Article - Laura Knight-Jadczyk

Adventures With Cassiopaea

Chapter 30

Everett's name may be familiar because of what is called The Everett-Wheeler interpretation of quantum mechanics. a rival of the orthodox "Copenhagen" interpretation of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. The Everett Wheeler theory is also known as the "many worlds" interpretation.

Hugh Everett did his undergraduate study in chemical engineering at the Catholic University of America. Studying von Neumann's and Bohm's textbooks as part of his graduate studies, under Wheeler, in mathematical physics at Princeton University in the 1950s, (at the same time Nash was there), he became dissatisfied with the collapse of the wave function. While he was at Princeton, during discussions with Charles Misner and Aage Peterson (Bohr's assistant, then visiting Princeton), he developed his "relative state" formulation. Wheeler encouraged his work and preprints were circulated in January 1956 to a number of physicists. A condensed version of his thesis was published as a paper for The Role of Gravity in Physics conference held at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in January 1957.

Not long afterward, Everett flew to Copenhagen to meet with Niels Bohr and discuss his ideas, but Bohr gave him the bum's rush and brush off, and this was the general response he received from physicists in general. Everett left physics after completing his Ph.D., going to work as a defense analyst at the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group, Pentagon and later became a private contractor. He was very successful, becoming a multimillionaire. In 1968 Everett worked for the Lambda Corporation, now subsidiary of General Research Corporation in McLean, Virginia. His published papers during this period cover things like optimizing resource allocation and maximizing kill rates during nuclear-weapon campaigns.

With the steady growth of interest in Many-Worlds in the late 1970s Everett began to make plans to return to academia in order to do more work on measurement in quantum theory. In the late 70s, he visited Austin, Texas, at Wheeler's or DeWitt's invitation, to give some lectures on Quantum Mechanics. Not long afterward, he died of a heart attack in 1982. He was only 52 years old.

I was curious about Everett's work for Lambda. A recent search of the literature turns up a paper written by Joseph George Caldwell entitled Optimal Attack and Defense for a Number of Targets in the Case of Imperfect Interceptors.

[Note: Responding to this page, J. G. Caldwell updated his site, adding ample and interesting historical information re: Lambda Corporation, Hugh Everett, and several other subjects relevant to our discussion here.]

This article is an extraction, with some amplification and minor notational changes, of portions of the report: Caldwell, J. G., T. S. Schreiber, and S. S. Dick, Some Problems in Ballistic Missile Defense Involving Radar Attacks and Imperfect Interceptors, Report ACDA/ST-145 SR-4, Special Report 4, prepared for the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency by the Lambda Corporation (subsidiary of General Research Corporation), McLean, Virginia, May 1969. []

These results were also published as Appendix F of the report, Caldwell, J. G., Theater Tactical Air Warfare Methodologies: Automated Scenario Generation, Final Report Contract No. F33657-88-C-2156 prepared for the USAF Air Force Systems Command, Aeronautical System Division by Vista Research Corporation, July 1989.

The summary of the paper tells us:

This article describes the optimal defense of a set of targets against an optimal attack, in the case of imperfect interceptors. This solution is obtained from a mathematical representation of strategic nuclear warfare as a two-sided resource-constrained optimization problem. The attacker and defender are assumed to know each other's total force sizes, and it is assumed that the attacker "moves last," i.e., the attacker allocates his weapons to targets after observing the defender's allocation of interceptors to targets. A one-on-one (or fixed salvo-to-one) firing doctrine is assumed. The attacker's goal is to maximize the total damage to the targets, and the defender's goal is to minimize this damage. It is assumed that damage on any single target can be adequately described by the "exponential" damage function defined below.

Aside from the fact that we see evidence of the use of pure mathematics - Game Theory, in fact - in matters of warfare strategy, which includes source notes connecting this work to Wheeler, we find Joseph George Caldwell to be a bit interesting for other reasons. He has a website where he promotes the following idea:

"What is the sustainable human population for Earth?", I propose that a long-term sustainable number is on the order of ten million, consisting of a technologically advanced population of a single nation of about five million people concentrated in one or a few centers, and a globally distributed primitive population of about five million. I arrived at this size by approaching the problem from the point of view of estimating the minimum number of human beings that would have a good chance of long-term survival, instead of approaching it from the (usual) point of view of attempting to estimate the maximum number of human beings that the planet might be able to support. The reason why I use the approach of minimizing the human population is to keep the damaging effects of human industrial activity on the biosphere to a minimum. Because mankind's industrial activity produces so much waste that cannot be metabolized by "nature," any attempt to maximize the size of the human population risks total destruction of the biosphere (such as the "sixth extinction" now in progress).

Let's stop right here and ask the question: Who said that there was such a thing as the "Sixth Extinction," and that it was now in progress? Is this something that is generally "known" in the circles that do this kind of research? Is this WHY they are doing it? What do they know that the rest of us don't? Or better, what do they think that they aren't telling us? Caldwell writes:

The role of the technological population is "planetary management": to ensure that the size of the primitive population does not expand. The role of the primitive population is to reduce the likelihood that a localized catastrophe might wipe out the human population altogether. The reason for choosing the number five million for the primitive population size is that this is approximately the number (an estimated 2-20 million) that Earth supported for millions of years, i.e., it is proved to be a long-term sustainable number (in mathematical terminology, a "feasible" solution to the optimization problem). The reason for choosing the number five million for the technological population size is that it is my opinion that that is about the minimum practical size for a technologically advanced population capable of managing a planet the size of Earth; also, it is my opinion that the "solar energy budget" of the planet can support a population of five million primitive people and five million "industrial" people indefinitely. [ ]

Mr. Caldwell's ideas are a techno representation of Synarchy, a clue to the REAL Stargate Conspiracy. It seems that, there is, indeed, something very mysterious going on all over the planet in terms of shaping the thinking of humanity via books, movies, and cultural themes, but at this point, we understand that most of what is promulgated is lies and disinformation. We hope to come to some idea of what the "insiders" know that they aren't telling us, and perhaps we will find some clues as we continue our investigation here.

Princeton is often referred to as the "mathematical center of the universe." But it wasn't always that way. Until the Rockefeller family endowed scientific research in the mid-twenties, (keep in mind that the C's referenced the mid-twenties as the beginning of certain "projects" related to HAARP, that this was connected to Alternative 3 and the "Ark of the Covenant"), a student could learn little more than what amounts to high-school math and science there. And here, I am not going to go into any background on the Rockefellers because there are enough researchers already who are doing that. I urge the reader to do his or her own research in those areas. Again, whether or not there is a conscious conspiracy I cannot say.

Nevertheless, when thinking about conspiracies, it is extremely difficult to conceive of these activities in strictly human terms. Yes, humans carry them out, but the real question is "why?" What drives them?


Continue to page 268


You are visitor number .