text:
# The Speed of Gravity Has Not Been Measured From Time Delays

## I Historical Background

Almost 40 years ago, I.I. Shapiro pointed out that the time delay which results from light appearing to slow down as it passes through a gravitational potential could be measured within our solar system . The measurement was done three years later, and provided a new test of the theory of general relativity (GR) . Recent advances have now allowed radio astronomers to measure higher order post-Newtonian (PN) terms in the Shapiro time delay, using Very-Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI). A recent passage of Jupiter by the position of a bright quasar at a separation of only 3.7 arcminutes has allowed for some of these high-order terms to be measured by Fomalont and Kopeikin, specifically those that have to do with the transverse motion of Jupiter perpendicular to the line of sight to the quasar . In a series of papers, Kopeikin has argued that the terms in the Shapiro time delay which depend upon the velocity of the gravitating body also depend upon the propagation speed of gravity . Specifically, in Ref. , he derives an equation for the time delay is the form

$$t_d=2\underset{a}{}\frac{Gm_a}{c^3}\left(1\frac{\stackrel{}{K}\stackrel{}{v}_a}{c_g}\right)\mathrm{ln}(r_a\stackrel{}{K}\stackrel{}{r}_a)+C,$$
(1)
where $`t_d`$ is the time delay, $`m_a`$ and $`v_a`$ the mass and velocity of the $`a`$’th gravitating body, respectively, $`c_g`$ is the propagation speed of gravity, $`\stackrel{}{r}_a`$ the separation vector between the gravitating body and the observer, $`r_a`$ its magnitude, C is an integration constant, and the vector $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ (called $`\stackrel{}{N}`$ by Kopeikin) is given by

$$\stackrel{}{K}=\stackrel{}{k}\frac{1}{c_g}\stackrel{}{k}\times (\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{k}),$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is a unit vector pointing in the direction of the photon’s path. In what follows, for clarity, we will refer to equations in Ref.  with the author’s initial, thus our Eqs. 1 and 2 correspond exactly to Eqs. (K22) and (K23).

Recently, Asada  has taken issue with the interpretation of the velocity-dependent terms in the time delay for models which assume that $`c_g=c`$. Will goes further, evaluating the time delay for models in which $`c_gc`$, and concludes that there is an error in Kopeikin’s derivation of the time delay . Using the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) framework (see Ref.  for more details), he concludes that the proper time delay is given by

$$t_d=2\underset{a}{}\frac{Gm_a}{c^3}\left(1\frac{\stackrel{}{K}\stackrel{}{v}_a}{c}\right)\mathrm{ln}(r_a\stackrel{}{K}\stackrel{}{r}_a)+C,$$
(3)
where

$$\stackrel{}{K}=\stackrel{}{k}\frac{1}{c}\stackrel{}{k}\times (\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{k}).$$
(4)
Using his initials for clarity as well, our Eqs. 3 and 4 correspond exactly with Eqs. (W35) and (W36), where we have set several of the PPN parameters which do not affect the final result equal to the values predicted by GR.

In what follows, we will repeat the calculations of Kopeikin and Will, but in a model where the gravitational force is instantaneous, i.e. $`c_g\mathrm{}`$. We identify where the two methods agree under this assumption, and where they find different mathematical expressions. In short, we find that Will’s result is correct given his assumptions regarding the PPN framework. Kopeikin’s result is inconsistent with his assumptions, revealing that his derivation contains a mathematical error. We identify the likely cause of it in the course of our derivation.

## II Calculating the Time Delay

For the following calculations, we make use of the following assumptions. A photon travels along the x-axis of our coordinate system. It passes a body of mass $`m_a`$ moving with velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}_a=(v_{},v_{},0)`$ along a straight line. The origin of the time coordinate is defined such that the instantaneous separation vector between the gravitating body and the photon is perpendicular to the photon’s path at $`t=0`$. This does not correspond exactly to the moment of closest approach between the photon and the gravitating body, which can easily be calculated to be first-order in $`v_a/c`$. Using these velocities, we find that the position of the of the gravitating body is given by $`\stackrel{}{x}_a(t)=(v_{}t,v_{}t+y_0,z_0)`$ and that of the photon by $`\stackrel{}{x}_p(t)=(ct,0,0)`$. Our observer is placed far from the gravitating body at some distance $`x_o`$ along the photon’s path, at position $`\stackrel{}{x}_o=(x_o,0,0)`$. As these calculations are traditionally done by placing an observer at the barycenter of the system, we should technically include at least one other gravitating body, but we see immediately that it will have no effect to lowest order on the measured time delay.

To calculate the time delay for the photon passage, we note that since we can make the gravitating mass sufficiently small, we can ignore all effects associated with the deflected path of the photon, which are of higher order in $`v_a/c`$. The equations of motion for the photon’s path as a function of its wave vector $`k^\mu =dx^\mu /dt=(1,k^i)`$ are completely determined from a description of the spacetime metric, and the constraint equations for a null geodesic. These constraint equations are given by both Eq. (W11) and Eq. (K14), in complete agreement, in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2x_p^i}{dt^2}}+k^\mu k^\nu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^ik^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^0)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (5)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ds}{dt}}\right)^2=g_{00}+2g_{0i}k^i+g_{ij}k^ik^j`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (6)
While Kopeikin and Will agree on the geodesic equation for the photon, they disagree on the form of the metric. Will, using the standard parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism, assumes that the metric, Eq. (W9), takes the form

$`g_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`1+2U`$ (7)
$`g_{0i}`$ $`=`$ $`4V_i`$ (8)
$`g_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+2U)\delta _{ij},`$ (9)
where we have set the PPN parameters $`\gamma `$ and $`\alpha _1`$ equal to the GR values $`\gamma =1,\alpha _1=0`$, and the retarded Liénard-Wiechert mass and momentum potentials are given by Eq. (W10) as

$`U(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Gm_a}{c^2r_e(t,\stackrel{}{x})}}`$ (10)
$`V_i(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Gm_a\stackrel{}{v}_a}{c^3r_e(t,\stackrel{}{x})}},`$ (11)
where we define $`r_e`$ to be the “effective” distance of the retarded potential, such that $`r_e(t,\stackrel{}{x})=|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_a(t^{})|`$, where the “emission” time of the gravitational force must satisfy $`tt^{}=r_e/c_g`$, where $`c_g`$ is the speed of gravity.

Kopeikin’s metric is slightly different, in ways that deserve some clarification. He introduces a parameter $`\tau `$, which is used to describe all quantities involving gravitation in his framework. It is defined such that $`c_g\tau =ct`$. Unfortunately, the gravitational equations treat this parameter as a physical time for gravitation. Thus, the wave equation for linear metric perturbations, Eq. (K5), reads

$$\left(\frac{1}{c_g}^2\frac{^2}{\tau ^2}+^2\right)\overline{\gamma }^{\mu \nu }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{16\pi G}{c^4}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x}),$$
(12)
where $`\overline{\gamma }^{\mu \nu }`$ is the standard trace-reversed linear metric perturbation, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ is his modified stress-energy tensor. We note that for this equation to give a traveling wave solution moving at speed $`c_g`$, we must interpret $`\tau `$ as the physical time, not $`t`$. We believe it is confusion between these two quantities which leads to errors in his final conclusions. In any case, Kopeikin modifies not only the stress-energy tensor but the metric perturbation as well, yielding a metric that agrees with Will’s (if we view $`\tau `$ as the physical time-variable) but for a different momentum potential, given by Eq. (K10) as

$$V_i(t,\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{Gm_a(\stackrel{}{v}_a)_i}{c^2c_gr_e(t,\stackrel{}{x})}.$$
(13)
In the calculation that follows we will see that the differences in the two metric formulations lead to different values for the gravitomagnetic drag experienced by a photon passing by a moving body. We will also see that Will’s calculation is completely consistent, whereas Kopeikin’s final answer is inconsistent with the photon propagation equation.

We start our calculation by deriving the magnitude of the photon’s wavevector in our metric, Eq. 8, noting that Kopeikin and Will differ on the value of the momentum potential $`V_i`$. We denote the magnitudes of the wave-vector $`k^i=(k,0,0)`$ and the momentum potential $`V_i`$ by $`k`$ and $`V`$, respectively. The x-component of the momentum potential is denoted $`V_{}`$. From Eqs. 69, we find

$$(1+2U)8V_{}k+(1+2U)k^2=0k\frac{dx_p}{dt}=\frac{4V_{}+\sqrt{14U^2+16V_{}^2}}{1+2U}.$$
(14)
Working only to 1.5PN order, we throw out all terms involving $`U^2`$ or $`V^2`$, and find

$$k=\frac{dx_p}{dt}=\frac{1+4V_{}}{1+2U}(12U+4V_{}).$$
(15)
To find the time delay, we integrate this expression over the path length, finding for the time delay

$$t_d=(𝑑t)t_0=\left[\frac{dx_p}{c}\frac{1}{12U+4V_{}}\right]c\delta x\frac{dx_p}{c}(2U4V_{}),$$
(16)
where $`t_0`$ is the time required to travel a distance $`\delta x`$ in the absence of gravitating bodies. The two terms here have entirely different meanings, but both are easily understood. The first, $`U𝑑x_p`$, which appears for static gravitational sources as well, is the simple geometric time delay which results from photon’s traveling through any gravitational potential. The second term, $`V_{}𝑑x_p`$ is the gravitomagnetic contribution to the time delay. In simplest terms, it can be thought of as a “frame-dragging” term, whereby the moving object pulls the photon along it’s path. At this point, it is useful to compare our result with those of Will and Kopeikin. To do so, we make use of the ratio between the momentum potential and the mass potential, which is constant throughout space and time in both formalisms so long as the gravitating body moves at constant velocity. From Eqs. 10 and 11, we see that in Will’s formalism that $`V_i=U\frac{(v_a)_i}{c}`$, whereas from Eqs. 10 and 13, Kopeikin’s method yields $`V_i=U\frac{(v_a)_i}{c_g}`$. We find, respectively,

$`t_d`$ $``$ $`2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v}_a}{c}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{dx_p}{c}U(\mathrm{Will})}`$ (17)
$``$ $`2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v}_a}{c_g}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{dx_p}{c}U(\mathrm{Kopeikin})},`$ (18)
which correspond with Eq. (W16), and Eq. (K21).

