Text Size

Stardrive

Feb 27
Chapline has interesting things to say in the attached paper on "Helmoholtz machine" as a kind of Jaynes-Cummings N spin model. I am still learning his POV. It would also apply to Hameroff's microtubules networks - the 2-state electrons in each protein dimer.

On Feb 26, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack, as you know, you and I view human brain quantum consciousness
in terms of resonant connections between microtubules.

A recent web article at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110223133444.htm
about a Nature article says in part:
"... The Austrian research group led by physicist Rainer Blatt
suggests a fundamentally novel architecture for quantum computation.
They have experimentally demonstrated quantum antennas,
which enable the exchange of quantum information between
two separate memory cells located on a computer chip.
...
the physicists electromagnetically coupled two groups of ions
over a distance of about 50 micrometers. ...
"The particles oscillate like electrons in the poles of a TV antenna
and thereby generate an electromagnetic field," explains Blatt.
"If one antenna is tuned to the other one,
the receiving end picks up the signal of the sender,
which results in coupling."
The energy exchange taking place in this process could be
the basis for fundamental computing operations of a quantum computer.
...
In addition,
the scientists show that the coupling is amplified
by using more ions in each well. ...".

It appears that the basic research paper is at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3639
It says in part:
"... direct coupling between the motional dipoles of separately trapped ions
is achieved over a distance of 54 microns,
using the dipole-dipole interaction as a quantum-mechanical transmission line ...
This interaction is small between single trapped ions,
but the coupling is amplified by using additional trapped ions as antennae.
...
Close to resonance, the motion of the ion strings is strongly coupled ...".


Note that in the microtubule quantum consciousness model,
all the tubulins in a microtubule can coordinate to act
as antennae so that "the coupling is amplified".

Tony
Thanks Dick. Are you sending a paper on this to the Penrose Cosmology issue?
See Novikov's book "River of Time"

On Feb 26, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Dick Bierman wrote:

"Thanks, this Novikov reference was the reference I have been looking for, for some time (no pun intended)
My CIRTS 'theory' claims that time-symmetry is a broken symmetry that can be restored when information is 'absorbed' by a brain that is extremely coherent (and thus is able to generate consciousness). CIRTS stands for Consciousness Induced Restoration of Time-symmetry."


Do you mean something like the Wheeler-Feynman perfect absorber and the Cramer transaction?


Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory (also called the Wheeler–Feynman Time- Symmetric theory) is an interpretation of electrodynamics that starts from the ...
The problem of causality - The problem of self ... - Conclusions - Key papers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory - Cached - Similar
2. Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory
Sep 17, 1996 ... Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory[1] was originally conceived as a time-symmetric alternative to conventional electromagnetism which, ...
www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node2.html - Cached - Similar
Overview
Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory was developed as an "action-at-a-distance" explanation for electromagnetic radiation reaction forces (based on earlier work ...
physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/ - Cached - Similar

Search Results
[PPT] The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics http://www ...
File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - Quick View
Feb 15, 2004 ... John G. Cramer. Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Washington ..... TheTransactional Interpretation and the Born Probability Law ...
faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/Boskone_0402.ppt - Similar
?
The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Jul 1, 1996 ... The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. John ...
www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html - Cached
Show more results from washington.edu
Transactional interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 647-688, July (1986); ^ An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation by John Cramer. International Journal of Theoretical ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation - Cached - Similar
John G. Cramer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific Publications of John G. Cramer, Professor of Physics, University ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Cramer - Cached - Similar
Show more results from wikipedia.org

"Anyway, in a world with (partially) restored time symmetry all so-called paranormal phenomena, psi,  can be explained. They are just physical events requiring no change of traditional physical formalisms."

What you call restored time symmetry I call "signal nonlocality." Antony Valentini does not seem to understand that all life is non-equilibrium in the sense that he means - in my opinion.

Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
Comments:    10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
Subjects:    Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference:    Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277

"I added a postulate that under no circumstances the (time-symmetric) phenomena are allowed to create paradoxes, quite similar to Novikov's principle. However I added one extra feature namely that even the possibility in principle to create such a paradox would have an impact so that the event cannot occur."

The Feynman quantum amplitudes vanish for back-from-the-future paradoxes in toy model calculations - similar to nonlocal permutation symmetries e.g. Pauli exclusion principle.

Similar to the feature that even the possibility to measure location of a trajectory of a particle (for instance in the double-slit experiment) removes the wave aspects of the particle.

"This added feature could account for the often observed decline of effects in lab experiments that try to measure paranormal phenomena. So the potentiality to create a paradox would prevent it to happen.  One example to illustrate this point: In several experiments we have found that the human physiology correlates with (random) future conditions. For example the skin conductance signal (driven among others by arousal) is larger preceding emotional stimuli than preceding neutral stimuli. This is established by AVERAGING very many instances. In this type of experiment it is not possible to deduce on the basis of skin conductance preceding a SINGLE trial what the forthcoming stimulus type, neutral or emotional, will be. It has been argued that the signal to noise ratio is too small.  Spottiswoode came up with the idea that instead of averaging over many trials one could also present a single trial observed by many subjects and measure the averaged skin conductance over all the subjects. He argued that in such a case the signal to noise ratio would also improve, possibly to the level where the actual future event could be predicted with great accuracy. He obtained very many skin conductance measurement devices and ran this experiment. Actually the whole phenomena disappeared. It could be argued that this is due to the fact that in principle the experiment could have been used to create a paradox (when the averaged signal is indicating that an emotional stimulus is to follow this signal could be used to change the software flow so that a neutral one would appear). Of course it is also possible that Spottiswoode's experiment just showed that the results obtained in the statistical approach are just flukes of chance.  I use it here to illustrate that particular potentiality aspect of the theory because Spottiswoode did not actually implement that software intervention but he COULD  have done so. What we need now is to develop a mathematical formalism that is able to describe the experimental paradigms used in experiments on psi phenomena."

It's basically already published in Valentini's papers, also in Henry Stapp's Phys Rev A on H. Schmidt's retroPK data - also a slight modification of Cramer's transaction should be possible to allow non-random return signals from the future absorber.

"Such a formalism might point the way toward more robust and stable experiments in that particular field of psi research by preventing even the potential to create a paradox. It appears to me that Novikov's treatment of the time travel paradoxes might  be a way to go forward. Since I am just a mediocre experimental physicist I am unable to develop such a formalism. I hope that some of  the more mathematically inclined people on Sarfatti's list could point me to someone who might be interested to think about this issue and possibly develop the required mathematically language to represent the experimental paradigm's used in psi experiments so that we can get a handle on this."

Dick Bierman
(the CIRTS theory is described in: http://www.uniamsterdam.nl/D.J.Bierman/publications/2010/JoP_74_pp273_299_CIRTS_proof.pdf)
_____________________________________________________________

On Feb 26, 2011, at 6:56 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Yeah, but the problem here is that I only realized the connection in hindsight. So we could not prevent it. