Jack Sarfatti Subject: ER = EPR

Susskind & Maldecena here show that traversable wormholes and entanglement signal nonlocality are two sides of the same coin. I anticipated all this in 1973-4.
"Spacetime locality is one of the cornerstones in our present understanding of physics. By locality we mean the impossibility of sending signals faster than the speed of light. Locality appears to be challenged both by quantum mechanics and by general relativity. Quantum mechanics gives rise to Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) correlations [1], while general relativity allows solutions to the equations of motion that connect far away regions through relatively short “wormholes” or Einstein Rosen bridges [2]. It has long been understood that these two effects do not give rise to real violations of locality. One cannot use EPR correlations to send information faster than the speed of light. Similarly, Einstein Rosen bridges do not allow us to send a signal from one asymptotic region to the other, at least when suitable positive energy conditions are obeyed [3, 4, 5]. This is sometimes stated as saying that Lorentzian wormholes are not traversable1.

Here we will note that these two effects are actually connected. We argue that the Einstein Rosen bridge between two black holes is created by EPR-like correlations between the microstates of the two black holes. This is based on previous observations in [6, 10]. We call this the ER = EPR relation. In other words, the ER bridge is a special kind of EPR correlation in which the EPR correlated quantum systems have a weakly coupled Einstein gravity description. It is also special because the combined state is just one particular entangled state out of many possibilities. We note that black hole pair creation in a magnetic field “naturally” produces a pair of black holes in this state. It is very tempting to think that any EPR correlated system is connected by some sort of ER bridge, although in general the bridge may be a highly quantum object that is yet to be independently defined. Indeed, we speculate that even the simple singlet state of two spins is connected by a (very quantum) bridge of this type.

In this article we explain the reasons for expecting such a connection. We also explore some of the implications of this point of view for the black hole information problem, in its AMPS(S)[11, 12] form. See [13, 14, 15] for some earlier work and [12] for a more complete set of references. See [16] for a proposal to describe interiors that is similar to what we are saying here2."

Cool horizons for entangled black holes 

Juan Maldacena1 and Leonard Susskind2

1 Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
2 Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics and Department of Physics,

Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4060, USA 

Jack Sarfatti Horizons, ‘t Hooft - Susskind Holographic Conjecture & Cosmic 10Hz EM Signal

We are outside observer-independent black hole horizons so that the inverse square law applies to them. In contrast, we are inside our observer-dependent cosmological horizons at the exact center where the Hawking radiation from it converges. Curiously, using the asymptotic area ~ 1052 meter2 of our future dark energy de Sitter horizon, and L ~ 10-35 meters for indirect Hawking-Unruh horizon thickness gravity wave emission corresponds very roughly (back-of-the-envelope) to a peak blackbody wavelength ~ 1013-17.5 ~ (1/3) x 10-4 meters ~ (3 x 1012 Hz)-1 with Stefan-Boltzmann HFGW energy density ~ hc/LP2A ~ 10-34 108 107010-52 ~ 10-8 Joules/meter3 ~ 10-28 gm/cc ~ critical density for k = 0 flat universe ~ dark energy density. Remember, these are black body gravity waves not electromagnetic waves. However, dark energy comes from virtual bosons with w = -1 negative quantum pressure causing the expansion of 3D space to accelerate rather than slow down. Blackbody radiation, in contrast, has w = +1/3 positive quantum pressure causing gravity universal attraction rather than anti-gravity universal repulsion. However, the Unruh effect’s Bogoliubov transformation says that the LIF observer sees virtual bosons with w = -1 whilst the physically coincident LNIF observer sees real blackbody bosons with w = +1/3. We are only concerned with the distant observer far away from the horizon, which limits to a LIF for both the Schwarzschild black hole and the de Sitter cosmological toy model metrics. So this is a clue as to what may really be going on. It is not a rigorous argument.

Even more problematical is that we, most likely, must use classical causality in the sense of where the past and future light cones intersect both the past particle and future event cosmological horizons of the detector. One can see that the area of our past particle horizon is smaller than the area of our future event horizon at the corresponding light cone intersections. The ball park numerical agreement with the actually observed dark energy density from Type 1a supernovae anomalous redshift data in our past light cones will only work if the gravity waves are advanced Wheeler-Feynman waves propagating back to us along our future light cone. This is reminiscent of Yakir Aharonov’s “destiny” post-selected quantum waves that interfere with pre-selected “history waves to form the “weak measurements” in the intermediate time. John Cramer’s “transactional interpretation” also uses advanced quantum waves. Of course, quantum waves for subluminal massive particles travel outside the classical light cones. Furthermore, the hologram conjecture is that a conformal 2D + 1 anyonic fractional quantum statistical heat resistant topological computer quantum field theory on both our past and future cosmological horizons provide a 3D + 1 quantum gravity geometrodynamics in the interior bulk of this causal diamond observable piece of a “Level 1” multiverse in the sense of Max Tegmark’s classification.[i] Thus, it is plausible that the dark energy density is an advanced Wheeler-Feynman hologram influence and that we live in a kind of virtual “weak measurement” computed reality. Fred Hoyle anticipated this picture back in 1983 in his book “The Intelligent Universe.” On the other hand, the hologram conjecture predicts that the Planck area pixels on our past and future cosmological quantum computing horizon screens have Fermi-scale voxels. This would mean a strong short-range Abdus Salam f-gravity “quantum foam” which may be disproved by the high-energy gamma ray experiments looking for violations of Lorentz invariance in deviations from the special relativity mass shell constraint. If so, that would disprove the hologram conjecture.

The above is for advanced black body gravity waves from our future cosmological horizon. What about advanced black body electromagnetic waves from the electron-positron plasma confined within a Compton wavelength of our future cosmological horizon? Now the peak wavelength is ~ 10-12/2 1013 ~ 107 meters ~ (10Hz)-1 in the same range as our EEG human brain waves relevant to our waking consciousness and other vital brain activity.

[i] Strictly speaking, the AdS/CFT conjecture has only been “proved” for negative cosmological constant in 4D+1, not for our actual positive cosmological constant in 3D+1. However, the general idea is intuitively appealing and we shall simply assume it is correct as a working hypothesis and wait for the mathematical types to catch up with us.

Jack Sarfatti On the other hand, in Feynman’s propagator diagram theory particles moving backward in time have negative energy. Wheeler and Ciufolini wrote: 

“In the Hawking process, two newly created particles exchange energy, one acquiring negative energy –E and the other positive energy E. Slightly outside the horizon of the black hole, the negative energy photon has enough time to cross the horizon. Therefore, the negative energy particle flies inward from the horizon; the positive energy particle flies off to a distance. The energy it carries with it comes in the last analysis from the black hole itself. The massive object is no longer quite so massive because it has had to pay the debt of energy brought in by the negative energy member of the newly created pair of particles.” P. 68

Again we are outside black hole horizons, but are inside our observer-dependent cosmological horizons both past and future. Therefore, the advanced w = + 1/3 Wheeler-Feynman Hawking black body radiation from our cosmological future de Sitter event horizon will be exotic, i.e. negative energy density, causing universal anti-gravity repulsion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

above is for Hawking's surface gravity modes - low energy.

This is ~ 10^-28 Watts per solar mass isotropic over 4pi solid angle

i.e. P ~ 1/A

A is area-entropy of the black hole horizon

For the new quantum thickness radiation we are now predicting.

P' ~ 1/(LA^1/2)

P'/P = [1/(LA^1/2)]/[1/A] = A/(LA^1/2) = A^1/2/L

P' ~ (A^1/2/L)10^-28 Watts per solar mass

Let r = distance of black hole from Earth (neglecting intervening curvature for simplicity)

The power flux density at Earth is then

P'/4pir^2 ~ (A^1/2/4pir^2L)10^-28 Watts per solar mass per unit area

There is a spectrum of L's.

If L = Lp that is from virtual Planck scale black holes of Wheeler's quantum foam getting energy from the gravity near field emitting spin 2 gravitons. For example, I get ~ 10^-6 gravitons of ~ 10^21 Hz per square meter per second hitting Earth from the 4 million solar mass black hole at the center of our Milky Way. Too small to measure most likely even though it's much larger than the flux from Hawking's surface modes.

On the other hand if L = h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm these are virtual electron positron pairs getting energy from the gravity near field and the charges that escape the horizon accelerate emitting photons.

Similarly L ~ 10^-13 cm will be radiation from virtual nucleon pairs etc.

However, clearly the HFGW mechanism at L = Lp dominates.

1. • Status
   • Photo
   • Place
   • Life Event

   What's on your mind?
2. 