Calculating the time-delay integral is straightforward, so long as we calculate the effective distance correctly for our chosen value of $`c_g`$. To simplify matters, and emphasize the difference between the frameworks used by Will and Kopeikin, we will evaluate the time delay for a model with instantaneous gravitational propagation, i.e., $`c_g\mathrm{}`$. In Kopeikin’s notation, this represents the limit $`ϵ0`$, which he refers to as the Newtonian limit. Given the trajectories of the photon and gravitating body stated above, we find that the effective radius is given as a function of time as

$`r_e(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[(cv_{})^2t^2+(v_{}t+y_0)^2+z_0^2\right]^{0.5}`$
$`=`$ $`\left[(c^22cv_{}+v_a^2)t^2+2y_0v_{}t+y_0^2+z_0^2\right]^{0.5}.`$
To simplify the expression, we note that at the moment of closest approach, at $`t_{min}=y_0v_{}t/[(c^22cv_{}+v_a^2)t^2]`$, the distance reaches its minimum value of $`r_{min}r_e(t_{min})`$. At all other times, the effective distance is given by

$$r_e(t)=\sqrt{r_{min}^2+|(\stackrel{}{u}c(tt_{min}))|^2},$$
(19)
where $`\stackrel{}{u}=\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v}_a/c`$, $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the unit 3-vector pointing along the photon’s path, and we know that $`\stackrel{}{r}_{min}\stackrel{}{u}=0`$. Note that the appearance of $`c`$ in these expressions has nothing to do with assumptions about the speed of gravity, it merely represents the speed of the photon when we calculate relative distances and velocities.

The calculation of the time delay will allow for a direct test of Will and Kopeikin’s results, since both derive the same integral for the time delay, albeit with different prefactors, as we found in Eqs. 17 and 18. The time delay integral is analytic, since we can integrate along the unperturbed path of the photon. Changing variables to $`dt=dx_p/c`$, shifting the time axis to a new time variable offset by $`t_{min}`$, and defining $`u=|\stackrel{}{u}|`$, we find

$`t_d`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{U(t)}}Gm_a{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{r_e(t)}}Gm_a{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\sqrt{r_{min}^2+u^2c^2t^2}}}`$ (20)
$``$ $`Gm_a\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{uc}}\right)\mathrm{ln}[\sqrt{r_{min}^2+u^2c^2t_f^2}uct_f],`$ (21)
where $`t_f`$ is the arrival time of the photon. Note that in deriving this expression, we made no assumptions about the geometry of the system at the moment of closest approach, which Kopeikin discusses in his appendix. In what follows, we will only use the fact that vectorial velocity difference between the photon and the gravitating body is perpendicular to the separation vector at closest approach.

We start with an analysis of the prefactor $`1/uc`$. Calculating this to first order in $`\stackrel{}{w}_a\stackrel{}{v}_a/c`$ shows us that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{uc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c|\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{w}_a|}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}2\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{w}_a+\stackrel{}{w_a}\stackrel{}{w}_a}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c\sqrt{12w_{}+w^2}}}`$ (22)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c(1w_{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}(1+w_{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}(1+v_{}/c)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v}_a}{c}}).`$ (23)
This multiplicative factor is derived directly from the integral of the gravitational potential along the line of sight, and has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of gravity, which we are assuming here to be instantaneous. It is essentially a Doppler correction, representing the increased (decreased) time that the photon spends in the deepest part of the gravitational potential because of the gravitating body’s parallel (anti-parallel) velocity component. Comparing to Eq. 17, we see that the “Doppler” term is half the magnitude and opposite in sign from the gravitomagnetic correction term. On the other hand, this result is at odds with the gravitomagnetic term derived by Kopeikin in Eq. 18, which contains $`c_g`$ in the denominator. We will discuss this error below.

Moving on to the logarithmic term in the integral, we define the separation vector $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)\stackrel{}{x}_p(t)\stackrel{}{x}_a(t)=\stackrel{}{r}_{min}+ct\stackrel{}{u}`$ whose length is $`r_e(t)=\sqrt{r_{min}^2+u^2c^2t^2}`$. Additionally, we note that

$$\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}(t)=\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}_{min}+ct(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{w_a})=\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}_{min}+ct(1\frac{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v_a}}{c}).$$
(24)
This expression is similar to the term $`uct`$ which appears in logarithmic term of the time delay, but not equal to it at the required order because of the appearance of a term $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}_{min}`$. However, we see that

$$\stackrel{}{r}_{min}\stackrel{}{u}=0\stackrel{}{r}_{min}\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}_{min}\stackrel{}{w_a}=0.$$
(25)
Denoting by $`r_{}`$ and $`r_{}`$ the components of $`\stackrel{}{r}_{min}`$ parallel to $`\stackrel{}{v}_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}_{}`$, respectively, we find, to lowest order,

$$r_{}w_{}=\stackrel{}{r}_{}(1w_{})\stackrel{}{r}_{}=\stackrel{}{r}_{min}\stackrel{}{k}.$$
(26)
Thus, we can subtract off the term $`\stackrel{}{r}_{min}\stackrel{}{k}`$ in Eq. 24 by taking the product of the transverse velocity of the gravitating body with the minimum separation vector. It is trivial to deduce that $`\stackrel{}{k}\times (\stackrel{}{v}_a\times \stackrel{}{k})=\stackrel{}{v}_{}`$. We see though, that to first order in $`v_a/c`$,

$`\stackrel{}{w}_{}\stackrel{}{r}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{w}_{}\stackrel{}{r}_{min}+ct(\stackrel{}{w}_{}\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{w}_{}\stackrel{}{w}_a)`$ (27)
$``$ $`w_{}r_{},`$ (28)
where the second term vanishes from orthogonality, and the last because it is second-order in $`v_a/c`$. Combining these results, we conclude

$`\mathrm{ln}[\sqrt{r_{min}^2+u^2c^2t_f^2}uct_f]`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)ct\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v}}{c}}\right)`$ (29)
$``$ $`r(t)\left(\stackrel{}{k}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\stackrel{}{k}\times (\stackrel{}{v}_a\times \stackrel{}{k})\right)\stackrel{}{r}(t).`$ (30)
Plugging Eqs. 21, 23, and 30 into Eq. 17 we recover Eqs. (W35) and (W36). Plugging the same three equations into Eq. 18 does not recover Kopeikin’s Eqs. (K22) and (K23), which have the speed of gravity $`c_g`$ where we have the speed of light $`c`$. We conclude that his calculation is erroneous, since the time-delay integral we calculated had nothing to do with the speed of gravity, which we took to be instantaneous. It is also independent of all metric quantities other than the gravitational potential which appears in $`g_{00}`$. Why then does he find different numbers than ours?

A clue is provided by the fact that our results (as well as those of Will, whose results ours reproduce) can be brought into agreement with Kopeikin’s if we replace $`v_a`$, the velocity of the gravitating body, with $`v_ac/c_g`$. In his notation, this is the transformation $`v_aϵv_a`$. We believe the error he makes is to use $`\tau =ϵt`$ as the physical time for the gravitating object, declaring that its physical velocity is given by $`d\stackrel{}{x}_a/d\tau =\stackrel{}{v}_a`$, while keeping $`t`$ as the time variable used to describe the photon’s motion, as in Eq. (K13). If we convert the velocity he uses for the gravitating object from $`\tau `$-based coordinates to t-based coordinates, we find immediately that $`\stackrel{}{v}_a(t)=d\stackrel{}{x}_a/dt=d\stackrel{}{x}_a/d\tau (d\tau /dt)=ϵ\stackrel{}{v}_a`$, which corresponds to the unphysical and erroneous velocity found in his calculations.

## III Conclusions

We have repeated the calculations performed by Will and Kopeikin, in a model where the speed of gravity is instantaneous. We find that first-order terms in the time delay resulting from the motions of gravitating bodies are independent of the speed of gravity, and follow the form written down by Will in every respect. We find in addition that Kopeikin’s equation for the time delay, which asymptotically approaches the time-delay for static bodies in the limit of an infinite speed of gravity, is wrong. We conclude that since the first-order velocity terms in the time delay are independent of the speed of gravity, Fomalont and Kopeikin’s high-precision measurements of the time delay of light from quasar QSO J0842+1835 passing by the edge of Jupiter on September 8, 2002 , while a truly impressive observational feat in radio astronomy, provided a measure of the speed of light only, not the speed of gravity as was claimed.

The author wishes to thank P. Grandclément and E. Bertschinger for helpful discussions. He also wishes to thank S. Kopeikin for clarifying discussions about the details of his results.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Brain States

## Introduction

Physicists have been overwhelmingly successful when it comes to matching ensembles of data with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. But quantum mechanics does not know how to represent physical systems that contain conscious sub-systems, and it cannot adequately portray conscious observations of ‘individual’ processes. If an observer watches a detector during a period of time in which a single particle might be captured, his experience can be summarized in two parts. (i) He will first see the detector in its original state $`D_0`$ prior to a particle capture, and (ii) if there is a capture, he will see the detector jump to an excited state $`D_1`$. The trouble with quantum mechanics is that it cannot predict, represent, or describe this simple two-part phenomenon. This is because conventional quantum mechanics does not tell us *how conscious brain states fold into the methodology of the theory*. Quantum mechanics is an empirical science that does a thorough job of predicting ensemble behavior; however, it should also be able to predict *everything* about an individual experience that is consistent with ‘quantum reality’. We will show below that quantum theory does not do that when conscious states become involved. To fulfill this simple requirement, the empirical predictions of the theory must be extended beyond their present limited range.

This has been done by the author in a series of four papers  that propose five rules that apply to a variety of interactions like the one described above. These rules are not intended to be an interpretation of quantum theory, or a pedagogy of quantum theory; but rather, they are descriptions of how conscious states become engaged with physical systems. As such, they are synthetic statements about Nature that are shown to improve on the (current) connection between theory and observation. More will be said below about how these rules might relate to a wider theoretical understanding.

The validity of these rules rests on several assumptions:

A. Every object in the universe is a quantum mechanical system or subsystem. So atoms, black holes, and in particular “brains” are quantum mechanical objects. This includes conscious brains no less than unconscious brains.

B. In the interaction to be studied, we assume that every component of the detector interacts with a separate component of the (conscious or not) brain of the observer. Therefore, brain variables become entangled with detector variables.

C. All of the quantum mechanical uncertainties that are a property of an ensemble are also a property of each member of the ensemble. This means that the wave function $`\psi `$ of a particle describes the probability properties of an individual particle, as well as the statistical behavior of an ensemble of those particles.

It will be shown in Part I of this paper that these assumptions, plus a requirement that (i) and (ii) are predicted by the proposed rules, imply that there exists a brain state that is neither conscious nor unconscious. I call it a *ready* brain state. There is no classical analog. However, in the context considered, it will be clearly demonstrated that *if conscious brains exist, then ready brains exist*. The properties of a ready brain state are described in Part I, and are spelled out more completely in refs. 1-4.

In the above example, the observer has one experience before capture and another experience after capture. Corresponding to this, the proposed rules give us one solution prior to capture, and another solution after capture. In order to achieve this “dual” solution, our rules must make a statement about the probability of capture that is qualified by time. This is accomplished by shifting the notion of probability from that of ‘square modulus’, to that of the probability per unit time – or *probability current*. In this treatment, square modulus has no intrinsic physical significance, so the Born interpretation is abandoned. *Only current flow is now considered to be physically meaningful*. This is not inconsistent with the way that the Born probability interpretation has been successfully applied as will be demonstrated in Part I.

According to von Neumann, state reduction in quantum mechanics means an irreversible change that occurs during a measurement . This corresponds to a change that carries a pure quantum mechanical state into a mixture. It therefore replaces one kind of ensemble with another kind of ensemble. Measurement in this sense is now thought to occur the moment two components of a subsystem are sufficiently distinguishable that their correlated environments are orthogonal to one another. The cross term is therefore zero when the environmental variables are integrated out. This means that the components of the subsystem are *locally incoherent*, so the object in its various possible states takes on classical statistical properties. Joos and Zeh call the resulting subsystem an *improper mixture* , and the process is referred to as *environmental decoherence* . For a measurement of this kind, no conscious observer needs to be present; and indeed, nothing happens during this measurement that is external to the Schrödinger process. This means that the universe will remain a superposition that is undisturbed by decoherence. It is a physicist who chooses the subsystem and decides to trace out its environment. Nature does not eliminate the environment or any other part of the wave function during this so-called measurement, and it does not destroy or in any way alter the superposition of the total system. Therefore, there is no objective “collapse” of the wave function associated with decoherence.

It may still be meaningful to speak of an observerless measurement through decoherence, but the important question here is: What happens when a conscious observer *is* present? It is my claim that a conscious observer whose brain states are part of a larger system will interact uniquely with the system; and the resulting measurement will bring about a genuine ‘collapse’ of the wave function that is described in refs. 1-4 and Part I of this paper. This collapse is like the R-process of Penrose, but is different in ways that will become apparent as we proceed.

## Motivation

As stated above, one motivation behind this effort has been to find the rules that engage conscious states with quantum mechanical systems, and to fully describe an observer’s conscious experience in individual cases. There is another motivation. For 400 years physics has confined its attention to the ‘objective’ world, refraining from any serious consideration of the corresponding ‘subjective’ world. I believe that will change. I believe that we will see the development of theoretical tools that will enable physicists to reach across the Cartesian divide, stitching it together with a proper mind/body theory. The rules that I propose are *not* such a theory. They are only a set of ad hoc rules that bridge the gap, for they lack the elegance of a broad based theory. However, I believe that these rules, or rules like them, will be part of the stitching in any correct mind-body theoretical framework. They will relate to that theory in the same way that the Balmer series relates to atomic theory. Like any empirical formula by itself, these rules are only a step; but I believe they are a step in the direction of a better theoretical understanding.

There is still another motivation that is actually the original motivation. Before I attempted the write these rules I was convinced of the correctness of the *parallel principle*, and (what I now call) rule (5) which implements that principle in a special case. This will be explained in Part II of this paper; but briefly, rule (5) establishes a physical basis for the evolution of the so-called *psycho-physical parallelism*, which refers to the way that subjective reality parallels or mirrors objective reality. Whatever may come of these rules, I believe that the parallel principle is the key to making inroads into any trans-Cartesian theory.

PART I

> Part I of this paper is a summary of the findings in refs. 1 and 2. In these two papers, four of the five proposed rules are formulated and applied in different gedanken experimental situations.

## Interaction

In the absence of an observer, the state of the above described particle/detector system is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=exp(iHt)\psi _iD_i`$, where $`\psi _i`$ and $`D_i`$ are the initial states of the incoming particle and the detector, and $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian divided by $`\mathrm{}`$ . Because $`H`$ includes an interaction term between $`\psi `$ and $`D`$, the resulting state $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ is an entanglement in which the particle variables and the detector variables are not separable. However, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ is a superposition (in the representation considered) so we can group its components in any way that we like. I form two major components: (1) those detector states $`D_0`$ in which there is no particle capture, and (2) those detector states $`D_1(t)`$ in which there is a particle capture. Let $`\psi (t)`$ represent the free particle as a function of time, including all the incoming and scattering components. It is therefore entangled with $`D_0`$. But since the detector is macroscopic, we may approximate $`D_0`$ to be a constant that can be factored out of $`\psi (t)`$. The captured particle is included in the component $`D_1(t)`$. This gives

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_0)=\psi (t)D_0+D_1(t)$$
(1)
where $`D_1(t)`$ is equal to zero at $`t_0`$ and increases in time, whereas $`\psi (t)D_0`$ is normalized to one at $`t_0`$ and decreases in time.

Equation 1 ignores the orthogonal environmental terms that are attached to each component. These are responsible for decoherence that causes the components to become incoherent almost as soon as the second one comes into existence. The reader is reminded that the superposition in eq. 1 is not destroyed by this process. It is preserved because it represents the state of the entire universe, where the (not shown) environmental terms attached to each component have *not* been eliminated.

It is here that I depart from the Penrose gravitational approach that would couple his R-collapse of the superposition to the onset of decoherence between these two very different detector states . This collapse would occur almost as soon as the interaction begins, so the parameters of the interaction would have no opportunity to influence the time at which the particle is captured. This cannot be correct, for it would short circuit the normal Hamiltonian dynamics of the interaction.

Contrary to this, I say that the superposition in eq. 1 will last as long as is necessary for the interaction to run its course. The timing of a collapse (i.e., a particle capture) is determined by the probability current flowing from the first to the second component, and that is determined by the rate at which the particle wave approaches and overlaps the detector at each moment. For low-level radioactive emissions yielding particle waves that are spread widely over space, the interaction in eq. 1 might last for hours or days. In that case, the superposition will last for hours or days. So the ‘time’ of a particle capture in this treatment is not a function of decoherence or gravitational thresholds. It is, *and should be*, a function of the parameters of the incoming particle and the cross section of the particle with the detector.

## A Conscious Observer

If an observer interacts with the detector during the above interaction, then assumptions A and B tell us that two different components of the brain will be involved. One of these ($`B_0`$) will be entangled with $`D_0`$, and the other ($`B_1`$) will be entangled with $`D_1`$. Equation 1 then becomes

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_0)=\psi (t)D_0B_0+D_1(t)B_1$$

where again, $`D_1(t)B_1`$ is equal to zero at $`t_0`$.

Penrose says that brain superpositions like these cannot exist for any perceptible length of time without an “objective reduction” (see ref. 11, pp. 342, 355). But the argument that we applied to the above detector applies equally to a macroscopic brain. The superposition in this equation cannot be immediately reduced because that would abort the normal Hamiltonian dynamics. The timing of the collapse (i.e., the particle capture) should be determined by the rate at which the particle approaches and engages the detector/brain subsystem, not by the decoherence or gravitational properties of the brain.

