical-method surveys and ESP experiments, each a claim of its own author, not Ruderfer's.
• The 1973 Ruderfer paper is also cited as 'Abstracts: 1st International Conference on Psychotronics, Vol. 2, Prague, pp. 9-13, June 1973' (NBIT 1976).

Relevance: The only record in the folder of Ruderfer's neutrino theory of extrasensory perception, and only as a title. His actual argument is not available; later steps must say this plainly.

Mainstream conflict: The papers' paranormal and 'bioenergy' claims conflict with mainstream science in many places; Ruderfer's title claims a neutrino mechanism for ESP, which has no mainstream support [memory, high], but the argument itself was not read.

The only text of Ruderfer's neutrino-ESP argument in the project (the 1973 Prague paper itself is unread). It argues by 'binary reasoning': 17 yes/no questions (Q1-Q17), the validity of the whole being measured by 2^n (2^17 = 131,072) [read: pp.121-122, 141]. Q1: information transfer needs energy transfer, so ESP needs an unobserved energy. Q3-Q7: conventional energy is excluded (Bibbero's 10^10 Hz telepathy bandwidth, Proc. IRE 1951-53); neutrino-electron scattering is the candidate 'ESP channel'; phasor theory (refs. 9, 10) makes the photon a resonant neutrino-antineutrino pair and the electron a resonant pair of neutrinos. Q8: his resonant cross-section, about nine orders above V-A near 0.26 MeV, is offered for the solar-neutrino deficit (ref. 12, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 1974). Q9: solar-neutrino scattering gives f/M of 100 Hz/g (eq. 2) and about 5e-7 erg/s in a 1300 g brain (eq. 3), with sigma = 2.8e-37 cm^2. Q10: living things may detect solar neutrinos for circadian timing and navigation (p.128, ref. 13); 1/f noise in inanimate and living matter is attributed to scattering by solar neutrinos (p.128-129, nodes of Ranvier, Verveen and Derksen, Proc. IEEE 1968); a proposed Fig. 1 experiment uses a positron-emitting source of a few kilocuries over animals, about 500,000 dollars (p.129-130). Q11: Fermi-Dirac statistics for neutrinos 'has no valid observational or theoretical support'; Marx's upper limits (neutrino 0.8-3 MeV, 1e-25 g/cm^3; antineutrino 1.8-10 MeV, 1e-24 g/cm^3), doubled for particle-antiparticle symmetry, are converted with Bose-Einstein eqs. (4)-(7) to Table 1: T = 1.3e9 K and 3.3e9 K, mean 2.3e9 K, S = 1.6e33 erg/cm^2 s, rho = 2.1e23 erg/cm^3 (neutrino half 1.0e23 erg/cm^3, 120 g/cm^3), number flux 5.0e39 /cm^2 s. He says the peak (0.28 MeV) and the mean (kT/2 = 0.10 MeV) are 'so close to the 0.263 Mev mean energy of solar neutrinos' that the sea is near equilibrium with stars and 'the Bose-Einstein upper limit becomes an actual estimate' [read: page image p.132]. Q12: the sea fluctuations are 'a phenomenal origin of 1/f noise and a physical source of the quantum electrodynamic electron fluctuation measured by the Lamb shift and the anomalous gyromagnetic ratio' (no calculation given); eq. (8) gives a long-range 1/r^2 force r = N^(1/2) s. Q13: the sea as the medium of thought (synapses, Walker's theory, 'divorces thought from brain structure'). Q14-Q16: the mind is not wholly in the brain; a 'primordial intelligence' pervades the vacuum; a vehicle-and-driver 'psi agent' model (Fig. 3) with a psi 'space channel' and 'time channel'; precognition, hauntings and map dowsing are said not to be explained by the neutrino mechanism. Q17: proposed tests, including out-of-body targets, and the Besant and Leadbeater 'Occult Chemistry' citation (p.140, ref. 35) as an example of psychic observation of the very small. Dream discoveries and 'the widely known use of psychics by police, the Edgar Cayce data' are cited as evidence. DEEP-READ NUMBER CHECKS (QE R1): (i) the Table 1 temperatures do NOT follow from eq. (5) under any stated rule, because the paper does not say which frequency f is used and which energy (hf or hf/2) goes with it; of all natural choices the closest ('top of band, E = hf/2') gives 0.95e9 and 3.07e9 K, 27% and 7% below the printed values; reproducing them exactly needs f of about 2.0e21 and 5.2e21 Hz. The order of magnitude (1e9 K) is reproducible. Each tabulated S_f lies far in the Wien tail (u = hf/kT about 74), where d ln T / d ln S_f is about 0.014: a tenfold change in the flux limit changes T by about 3%, so the fitted T is fixed by the energy band chosen, not by the measured limit. (ii) The mean 'kT/2 = 0.10 MeV' is not the Planck mean of hf/2, which is 1.35 kT = 0.268 MeV; the peak 0.28 MeV is, in his own words, also called close to 0.263 MeV. (iii) P/M (eq. 3) is consistent with the stated solar flux (power flux 2.7e4 erg/cm^2 s at 0.263 MeV gives about 6.4e10 /cm^2 s) and a recoil of about 0.044 MeV per event (the kinematic maximum is 0.133 MeV). The f/M coefficient 3.7e38 would need a flux of 1.1e15 /cm^2 s, about 1.7e4 times the solar flux, and implies only 2.5 eV per event; the stated flux gives about 2.1e34 sigma, so the exponent 38 is probably a slip for 34 (not only a typesetting error, because the text uses it: 100 Hz/g = 3.7e38 x 2.8e-37). With it corrected, f/M is about 6e-3 Hz/g (about 8 events/s in 1300 g), far below his 'well within noise detection range'. Caveat: eq. (2) is derived in ref. 13 (Phys. Lett. 54A, 363, 1975), unseen; if f means something other than an event rate the comparison changes. (iv) Arithmetic that does follow: rho_f and S_f conversions, mean T, S = kappa T^4 = 1.59e33, rho = 4S/c = 2.1e23, 118 g/cm^3, Fig. 2 peak u = 2.82. (v) Q7: 0.1 eV binding gives 1.2e13 Hz as printed; by his own eq. (1b) it would be 2.4e13 Hz (a factor-2 slip). (vi) Q13: 10^12! has log10 about 1.16e13 by Stirling, printed x = 6e12 (low by about 2, immaterial to the argument). CONFERENCE DISCUSSION (pp.143-149), speakers from page images, identities [memory, medium or low, unverified]: RUDOLPH (a self-described information theorist) disputes Q1's 'inviolate tenet of information theory is the association of an energy transfer with every information transfer', saying Shannon's theory has no energy in it; Ruderfer: 'a difference in semantics', real communication is a physical process and all communication we know involves energy transfer, and he chose 'yes' for a practical reason (assume present laws apply). MORRIS asks the source of Bibbero's 10^10 Hz; Ruderfer: Bibbero's 1951-53 Proc. IRE letters, 'pretty well ignored by parapsychologists', the bit rate of a three-dimensional colour telepathic image. BYERS: 'Wow ... we no longer separate man from his cosmic environment'. STORM: unbounded energy is needed; Ruderfer: 'That's right, because the energy of the universe is infinite' (later 'the observable energy is finite'). NASH asks why neutrinos and antineutrinos do not annihilate; Ruderfer: neutrinos are left-handed and antineutrinos right-handed, 'so they don't match, and they can't annihilate' (his own statement of opposite helicities). IRWIN asks how shape and colour are encoded; Ruderfer gives a telephone analogy (the sea is the wire; Ehrenwald covers the receiver) and says he deals only with the input. MORRIS again asks for predictions; Ruderfer cites the two tests in the paper, links the perturbed sea to the aura and to healing, and sees 'potentially ... a vast area for communications and new energy sources in the neutrino sea' (links to the free-energy claim). ULLMAN asks about creativity; Ruderfer: 'intelligence is controlled by the neural system, but creativity is controlled by the external source'. The discussion shows the meeting ran at least two days; the meeting's place and date are not stated in these pages. REFERENCES: refs. 9-32 transcribed in the deep read sec. (e), including phasor papers (Electronics and Power 1972 and Speculations in Science and Technology 1978, numbers to check), Lett. Nuovo Cim. 10, 393 (1974) and Phys. Lett. 54A, 363 (1975).