   Jack Sarfatti

   a few seconds ago near San Francisco

   Life time of a solar mass black hole if the new higher temperature quantum thickness Hawking radiation really exists

   Like · · Share

   • 

     Jack Sarfatti(A^1/2/L)^1/2 ~ 10^8
     
     so for photons 10^24 times faster - that's still 10^-24x 10^67 = 10^43 years if the horizon is h/mc = 10^-11 cm thick
     
     for gravity waves
     
     (10^19)^3 = 10^57 times faster
     
     lifetime is 10^67 years - so that's only 10^10 years = life time of universe
     
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

     

     Hawking radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

     en.wikipedia.org

     Hawking radiation is black body radiation that is predicted to be emitted by bla...See More

      

Jack Sarfatti

2 hours ago

James F. Woodward's book "Making Starships and Stargates" Ch 1

• Ronon Rex likes this.
• 

  Jack Sarfatti15) Woodward’s Chapter 1: Newton’s rotating bucket. I agree with Rovelli in his book “Quantum Gravity” Ch. 2 that we do not need Mach’s Principle here. Everything is local field theory. The extended test particle, in this case Newton’s bucket filled with water on a twisted cord will behave in the same way even if the universe is empty. The water surface will go concave independent of the distant matter of the stars and beyond. This is because special relativity’s globally flat Minkowski spacetime is a solution of Einstein’s general relativity field equations – even if unstable that is not relevant here. Therefore, the volume elements of the rotating water are being pushed off the timelike geodesics of Minkowski spacetime with non-zero radially inward centripetal proper acceleration by the real electrical forces of the material. Of course there is no obvious way to Popper falsify this issue. With regard to p. 22 on whether we should use the virtual spacelike spin 2 graviton “force” picture against a non-dynamical background-dependent globally flat Minkowski background. Kaluza and Klein tried to extend the equivalence principle, to geometrize the electromagnetic force by introducing an extra curled up dimension of space. This led to modern day controversial superstring theory, which not only introduces six extra space-dimensions (seven in M-theory) but makes the space a non-commuting matrix space. Feynman showed in his Cal Tech course on gravity, that one can apply his QED Feynman diagrams to the spin 2 tensor field on Minkowski space, but that we need to sum an infinite number of his tree diagrams to arrive at Einstein’s gravity field equations as a non-perturbative emergent collective effect similar to the “More is different” (P.W. Anderson) emergence of the Higgs-Goldstone spontaneous broken U1 gauge symmetry ground state of the BCS superconductor. There is also the issue of the non-tree diagrams with closed vacuum loops with problems of renormalizability. Similar problems arose with the weak-strong spin 1 Yang-Mills gauge theory. G. ‘tHooft solved that with spontaneous broken symmetry of the vacuum. Why does that not also work for spin 2 gravity? Einstein’s 1916 general relativity corresponds to the local gauging of the globally rigid ten-parameter Poincare Lie symmetry group of his 1905 special relativity. As shown by T.W.B. Kibble at Imperial College, London in 1961, this gives the extended Einstein-Cartan theory with two independent dynamical curvature and torsion fields. Curvature comes from localizing the six-parameter Lorentz space-time rotation subgroup generated by angular momentum and boosts. Curvature corresponds to disclination topological defects on a “world crystal lattice” (Hagen Kleinert, Free University of Berlin). Torsion comes from localizing the four-parameter translation group generated by the 4-momentum. Torsion corresponds to disclination defects in the world crystal lattice. Einstein’s 1916 model is the limiting case of Einstein-Cartan with the adhoc constraint of zero dynamical torsion put in by hand. Indeed, these local translations are precisely the general curvilinear coordinate transformations of Einstein’s 1916 papers that describe the actual relationships between physically coincident timelike massive observers with proper accelerations from real forces pushing them off local timelike geodesics. The presence or absence of local tensor curvature is not directly relevant. The dynamical background independent curvature field of course bends the timelike and lightlike (null) geodesics away from what they would be counterfactually in nondynamical Minkowski spacetime. Globally flat Minkowski spacetime is very special because it allows global frames of reference that extend over the whole universe. This is not possible when there are real tensor curvature gravity fields. Now we can only use local frames of reference, either local inertial LIFs (“frefos” Lenny Susskind) or local non-inertial LNIFs (“fidos” Lenny Susskind). Furthermore, we can only compare local frames that are physically coincident – with proper separations small compared to the locally varying radii of curvature. The components of curvature are the inverse squares of the several tensor radii of curvature. Formally, all the coincident LNIFs lie on the same “gauge orbit” in Lie group theory. They are all different representations of the same geometrodynamic curvature field seen from different perspectives in locally properly accelerating LNIFs. There are also the LIFs in which, Newton’s gravity force, is eliminated to a good approximation. Indeed, the connection between locally coincident LNIFs and LIFs are the sixteen tetrad components. These sixteen components form four first rank tensor fields, one of which describe the tangent 4-vector to the timelike world line of the COM of the LIF. The LIF tetrads themselves are quasi “Yang-Mills” spin 1 gravity fields that combine with in pairs to form the ten spin 2 symmetric tensor fields in accord with Einstein’s Equivalence Principle (EEP). Newton’s gravity force is represented by the Levi-Civita connection that vanishes at the center of mass (COM) of the LIF. However, the Levi-Civita connection components also describe all the fictitious inertial pseudo-forces found in Newton’s particle mechanics. They are explicitly, in the case of rotation, Coriolis, centripetal and Euler. Under conditions of constraint, for example, a moving bead constrained on a circular wire. Electrical contact real forces from the wire on the moving bead provide the real inward centripetal radial acceleration.