For these reasons we dismiss the Penrose theory, but now there is another problem. The above equation is *as far as the Schrödinger process can go*. It is a theoretical dead-end that does not portray the dual experience of the observer. It does not tell us which brain state is conscious, or exclude the possibility that they might both be simultaneously conscious. The equation is also reminiscent of the Schrödinger cat paradox that suggests that there are competing probabilities between $`D_0`$ and $`D_1`$ for the conscious attention of the observer. And finally, it encourages the belief that quantum mechanics can only be applied to ensembles. But if quantum mechanics is to be a complete empirical science (consistent with quantum reality), then it must fully describe the dual experience of this observer, clarify the above ambiguities as to which states are conscious, and it must do so in individual cases.

The solutions to Schrödinger’s equations of motion are normally connected to laboratory data through a single rule: The Born Rule (i.e., the Born interpretation). However, this rule is incomplete as well as technically wrong as will be shown. It does not *ground* the Schrödinger solution as fully as possible to laboratory observations. We therefore need to replace the Born rule by other rule(s) that make more complete connections. These are the rules proposed in this paper.

We proceed by anticipating a satisfactory resolution of the above difficulties. The desired result should include two solutions: one that applies before particle capture, and one that applies after (possible) particle capture. Particle capture is occasioned by the system making a *stochastic choice*, and the time that that happens is given by $`t_{sc}`$. The two solutions will then take the form: $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}>tt_0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_{sc}>t_0)`$, where the first of these is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}>tt_0)=\psi (t)D_0\underset{¯}{B}_0+D_1(t)B_1$$
(2)
The underline means that $`\underset{¯}{B}_0`$ is conscious, and the lack of underline under $`B_1`$ means that it is not conscious. The observational significance of this equation is clear. It describes the experience of the observer *prior* to capture.

The existence of the second component in eq. 2 may seem to introduce an ambiguity, but there is no empirical ambiguity because the observer is unaware of it. The second component is only on standby, ready to take over if and when the particle is captured by the detector. It is the “ready” brain state referred to above. It is physiologically capable of consciousness, but only when it is stochastically chosen. Until then, it is neither conscious nor unconscious, and is unique to a quantum mechanical superposition. The moment we distinguish $`B_0`$ from $`B_1`$ by saying that one is conscious and the other is not, we confirm the existence of such a state. This is what I meant by saying, “if conscious brains exist, then ready brains exist”222Our rules (3) & (4) will dispose of the second component of eq. 2 if a second observer observes the detector, or if the attention of the primary observer drifts in any way..

Schrödinger’s equation applies continuously in eq. 2, increasing the square modulus of the second component at the expense of the first. This decrease in amplitude of the first component does not affect the ‘quality’ of the conscious experience of the observer associated with $`\underset{¯}{B}_0`$. Subjective intensity, for example, is not diminished during this decrease of square modulus as one would expect from classical physics. Generally speaking, the qualitative properties of a quantum mechanical state are determined by the intrinsic parameters of the state, and have nothing to do with its amplitude. So an observer s awareness of a conscious state like $`\underset{¯}{B}_0`$ is either on or it is off. It is on if the square modulus is positive, and off if it is zero.

## Particle Capture — A Stochastic Hit

Probability current flowing from the first to the second component in eq. 2 represents the probability per unit time that there will be a stochastic hit on the second component, and that corresponds to a particle being captured by the detector. When that happens, our rule (3) – given in the next section – will provide that the second component becomes consciousness

$$\psi (t)D_0\underset{¯}{B}_0+D_1(t)B_1\psi (t)D_0\underset{¯}{B}_0+D_1(t)\underset{¯}{B}_1$$

and that simultaneously the first component goes to zero. Therefore, the stochastic hit produces a second equation (following directly from eq. 2) given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_{sc}>t_0)=D_1\underset{¯}{B}_1$$
(3)
Here again the situation is clear: The observer is consciously aware of the detector in its ‘capture’ mode. Equations 2 and 3 are the dual solutions that our adopted rules draw from the dead-end of the Schrödinger solution by itself.

## The First Three Rules

Equations 2 and 3 follow from the first three of our rules. The first provides for the existence of a stochastic trigger, the second provides for the existence of ready brain states, and the third provides for the collapse of the state function.

Rule (1): *For any subsystem of n components in an isolated system with a square modulus equal to s, the probability per unit time of a stochastic choice of one of those components at time t is given by $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_nJ_n)/s`$, where the net probability current $`J_n`$ going into the nth component at that time is positive333An isolated system is thought of as not interacting with the rest of the universe. If one wants to determine if the two components in eq. 1 are locally coherent or incoherent, then the effect of the environmental terms must be considered. But if one only wants to find the probability per unit time of a stochastic hit on either component, it is sufficient to treat them as an isolated system (i.e., ignoring the environmental terms). Of course, the system will also be isolated if the environmental terms are included, so the probability is not affected by the decision to include or not to include the environmental terms. An isolated system is part of the environment of another isolated system. .*

Rule (2): *If the Hamiltonian gives rise to new components that are not classically continuous with the old components or with each other, then all active brain states that are included in the new components will be ready brain states.* \[note: an “active” brain state is either conscious or ready.\]

Rule (3): *If a component that is entangled with a ready brain state B is stochastically chosen, then B will become conscious, and all other components will be immediately reduced to zero.*

Rule (1) insures that there will be a stochastic hit on the second component of eq. 2. The basis representation of the reduction is provided through rule (2) which insures that the second component in eq. 2 is a ready brain state. Rule (3) converts eq. 2 to eq. 3. Therefore, these rules go directly and uniquely from the solution of Schrödinger’s equation to the empirical predictions that lie beyond that solution by itself; that is, to the dual phenomenon represented by eqs. 2 and 3. The rules supplement the Schrödinger solutions by replacing the Born rule. This is necessary if the theory is to give a full account of the ‘quantum’ reality of observers.

I am not concerned with the question of *why* these rules work, but only that they do work. They work in the simple sense that they include the observer in the quantum mechanical universe, and they ground the Schrödinger solutions to laboratory observations as completely as possible. Empirical accountability is the only constraint that I impose in the above example and in all of the other examples considered in refs. 1 and 2. This severely narrows the possibilities and therefore defines the rules rather sharply. Understanding them will have to wait until there is a proper theory of brain states and/or a more general trans-Cartesian theory. I believe that these rules will naturally emerge out of such a theory when it is found. For instance, rule (2) is a selection rule that forbids the brain s Hamiltonian from producing a discrete conscious brain state. I assume that a correct theory of brains will put this rule into an understandable context, and that rule (3) will also seem less ad hoc with the development of the wider theoretical framework.

## Everett’s Many Worlds

The above rules forbid Everett’s many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics. Rule #2 does not allow discrete conscious states to be created except by stochastic choice; and when that occurs, all of the other components go to zero. Therefore, this treatment does not allow the consciousness of an observer to exist simultaneously in more than one component of a superposition. This negates Everett’s claim that a conscious observer can coexist with other conscious versions of himself as ‘they’ evolve together along separate branches of the universal state function. The observer in each branch is said to have no direct knowledge of the other versions of himself.

Everett’s conjecture is the result of a theory of physics that is not properly grounded in experience. It seems plausible only because the Born rule by itself does not tie Schrödinger’s solutions to laboratory observations as completely as it should. This leaves room for the imaginative and unwarranted wanderings that take us into the many unobservable worlds of Everett.

## A Terminal Observation

In a typical laboratory experiment, the observer interacts with the detector only after the interaction is complete; and at that time, the equation of state is generally given a Born interpretation. That is, the square modulus of each component is said to equal the probability of finding the state in that component. But we say in this treatment that probability enters only through probability current, so the Born rule cannot be directly employed. However, when rules (1-3) are applied to a terminal observation, it is shown below that the Born rule is upheld, even though it is not itself fundamental.

When the interaction is complete at a time $`t_f`$, and before the observer has looked at the detector, the system in eq. 1 will stabilize to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t>t_f)=\{\psi (t)D_0+D_1(t_f)\}X$$
(4)
where $`X`$ is the unknown brain state of the observer prior to his interacting with the detector. At the moment $`t_{ob}`$ of observation, rule (2) requires that eq. 4 becomes

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_{ob}>t_f)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (t)D_0X+D_1(t_f)X`$
$`+`$ $`\psi ^{}(t)D_0B_0+D_1^{}(t_f)B_1`$
where the primed components in the second row are zero at $`t_{ob}`$, and ready brain states $`B_0`$ and $`B_1`$ are entangled with detector states $`D_0`$ and $`D_1`$ in accordance with assumption B. There are as yet no new conscious states.

The interaction in eq. 5 is entirely physiological, where probability current $`J`$ flows from the components in the first row to components in the second row.

$$J_0<0\text{and}J_1<0J_0^{}>0\text{and}J_1^{}>0$$

So far, the interaction is determined by standard quantum mechanics, plus assumptions A and B and rule (2). It is at this point that we apply rules (1 & 3). Rule (1) assures us that there will be a stochastic hit on one of the two primed components during the physiological response. Setting $`n=2`$,

$$𝑑t[J_0^{}+J_1^{}]=\text{total probability of a hit}=1$$

where currents $`J_0^{}`$ and $`J_1^{}`$ flow until the physiological interaction is complete.

When one of the primed components is stochastically chosen, rule (3) causes the affected ready state to become conscious and drives the other component to zero. This reflects the laboratory experience in two parts: (1) the third component in eq. 5 is chosen with a probability equal to $`𝑑tJ_0^{}`$, and (2) the fourth component is chosen with a probability equal to $`𝑑tJ_1^{}`$. The probability of one of the components being chosen is therefore the same as that given by the Born rule. However, that rule is replaced by one that introduces probability *only* when current flows from the system in the first row of eq. 5 to the observer/system in the second row of eq. 5.

Our rules now adequately describe the observer s experience when he interacts with the detector before the beginning of the particle/detector interaction, as well as after that interaction is complete. It is shown in ref. 1 that the rules also work if the observer enters the picture *during* the particle/detector interaction. So in all of the ways that an observer can become involved with the system, the rules pull additional (and correct) empirical information from the theory.

## Boundary Conditions

Rule (3) provides for a ‘collapse’ of the wave function when an observer is present. It requires the *elimination* of components. This is not an ensemble-to-ensemble reduction; but rather, it is a change that is discontinuously inflicted on an individual system in which one or more components are made to disappear. I call it a *boundary reduction*, because is has the effect of discontinuously changing the boundary conditions of the solution to Schrödinger’s equation. The Hamiltonian does not undergo change during this reduction, but the solution on which it operates undergoes change.

The boundary conditions of the universe emerging from the big bang are indeterminate with respect to position or direction. Throughout the inflationary period there are no concrete markers that distinguish one part of the universe from another. A single field supposedly dominated the inflationary expansion, and that is said to guarantee the thermodynamic sameness of the horizon of the universe in every direction. This is the point of the ‘horizon’ argument.

So the question is: If the universe was originally so featureless, why is there now so much differentiated structure? Suppose that the wave function of an oxygen atom is distributed (more or less) uniformly over a volume; and simultaneously, that the wave function of a carbon atom is also distributed (more or less) uniformly over the same volume. Then in sufficient time, one would find the wave function of a carbon monoxide molecule that is distributed (more or less) uniformly over that volume. In the same way, the (more or less) uniformly distributed GUT particles that emerged from the inflationary expansion will combine in such a way that – in sufficient time – one would find wave functions of galaxies that are (more or less) uniformly distributed throughout the universe. There is clearly something wrong with this scenario. The contemporary universe is not quantum mechanically amorphous to this extent. This means that there must have been post-inflation boundary conditions imposed on the universe, and this could only have happened through a mechanism that brought about a series of collapses of the original universal wave function. The question then is: How did that happen? What was that mechanism?

That mechanism must be external to the equation of motion, for differential equations cannot modify their own boundary conditions (i.e., they cannot select one ‘eigen-galaxy’ and discard another). However, an external chooser (like our stochastic trigger) can do that. It can say: This galaxy stays, and that one goes.

It is therefore necessary to add a choice mechanism of some kind to the differentially based formalisms of physics in order to provide for post-inflationary boundary conditions. A spontaneous reduction theory like that of Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber would qualify, as would a gravitational reduction theory like that of Penrose, whatever else may be said for or against these theories. Environmental decoherence does not qualify as a mechanism because it does not choose between ‘eigen-objects’. Of course, environmental arguments may be used in conjunction with other theories that do qualify.

Rule (3) qualifies, for it provides a boundary-defining stochastic trigger. So the question is: Is the rule (3) reduction a part of a more general reduction, or is it possible that rule (3) describes the *only* example of a boundary reduction in the universe? Put differently: Is a ready brain so special that it is the only configuration of matter that is capable of responding to a stochastic hit?

## Objective Reduction: Rule (1a)

It is not difficult to construct a rule that provides for the existence of boundary reductions in the absence of an observer. I will call it *objective reduction* rule (1a).

Rule (1a): *If a component of a superposition is locally incoherent with other components in the superposition, and if it is stochastically chosen, then all those other components will be immediately reduced to zero.*

If rule (1a) were in play, then the first particle/detector component $`\psi (t)D_o`$ in eq. 1 would become zero the moment the second component $`D_1(t)`$ is stochastically chosen. In general, this rule would provide for an ‘observerless’ measurement (including a genuine boundary defining collapse) associated with environmental decoherence. In addition, this reduction would preserve Hamiltonian dynamics, so it could not be explained by the Penrose theory without some modification. Of course, I have not tried to ‘explain’ any of these rules. I have only sought rules that give the right results, where explanations are left to the possibility of a wider theoretical framework. The trouble is, the observer cannot generally know if rule (1a) gives any result at all; for the effect of the rule is experimentally indistinguishable from the effect of rules (1-3) by themselves.

Rule (1a) applies in the absence of an observer, but the above rules (1-3) are still required when an observer is present. We need rule (1) in any case, to provide a stochastic trigger. In addition, rule (2) is necessary to provide for the existence of ready brain states during active observation, and rule (3) is needed to turn a stochastically chosen ready brain state into a conscious state. Rules (4) and (5) will also be found to apply in the presence of an observer, and will be in play with or without rule (1a). Therefore, *when an observer is present, rule (1a) is superfluous; and when an observer is not present, the effects of rule (1a) cannot be observed.* The choice is to adopt rule (1a) together with a modification of rule (3) that does not provide for a separate reduction \[call it rule (3mod)\], *or* to adopt the rules (1-3) as originally stated. The observer cannot tell the difference444If an earlier boundary condition is uniquely correlated with a later observation, and if the observation is stochastically chosen by the rules (1-3) proposed above, then it will be impossible for the observer to know if the earlier boundary was also chosen by an earlier application of rule (1a). This will be true even if the boundary is not uniquely correlated with the observation. Causal correlations that connect back to a range of possible earlier ‘incoherent’ boundaries will result in uncertainty in the boundary conditions that led to the observation. So the precise nature of the earlier boundary cannot be verified by the observer, and there will be no reason for him to believe that any one of those possible boundaries was (or was not) the *only* boundary by virtue of an earlier rule (1a) reduction. Therefore, to this extent, the effects of rule (1a) are empirically indistinguishable from the effects of rule (3). An exception may be possible if causal connections go back to a range of earlier ‘coherent’ boundaries; however, an example like this is worked out in ref. 13 with results that also support indistinguishably.. In another paper , it is shown that the difference is unobservable in all of the examples that have been worked out in refs. (1-2).

This choice of rule (1a) or rule (3) will be decided by determining which best fits into a wider theoretical framework. It is my belief that the missing link in all of this is a genuine trans-Cartesian connection. The brain *is* special because it supports consciousness, and when we have finally understood this phenomenon it is my belief that we will also have the theoretical framework that will favor the rules that exploit the uniqueness of a ready brain state – that is, the rules as originally given.

This is the view put forward von Neumann, Wigner, London and Bauer. It does not mean that consciousness ‘causes’ state reduction as is sometimes said; but rather, that there is a common cause of both. Rule (3) says that a stochastic hit on a ready brain state gives rise to both consciousness and a boundary reduction. *It* is the cause of both.

The remainder of this paper does not require the reader to accept this point of view. Having stated my position, I return to the primarily question concerning what happens when a conscious observer *is* involved in an interaction – not with what might happen otherwise 555There is one consequence of this idea concerning the importance of an observer that people find incredible. It is that there may be significant parts of the universe that remain quantum mechanically amorphous because they still haven’t been observed by a conscious observer – as for instance, large parts of the surface of Venus. I agree that this is incredible. But it is no more so than many other things about quantum mechanics – as for instance, the diffraction properties of a single particle.,666I do not accept Penrose’s reduction criterion because I see no reason why a metrical superposition should not exist so long as all of its components are mapped onto the same topological space. However, I agree that the singularities associated with the centers of black holes cannot be plausibly superimposed. Therefore, the appearance of a black hole must have established a boundary condition that uniquely located its center and excluded everything else from that location. This must be an exception to the ‘observer’ requirement, for it means that the positions of most galaxies (and the spaces between them) were probably determined long before the appearance of ready brains and rule (3) boundary reductions.,777My rejection of Penrose’s R-process should not reflect on the Penrose-Hameroff idea that coherent superpositions within microtubules might have something to do with consciousness, or brain readiness. That may or may not be the case. ,888If the environment of a system contains another system that undergoes a state reduction by either rule (1a) or rule 3, then the square modulus $`s`$ of the entire system may change (i.e., decrease) in the middle of the primary interaction that is being considered. This amounts to a mid-interaction change in boundary conditions, and will be accompanied by a corresponding change (i.e., decrease) in the current flowing into each component. Since rule (1) involves the ratio of $`J/s`$, and applies at each moment of time, the new boundary will not effect the probability per unit time. This means that rule (1) will correctly apply with one value of $`s`$ before the environmental reduction, and with another value of $`s`$ after the reduction. In general, the square modulus of an isolated system that includes environmental terms may decrease rapidly due to environmental state reductions. Although rule (1) is completely valid in this fluid situation, it will be easier to stabilize $`s`$ by treating (isolated) systems in which the environmental terms have been excluded..

## Two Observes – Rule (4)

We have seen that rules (1-3) work well in all of the ways that an observer might interact with the particle/detector system in eq. 1. These rules also work well in all of the ways that two observers might interact with the system – with one exception. Rules (1-3) by themselves give rise to an anomaly that must be remedied. To this end, a fourth rule is added that puts an important restriction on ready brain states.