Key claims

• Every information transfer is associated with an energy transfer, so ESP must involve an unobserved energy form (Q1).
• Resonant neutrino-electron scattering is the 'ESP channel': living tissue could detect scattering noise from solar neutrinos, about 5e-7 erg/s in a 1300 g brain with sigma = 2.8e-37 cm^2 (Q8-Q9).
• Living things may use solar-neutrino detection for circadian timing and navigation (homing) (Q10, p.128).
• 1/f electrical noise in inanimate matter and in nerve is caused by electron scattering from the high-energy part of the solar neutrino flux (Q10, p.128-129).
• A shielded positron source of a few kilocuries, equal to the solar neutrino flux, over test animals would affirm the neutrino ESP channel (Fig. 1, p.129-130).
• Neutrinos obey Bose-Einstein, not Fermi-Dirac, statistics, so Marx's upper limits give a sea with T = 2.3e9 K, S = 1.6e33 erg/cm^2 s, rho = 2.1e23 erg/cm^3, and 'the Bose-Einstein upper limit becomes an actual estimate' (Q11, p.130-132).
• Resonant neutrino-electron scattering, about nine orders above V-A near 0.26 MeV, explains the solar-neutrino deficit (Q8, p.127; ref. 12).
• Fluctuations of the neutrino sea are the physical source of 1/f noise and of the Lamb shift and anomalous gyromagnetic ratio (Q12, p.132; no calculation given).
• The neutrino sea underlies a long-range 1/r^2 force and a one-to-one signature of brain states, so thought is not tied to brain structure (Q12-Q13, eq. 8).
• A primordial intelligence pervades the vacuum and a psi agent controls the neutrino sea; the mind is not wholly in the brain (Q14-Q16).
• Neutrinos (left-handed) and antineutrinos (right-handed) do not match and cannot annihilate each other (conference reply, p.145).
• Besant and Leadbeater's Occult Chemistry observations of the atom (from 1895) are cited as an example of psychic observation of the very small (p.140, ref. 35).

Relevance: Supplies the only text for Claims 5, 7 and 8 and the 1980 half of the tension with the 1972 letter on Claims 1 and 2. It also records how Ruderfer's audience received the theory, in his own replies. Investigator find from the Parapsychology Foundation; Ruderfer's own account, with no independent confirmation of any of its physical claims in the record.

Mainstream conflict: Yes, at several points. Mainstream view [memory, high]: unbound neutrinos are fermions with Fermi-Dirac statistics (spin-statistics theorem); the standard cosmic neutrino background is about 1.95 K; a sea at 2.3e9 K and 2.1e23 erg/cm^3 would exceed the critical density by about 2.6e31 and conflicts with big-bang nucleosynthesis and the CMB; solar and reactor neutrino experiments (Borexino, Super-Kamiokande, SNO, KamLAND) find standard scattering plus flavour oscillation, not resonant enhancement; QED reproduces the Lamb shift and g-2 with no neutrino-sea term; Shannon's theory is mathematical, though a noisy physical channel needs at least kT ln 2 of energy per bit (the objector and Ruderfer are each right about one meaning). Judging this is the Physicist's job.