  2 hours ago · Like
• 

  Jack SarfattiWe must be clear, what is meant by a “real force” as distinct from a “fictitious inertial pseudoforce.” This distinction depends on first distinguishing the measured object from the detector measuring its motion. Fictitious inertial pseudo forces do not act on the measured object. That is, an accelerometer clamped to the measured object will not show any local proper tensor acceleration (aka “g-force”). In fact, however, an identical accelerometer clamped to the detector will show a local proper tensor acceleration on the detector from some real force acting on it. Therefore, fictitious inertial pseudoforces are optical illusions, purely kinematical artifacts, that appear to act on the measured object, but are really acting on the measuring apparatus. For example, we standing still on surface of the Earth are static LNIFs with radially outward proper tensor accelerations in topsy turvy curved spacetime. Literally, we properly accelerate towards a freely falling cannon ball on a 4D timelike geodesic that is the parabolic orbit in ordinary 3D space. This is hard for many to wrap and warp their minds around. So here is where we come into conflict with Woodward’s idea. He appears to unconsciously shift meanings of “fictitious force” in his argument leading to false conclusions in my opinion. Therefore, I disagree with Woodward’s too vague ambiguous remark: “ Coriolis forces … do not be fooled, they are not the same as gravity …” p. 26 It depends what you mean by “gravity”. If one means the real gravity tensor curvature – then of course that’s correct. However, the proper context is Newton’s famous inverse square force and that is precisely in the same ontic category as the Coriolis, centrifugal and Euler fictitious pseudoforces. Indeed, C. Lanczos showed this explicitly for the Levi-Civita connection. The non-tensor Levi-Civita connection describes all the fictitious forces – the optical illusions seen by observers with proper local tensor accelerations on off-timelike geodesic world lines. The self-referential covariant curl of the non-tensor Levi-Civita connection with itself is the fourth-rank tensor curvature field of real gravity if it’s non-zero. However, the Levi-Civita connection is useful even in special relativity with zero curvature because it describes accelerating observers there as well.

  about an hour ago · Edited · Like
• 

  Jack SarfattiThe meaning of “constraint” in this specific context is when the measured object and the measuring apparatus are clamped to the same rotating frame, e.g. a rotating disk. In this case, the clamp provides a real electrical contact force on the measured object must provide the inward radial acceleration magnitude square of rotation rate x distance to the axis of rotation. Of course, in accord with Newton’s third law, the measured object exerts and equal and opposite reaction contact force back on the clamp.

1)   John Cramer describes Woodward’s core thesis. “Let’s consider the problem of reactionless propulsion first. Woodward extended the work of Sciama in investigating the origins of inertia in the framework of general relativity by consideration of time-dependent effects that occur when energy is in flow while an object is being accelerated. The result is surprising. It predicts large time-dependent variations in inertia, the tendency of matter to resist acceleration.”  This is the local tensor proper acceleration of the rest-massive test particle pushed off a timelike geodesic of the local curvature tensor field caused by real not fictitious forces.  The fictitious forces appear to act on the test particle, but in reality they don’t. They describe real forces on the measuring device observing the test particle. The Levi-Civita connection in the mathematics of general relativity describes the real forces on the observing measuring apparatus not the test object being measured. “The inertial transient effects predicted by the Sciama-Woodward calculations are unusual … in that they have G in the denominator, and dividing by a small number produces a large result.”    John Cramer definitely thinks that James Woodward’s inertial transient data is real “convincing evidence,” although it’s only “tens of micronewton level thrusts delivered to a precision torsion balance.” It’s important to understand that “thrusts” are not weightless warp drives free of time dilation relative to the clock-synchronized external observer left behind. Supposing best-case scenario, that Woodward’s effect is real and can be scaled up by many powers of ten. It’s still no good to get to the stars because of time dilation and the blueshifts of stuff in the way of the front of the starship. It would be good for airplanes and spacecraft on near solar system missions – if it really worked.