Suppose the first observer is on board with the detector from the beginning as in eq. 2, and let the interaction terminate without a capture. The equation would then take the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t>t_f)=\{\psi (t)D_0\underset{¯}{B}_0+D_1(t_f)B_1\}X$$

where $`t_f`$ is the time that the particle/observer interaction ends, and $`X`$ represents the brain state of the second observer who has not yet interacted with the system. The first term in a product like $`B_1X`$ will refer to the first observer, and the second term will refer to the second observer. Current has stopped flowing at this stage, so physically, it corresponds to the observer just staring at the detector with no hope that the particle can still be detected – since the interaction was over at $`t_f`$. The second observer then looks at the detector at time $`t_{ob(2)}`$ which, according to rule (2), gives

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_{ob(2)}>t_f)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (t)D_0\underset{¯}{B}_0X+D_1(t_f)B_1X`$
$`+`$ $`\psi ^{}(t)D_0\underset{¯}{B}_0B_0+D_1^{}(t_f)B_1B_1`$
where current now flows into the primed components in the second row that are equal to zero at $`t_{ob(2)}`$. If there is a stochastic hit on the third component in eq. 6, the resulting state equation will immediately become $`\psi ^{}(tt_{ob(2)})D_0\underset{¯}{B}_0\underset{¯}{B}_0`$, which corresponds to both observers witnessing the detector state $`D_0`$ that has been passed over without a particle capture. However, if there is a stochastic hit on the fourth component in eq. 6, the state equation will become $`D_1^{}(t_f)\underset{¯}{B}_1\underset{¯}{B}_1`$, according to which both observers witness a particle capture. But that is impossible, since the first observer can testify that the interaction has already ended without a capture. Therefore, the latter transition must be forbidden. This is accomplished in a general way by requiring another selection rule that reflects the properties of the brain’s Hamiltonian.

Rule (4): *A transition between two components is forbidden if each is an entanglement containing a ready brain state of the same observer.*

There is an entangled ready brain state $`B_1`$ of the first observer appearing in both the second and the fourth components of eq. 6. Rule (4) therefore says that no current can flow between them, so the anomalous state $`D_1^{}(t_f)\underset{¯}{B}_1\underset{¯}{B}_1`$ cannot be chosen. It is shown in ref. 1 that the fourth component in eq. 6 will not even appear in that equation. It is also shown in ref. 1 that rules (1-4) work perfectly well in all of the ways that two observers might interact with the system and with each other – and there are now no exceptions999In eq. 6, the probability of a capture is found by applying rule (1) with $`n=1`$ to the second component prior to $`t_f`$. The probability of no capture is found by applying rule (1) with $`n=1`$ to the third component after $`t_{ob(2)}`$. The sum will equal 1.0..

> The rules so far do four notable things. (1) They impose boundary conditions that contribute to the structured universe of our experience, and (2) they draw empirical content from quantum mechanics (e.g., the duel phenomenon) that is *not* predicted by the Schrödinger theory plus the Born rule. (3) They amend the Born rule to apply to probability current rather than square modulus. One consequence of this is that there is no need to insist on the normalization of system states. And finally, (4) these rules give conscious observers a way to engage quantum mechanical systems. In the process, they introduce non-classical ready brain states that have a crucial but limited role to play. These are brought into existence by the second rule, they are stochastically chosen by the third rule, and their influence is limited by the fourth rule. If nothing else, ready brains define the basis states of a boundary reduction.

## Schrödinger s Cat Experiment

No new rules or assumptions are introduced in ref. 2, where we turn attention to the famed Schrödinger cat experiment. The cat presents us with a different operational situation that can be used to further test the rules and assumptions that have already been adopted. They all pass the test.

There are two versions of the Schrödinger cat experiment. In version I, a conscious cat interacts with a device that splits it into two components. In the first component the cat is made unconscious, and in the second it remains conscious. This is another case in which the equations of motion give rise to a single solution without resolving the question of the consciousness or unconsciousness of the brain states that are involved. When our rules (1-4) are applied to this case, they again tease out two solutions: one corresponding to the case in which there is a stochastic hit that leaves the cat unconscious, and one in which there is no stochastic hit, leaving the cat fully conscious.

The rules also resolve all issues that might arise when an outside observer is brought into the picture. The observer can be injected into the scene before there has been a stochastic choice, or during the operation of the mechanical devise that renders the cat unconscious, or after the experiment is over. In all of these cases the rules correctly predict the conscious experience of the observer and the cat, leaving no ambiguity of the kind that typifies the Schrödinger solution by itself.

In version II, the cat is initially unconscious and is made to interact with a device that splits it into two components. In the first component the cat is aroused to consciousness, and in the second it remains unconscious. Again we examine what happens when an outside observer interacts with the system at any time during the experiment. In all of these cases, rules (1-4) convert the Schrödinger solution into a correct description of the conscious experience of the observer and the cat. Here again, the rules remove all of the ambiguity that normally plague quantum mechanical solutions when conscious beings are involved.

Finally in ref. 2, the version II cat is assumed to have an internal alarm that competes with the external alarm, where each is capable of arousing the cat. Rules (1-4) correctly describe the cat s various experiences in these circumstances. Again an external observer is allowed to intercede at any time during the experiment; and again, the rules resolve all of the quantum mechanical paradoxes that are usually associated with the Schrödinger cat.

These rules work as well as they do in the cat experiments because they properly ground the Schrödinger solutions in experience, leaving no fuzzy ambiguities.

PART II

> Part II is a summary of the findings in refs. 3 and 4. In these two papers we take account of the fact that a conscious brain state cannot be sharply defined, so it must have a pulse-like nature.

## A Conscious Pulse

References 1-2 make the unrealistic assumption that brain states have sharply defined physiological variables. But any real conscious state will span a range of physiological states, so refs 3-4 define the properties of a brain *pulse*.

In ref. 3, rule (3) is amended to accommodate this change. The amendment is called rule (3a), and it asserts that when a conscious state is stochastically chosen it dissolves into a pulse of states that reflect the brains limits of resolution. This dissolution is affected by the brain’s Hamiltonian. In any final presentation of the rules, rule (3a) will be joined with rule (3) to give a full account of what happens when there is a boundary reduction. The other rules are not affected by a change to pulses from sharply defined states.

It is shown in ref. 3 that when an observer tries to distinguish between two apparatus eigenvalues that are too close to be resolved by a conscious pulse, the superposition containing these two eigenvalues cannot be fully reduced by rules (1-4). The sharpness of the reduction depends on the extent to which the resolution curve overlaps the two eigenvalues. In general, the observation of a superposition results in another superposition, due to resolution difficulties.

Reference 4 continues the discussion of the properties of a conscious pulse, but with the addition of the final rule (5). To explain this, we need to first introduce some ideas concerning the relationship of consciousness to physiology.

## The Parallel Principle

It is generally accepted that the subjective world of our personal experience corresponds in critical ways with the objective world that exists outside of ourselves. It is assumed that formal relationships can be found in the subjective world that parallel or mirror the formal relationships that exist in the objective world – and this is the basis of epistemology in physics. Von Neumann calls it the *psycho-physical parallelism*. Why a psycho-physical parallelism should exist at all is open to question, inasmuch as these two separate realms of reality have such different natures. There is no obvious reason why one of these worlds should pay attention to the fortunes or machinations of the other. Responding to this point, Leibniz claimed that we are compelled to believe in a Pre-established Harmony between these realms that is arranged by God.

Opposed to this, the *parallel principle* says that the psycho-physical parallelism is the consequence of natural evolutionary processes. It claims that the conscious evolution of a species develops in parallel with the physiological evolution of the species; and for this to happen, there must be an *interaction* between consciousness and physiology. The general mechanism for this interaction is described in a previous paper .

The rules that have been considered so far allow one to believe that consciousness is only epiphenomenal: that is, it may be regarded as an insubstantial by-product of physiology that has no counter-influence of its own. It is possible to believe that consciousness just tags along with the rule (3) reduction that is set in motion by the stochastic choice in rule (1). But for the parallel principle to work, consciousness must do more than tag along. It must do something. It must have an influence on physiology. Its presence must give an evolutionary preference to one kind of physiology over another, and to achieve this we adopt rule (5).

The mechanisms for this influence are likely to be quite involved, so I narrowed down my considerations to just one kind of consciousness – *pain consciousness*. It is possible that the first conscious experience of a species was ‘pain’; but for pain to be influential there must be a behavioral consequence when it appears. If that behavior is beneficial to the species in its evolutionary struggle, then a parallelism will be established between the appearance of pain and a response that is beneficial to the species.

The logic of this argument may seem to be obvious and well known. But the implications are dramatic if two things are made clear. First, the term ‘pain’ is not a euphemism for just another physiological sub-routine. Pain here refers to the subjective experience itself, considered as something apart from physiology. It that were not so, the parallel principle would not work. If all causal influences were basically physiological, then there is no reason why subjective experience should in any way parallel or mirror the physical world. Subjective impressions and images would then lead their own irrelevant existence. They might be stimulated by physiology, but their content would be nonsensical. Therefore, for there to be a disciplined relationship between physiology and consciousness, there must be a meaningful interaction between the two. Second, the term ‘pain’ for one species may not have the same qualitative significance as pain for another species. The psycho-physical parallelism does not depend on this ‘quality’, but requires only that a certain kind of conscious experience is associated with a certain kind of behavior, and that this combination is an evolutionary success. Therefore, all we have to do is establish that a conscious experience of some kind has a lawful influence on behavior, and evolution will do the rest. The parallel principle will be satisfied.

When I say ‘pain’ in the following, I refer to an experience that arose somewhere in the evolutionary past of the subject species, and became correlated with a successful behavioral response. To achieve this kind of success, I claim that pain itself (not a physiological substitute) must alter physiological brain states. If there are no behavioral consequences of this alteration, then the newly introduced phenomenon will be of no consequence, and will fade away over time as a useless subjective appendage. However, if there are behavioral consequences, then evolution will shape those consequences in such a way as to validate the parallel principle.

The mechanism for this physiological influence is to be found in the structure of the conscious pulse. It is assumed that the primordial organism has the conscious experience in question (i.e., pain), and that this manifests itself in a conscious pulse of finite width. Reference 4 has a detailed discussion of how such a pulse might be formed, and how its participating states will be spread over a range of greater or lesser pain.

The accompanying figure shows that pulse as a function of a variable $`r`$, which (according to the formation mechanism that I imagined) is proportional to the number of opiate receptors that are occupied by molecules that stimulate receptor activity (see refs. 4, 14). A stimulated opiate receptor supports euphoria and/or analgesia. This means that the leading edge of the pulse refers to conscious states that are less painful than the states in the trailing edge. We then introduce rule (5)

Rule (5): *If two states within a conscious pulse represent different degrees of pain, then the square modulus of the state with lesser pain will increase at the expense of the state with the greater pain.*

Because the trailing edge states are the more painful of the two, rule (5) will cause the leading edge in the figure to grow at the expense of the trailing edge. As a result, the pulse will drift to the right as indicated by the arrow. So rule (5) brings about a migration of the brain’s conscious pulse that will result in physiological changes that may very well result in behavioral changes. Again, see details in refs. 4 and 14. The organism may therefore be altered in a way that may in the long run be beneficial to the species. If that happens, then it will be genetically established that pain will be associated with a behavioral response that furthers the survival of the species. This will be the beginning of a psycho-physical parallelism, established in accordance with the parallel principle.

## Experimental Test

If rule (5) is correct, then there will be physical consequences that should be observable in principle. A test of rule (5) is proposed by the author in another paper where two experiments are suggested: (1) a PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scan of a human subject experiencing pain, and (2) an autoradiography of a rat experiencing pain . I will briefly describe the PET experiment.

*Agonists* molecules attach to opiate receptors and stimulate a response that is recognized by the subject as euphoria and/or anesthesia. *Antagonist* molecules also attach to these receptors, but their only effect is to block the attachment of agonist molecules. In this experiment, a subject experiencing pain is injected with a certain ratio of opiate agonist to antagonist molecules, where one or the other is radioactively labeled. The extent of positron emission is then measured in parts of the brain where there are high densities of opiate receptors. There are four separate scans.

(a) the agonist is labeled and the dose is pharmacological.

(b) the antagonist is labeled and the dose is pharmacological.

(c) the agonist is labeled and the dose is subpharmacological.

(d) the antagonist is labeled and the dose is subpharmacological.

Let $`r`$ be the ratio of positron emission between (a) and (b), where this is to be compared with the ratio $`r`$ of emission activity between (c) and (d). The variable $`r`$ in each case is equivalent to the number of receptors that are occupied by agonist molecules, compared with the number of receptors that are occupied by antagonist molecules. On purely physiological grounds, the ratio ought to be the same in both cases (a/b and c/d) because the difference has only to do with dose, and the doses are well below saturation. However, the subject is conscious of the effects of the injection in the first case (i.e., the pharmacological dose), but not in the second case (i.e., the subpharmacological dose). If rule (5) is correct, then the drift of the conscious pulse in the first case should alter the result by increasing the number of agonist molecules relative to the number of antagonist molecules. We should therefore measure

$`r`$ (between a and b) $`>r`$ (between c and d)

thereby validating rule (5). This validation depends on a change in $`r`$ that cannot be accounted for on purely physiological grounds. There is reason to believe that PET technology is up to this degree of accountability, or soon will be.


text:
# New Upper Limit of Terrestrial Equivalence Principle Test for Rotating Extended Bodies

## I Introduction

The equivalence principle (EP), as one of the fundamental hypotheses of Einstein’s general relativity, has been tested by many experiments, including torsion balance scheme  and free-fall one . Lunar laser ranging from the Earth to the Moon has provided up to now the most accurate test of the EP to 5$`\times `$10$`^{\text{-13 }}`$. Recently, some different tests of EP for gravitational self-energy and spin-polarized macroscopic objects have been reported . However, in all of the experiments including the Satellite Test of the Equivalence Principle (STEP) and the Galileo Galilei (GG) space projects as well as the MICROSCOPE space mission , the test masses are all non-rotating.

It is well known that spin-interactions of elementary particles, spin-orbit coupling and spin-spin coupling, have been studied in both theory and experiment. Furthermore, the spin-gravitational couplings, i.e. the spin-gravitoelectric coupling and the spin-gravitomagnetic coupling, and the spin-rotation coupling between intrinsic spins have been also investigated for a long time .

Over the last few years there has been a growing interest in effects of gravitational fields on gyroscopes . From the experimental point of view, the NASA/Stanford Relativity Mission Gravity Probe B (GP-B) experiment will provide two extremely precise tests of general relativity based on observations of four identical superconducting gyroscopes in a satellite in a 400 miles polar orbit around the Earth . These gyroscopes are carefully isolated from nearly all sources of Newtonian torques, and their residual drift is presented less than 0.020 marc-second/year for a gyroscope in a fully inertial orbit . General relativity predicts that, though isolated from external torques, the spin axes of these gyroscopes will precess with respect to a distant inertial reference frame at a rate of 6.6 arc-second/year for the geodetic effect, and 0.042 arc-second/year due to frame dragging. Cerdonio et al. have proposed a novel detector (gyromagnetic electron gyroscope) to locally detect the frame dragging due to the terrestrial rotation . Recently, Zhang et al. also developed a phenomenological model for the spin-spin interaction between rotating extended bodies, which predicts the effect of the spin-spin coupling on the orbital acceleration of the gyroscope free-falling in gravitational field rather than the spin procession of the gyroscope. In the mode, a dimensionless parameter representing the strength of violation of EP can be defined as follows

$$\eta _\text{s}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }g}{g}=\kappa \left(\frac{\underset{\text{1}}{\overset{}{S}}\underset{\text{e}}{\overset{}{S}}}{Gm_\text{1}M_\text{e}R_\text{1}}\frac{\underset{\text{2}}{\overset{}{S}}\underset{\text{e}}{\overset{}{S}}}{Gm_\text{2}M_\text{e}R_\text{2}}\right)\text{ ,}$$
(1)
where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, m$`_\text{1}`$, m$`_\text{2}`$ and M$`_\text{e}`$ are the masses of the two gyroscopes and the Earth, respectively, and $`\underset{\text{1}}{\overset{}{S}}`$, $`\underset{\text{2}}{\overset{}{S}}`$, and $`\underset{\text{e}}{\overset{}{S}}`$ are their spin angular momentums, R$`_\text{1}`$ and R$`_\text{2}`$ are the distances between the centers of the two gyroscopes and the Earth, respectively, and the parameter $`\kappa `$ represents the universal coupling factor for the spin-spin interaction for rotating extended bodies. As pointed out in Refs. 28 and 29, the phenomenological model developed by Zhang et al. is to investigate the effect of the spin-spin coupling on the orbital acceleration of the rotating gyroscope free falling in gravitational field, which is different from the aim of the GP-B.

A preliminary double free-fall (DFF) experiment to test the EP for rotating extended bodies, in which two gyroscopes with differing rotating senses drop freely, has been performed, and the results show that the EP is still valid for rotating extended bodies at the level of 2$`\times `$10$`^{\text{-6}}`$ . A main limit of preliminary experimental precision has been proved to come from the pump outgassing effect due to the asymmetrical outgassing for the two tubes. In the initial experimental setup, the vacuum pump system is set in the top part of the tube. In this case, when the test masses fall through the tee part of the tube ($``$ 0.3 s free-fall), a force due to the pump outgassing will deflect the test masses or lead them to a more complex motion . An abrupt acceleration change of about 20 mGal is observed at this height. To avoid it, the pump system is moved down to the bottom part of the tube, and meantime the vacuum level is improved from initial 50 mPa to 2 mPa. At the same time, the vibration excited by the operating pump is effectively isolated by a rubber-gas-steel isolator, and the isolation ratio is measured about -30 dB to -60 dB in the range of above 3 Hz. And then, the effective falling height is prolonged from initial 20 cm (0.2 s) to 9 m (1.0 s). In this article, error sources of our DFF experiment will be carefully discussed and a new upper limit of the EP for rotating extended bodies will be presented.

## II Experimental Description and Error Analysis

A Michelson-type interferometer including a frequency-stabilized He-Ne laser beam with a relative length standard of 1.3$`\times `$10$`^{\text{-8}}`$ is used to monitor the differential vertical displacement between two gyroscopes, in which one is rotating and another is non-rotating, and then the interference fringes are sampled by means of a 10 MHz 12-bit AD card combined with an external rubidium atomic clock, and then stored in a computer. The diameter of the laser beam is collimated about 3.0 mm so that the beam wavefront effect can be neglected. An aligned verticality is kept within 50<sup>′′</sup> for each laser beam, and the maximum uncertain differential acceleration due to the aligned verticality is below 20 $`\mu `$Gal.