1)   . I intuited the connection between the Einstein-Rosen (ER) wormhole and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) quantum entanglement back in 1973 when I was with Abdus Salam at the International Centre of Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy. This idea was published in the wacky book “Space-Time and Beyond” (Dutton, 1975) described by MIT physics historian David Kaiser in his book “How the Hippies Saved Physics.” Lenny Susskind, who I worked with at Cornell 1963-4, rediscovered this ER = EPR connection in the black hole “firewall” paradox. Lenny envisions a multi-mouthed wormhole network connecting the Hawking radiation particles their entangled twins behind the evaporating event horizon. “each escaping particle remains connected to the black hole through a wormhole” Dennis Overbye, Einstein and the Black Hole, New York Times August 13, 2013.  The no-signaling theorem corresponds to the wormhole pinching off before a light speed limited signal can pass through one mouth to the other. Now we know that traversable wormhole stargates are possible using amplified anti-gravity dark energy. This corresponds to signal-nonlocality in post-quantum theory violating orthodox quantum theory. 

1)      Localizing global symmetries requires the addition of compensating gauge connections in a fiber bundle picture of the universe. Indeed, the original global symmetry group is a smaller subgroup of the local symmetry group. The gauge connections define parallel transport of tensor/spinor fields. They correspond to the interactions between the several kinds of charges of the above symmetries. I shall go into more details of this elsewhere. Indeed localizing the above spacetime symmetries corresponds to generalizations of Einstein’s General Relativity as a local gauge theory.[i] For example, localizing the space and time global translational symmetries means that the Lie group transformations at different events (places and times) in the universe are independent of each other. If one believes in the classical special relativity postulate of locality that there are no faster-than-light actions at a distance, then the transformations must certainly be independent of each other between pairs of spacelike separated events that cannot be connected by a light signal. However, the local gauge principle is much stronger, because it applies to pairs of events that can be connected not only by a light signal, but also by slower-than-light timelike signals. This poses a paradox when we add quantum entanglement.  Aspect’s experiment and others since then, show that faster-than-light influences do in fact exist in the conditional probabilities (aka correlations) connecting observed eigenvalues of quantum observable operators independently chosen by Alice and Bob when spacelike separated. I shall return to this in more detail elsewhere. However, the no entanglement-signaling postulate is thought by many mainstream theoretical physicists to define orthodox quantum theory. It’s believed that its violation would also violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Note that the entanglement signal need not be faster-than-light over a spacelike separation between sender and receiver. It could be lightlike or timelike separated as well. Indeed it can even be retrocausal with the message sent back-from-the-future. John Archibald Wheeler’s “delayed choice experiment” is actually consistent with orthodox quantum theory’s no-signaling premise. The point is, that one cannot decode the message encoded in the pattern of entanglement until one has a classical signal key that only propagates forward in time. What one sees before the classical key arrives and a correlation analysis is computed is only local random white noise. However, data on precognitive remote viewing as well as brain presponse data suggests that no-entanglement signaling is only true for dead matter. Nobel Prize physicist, Brian Josephson first published on this. I have also suggested it using Bohm’s ontological interpretation (Lecture 8 of Michael Towler’s Cambridge University Lectures on Bohm’s Pilot Wave). Antony Valentini has further developed this idea in several papers. Post-quantum “signal nonlocality” dispenses with the need to wait for the light-speed limited retarded signal key propagating from past to future. Local non-random noise will be seen in violation of the S-Matrix unitarity “conservation of information” postulate of G. ‘t Hooft, L. Susskind et-al.  Indeed the distinguishable non-orthogonality of entangled Glauber macro-quantum coherent states seems to be the way to get signal nonlocality. This gets us to the “Black Hole War” between Susskind and Hawking about information loss down evaporating black holes. It seems that Hawking caved in too fast to Susskind back in Dublin in 2004. I intuited the connection between the Einstein-Rosen (ER) wormhole and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) quantum entanglement back in 1973 when I was with Abdus Salam at the International Centre of Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy. This idea was published in the wacky book “Space-Time and Beyond” (Dutton, 1975) described by MIT physics historian David Kaiser in his book “How the Hippies Saved Physics.” Lenny Susskind, who I worked with at Cornell 1963-4, rediscovered this ER = EPR connection in the black hole “firewall” paradox.

Jack Sarfatti

August 11 near San Francisco

My review of Jim Woodward's Making Starships book - V1 under construction