Each of the two test masses consists of a steel gyroscope with a mass of 420.0$`\pm `$2.5 g, a diameter of about 55 mm and a height of about 32 mm, which together with a corner-cube-retroreflector (CCR) of 76.4$`\pm `$0.4 g is sealed in an aluminum frame of 159.4$`\pm `$0.9 g. Tinned copper wires with a diameter of 0.25 mm are used to suspend the test masses, and the initial suspending differential height between them is kept within 1 mm, which implies the vertical gravity gradient correction is about 0.3 $`\mu `$Gal. The test mass with a non-rotation rotor is released about 3 ms before the rotating one, which sets a systematic error of about 0.3 $`\mu `$Gal due to the finite speed of light. The rotating gyroscope is driven by a DC motor and its rotating speed is kept at (17000$`\pm `$200) rpm.

An uncertain acceleration due to the residual gas drag effect is less than 0.2 $`\mu `$Gal at $`p`$ = 2 mPa and $`T`$ = 300 K . In addition, the outgassing effect on the dropped objects should be carefully considered because of the continuous operation of a turbo-molecular pump with a full rated pumping speed $`v_\text{p}`$ of 1500 L/s. The acceleration contribution for a single dropped object can be estimated as follows

$$aR\rho v_\text{p}V/m$$
(2)
where $`R`$ represents the ratio of the surface of the dropped object and the inner surface of the vacuum tube, and is about 0.04 here, $`\rho `$ and $`V`$ are the residual gas density and mean gas particle speed, respectively. Then, the acceleration for a single dropped object is about 100 $`\mu `$Gal at $`p`$ = 2 mPa. Fortunately, the DFF scheme can reduce the common mode effect, and a differential acceleration for the two test masses due to the outgassing effect depends on both the outgassing difference and the gas density difference between the two tubes. It is very difficult to calculate the real difference due to the complex flux motion exactly. However, it can be roughly estimated based on the pressure difference between the two tubes. When the turbo-molecular pump runs normally, the pressure of the bottom part of the tube (close to the pump) is measured about 1.7 mPa, and at the same time, the top parts of the two tubes are measured about 8.7 mPa and 5.6 mPa, respectively. This means that the outgassing speeds in the two tubes are about 0.61 $`v_\text{p}`$ and 0.39 $`v_\text{p}`$ if the pressure distribution in both tubes is the same. So in this assumption, the acceleration difference for the two test masses due to the outgassing effect is estimated less than 22 $`\mu `$Gal.

A possible lifting force for a rotating rotor due to the residual gas flow’s circulation can be calculated based on the Zhukovskii’s theorem, and this effect can be neglected here . A possible horizontal velocity difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_\text{h}`$ is estimated smaller than 4.2 mm/s according to the change of the interference pattern intensity during free-fall of test masses, and an acceleration difference due to the Coriolis’s effect is less than 54 $`\mu `$Gal . It means that the horizontal velocity difference would have to be monitored in the further experiment with a higher precision.

The silent amplitude spectrum of the seismic noise in our laboratory contributes an uncertainty of about 1 $`\mu `$Gal to the final experiment result . But the mechanical vibration modes of the optical measurement system are dominant due to excitation of the vacuum pumps. Figure 1 is a typical residual differential displacement of the DFF experiment between both non-rotating test masses, in which the linear term has been subtracted. Three main modes have been observed about 16.8 Hz, 36.6 Hz, and 96.1 Hz, and their amplitudes comes to about 0.05 $`\mu `$m, which contribute an uncertain acceleration of 8 $`\mu `$Gal based on the following equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }g_\text{f}=\frac{120x_\text{n}}{\omega _\text{n}T^\text{3}}\sqrt{1+\frac{12}{\omega _\text{n}^2T^\text{2}}+(\frac{12}{\omega _\text{n}^2T^\text{2}})^\text{2}}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\omega _\text{n}T}{2}+\varphi _\text{n})\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\omega _\text{n}T}{2}+\text{tg}^1\frac{12\omega _\text{n}^2T^\text{2}}{6\omega _\text{n}T}),$$
(3)
where $`x_\text{n}`$, $`\omega _\text{n}`$, and $`\varphi _\text{n}`$ represent the amplitude, the angular frequency, and the phase of the high-frequency vibration, respectively, and $`T`$ is the effective time length. Parabolic curve fitting result shows that the differential acceleration $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_{\text{N-N}}`$ is -58 $`\mu `$Gal, which is consistent with the total systematic uncertainty, as listed in Table 1, of 64 $`\mu `$Gal.

## III Experimental Results

Figure 2(a) and 2(b) are, respectively, typical residual differential displacements of the DFF experiment with non- and left-rotating (spin vector pointing upward) gyroscopes, and non- and right-rotating (spin vector pointing downward) ones. From both figures, it is very clear that there are a dominant slow frequency motion but not a parabolic term. This slow frequency (1.6$`\pm `$0.2 Hz) motion is confirmed to be resulted from the friction coupling between the rotating rotor and the aluminum frame by observing the motion of the reflected beam. Since effective free-fall duration in our DFF experiment is about 1 s and the correlative coefficient between a parabolic term ($`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ $``$ 100 $`\mu `$Gal) and a harmonic term of 1.6 Hz ($`x_\text{n}`$ $``$ 0.06 $`\mu `$m) comes to 0.3 $``$ 0.4, the slow frequency fluctuation is very difficult to be subtracted by fitting. Nevertheless, a maximum uncertain acceleration due to the slow motion can be estimated based on Eq. (3), and its effect comes to about 130 $`\mu `$Gal ($`x_\text{n}`$ 0.06 $`\mu `$m) for the non- and left-rotating gyroscopes and 150 $`\mu `$Gal ($`x_\text{n}`$ 0.07 $`\mu `$m) for the non- and right-rotating gyroscopes, respectively. The fitting results of the both residual curves show that the differential acceleration between the non- and left-rotating gyroscopes $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_{\text{N-L}}`$ is 0.48 $`\mu `$Gal, and that between the non- and right-rotating gyroscopes $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_{\text{N-R}}`$ is -110 $`\mu `$Gal, which are consisted with the systematic uncertainty of 160 $`\mu `$Gal as listed in Table 1. In addition, a high-frequency mechanical vibration of the CCR at the frequency of the rotating rotor, caused by the friction coupling, has also been observed and its modulation amplitude is in the order of 0.1 $`\mu `$m, which contributes an uncertainty of about 5 $`\mu `$Gal. Fortunately, the limit can be suppressed by a factor of sin($`\omega _\text{n}t_\text{s}/2`$)/($`\omega _\text{n}t_\text{s}/2`$) by means of a time-domain data-smoothing-process, here $`t_\text{s}`$ is the time length of the smoothing-process.

Based on above statement, the EP is still valid at the level of 1.6$`\times `$10$`^{\text{-7}}`$ for rotating extended bodies, which is improved by over one order for preliminary experiment result , and the spin-spin interaction between the rotating extended bodies has not been observed at this level. According to the Eq. (1) and the approximately uniform sphere mode of the Earth, it can be concluded that the coupling factor $`\kappa `$1.6$`\times `$10$`^{\text{-19 }}`$kg$`^{\text{-1}}`$, which sets a new upper limit for the spin-spin interaction between a rotating extended body and the Earth.

## IV Discussions

Our experiment precision is mainly limited by the mechanical friction of the gyroscope, which could be improved by choosing better gyroscope or extending the free-fall duration. As pointed out in the introduction section, GP-B mission measures the spin axes precession of spinning fused-quartz gyroscopes with respect to an inertial reference frame, partly due to the geodetic effect, and partly due to frame dragging. In general relativity the both effects have small, non-zero values even without violation of the EP. However, based on the model developed by Zhang et al., a perigean precession of the gyroscope in the GP-B experiment is not greater than 100 arc-second/year based on current experimental result $`\kappa `$1.6$`\times `$10$`^{\text{-19 }}`$kg$`^{\text{-1}}`$. Nevertheless, the GP-B experiment measures the spin axis precession rather than the orbital motion of the gyroscope. As proposed in Ref. 28, a possible scheme is to put a non-spinning shell surrounding a spinning gyroscope in a satellite, and the motion of the spinning gyroscope with respect to the non-spinning reference frame could be monitored using a SQUID or an inertial sensor . If the gap between the gyroscope and the reference shell can be measured in the level of 1 nm/year, and the coupling factor $`\kappa `$ between the spin-spin interaction between the rotating extended bodies could be tested in the level of 10$`^{\text{-31}}`$ kg$`^{\text{-1}}`$, which is improved by about 12 orders.

Acknowledgments We are grateful to Prof. W. R. Hu and A. Ruediger for their discussion and useful suggestion. This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China under Grant No: 95-Yu-34 and 19990754 and by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No: 19835040, 10175070, and 10047004.

| Systematic Error | Uncertainty ($`\mu `$Gal) |
| --- | --- |
| Length standard of laser | $``$ 13 |
| Verticality of laser beam | $``$ 20 |
| Outgassing effect | $``$ 22 |
| Horizontal motion | $``$ 54 |
| Mechanical vibrations | $``$ 8 |
| Total for non-rotating | $``$ 64 |
| Friction coupling | $``$ 150 |
| Total for rotating | $``$ 160 |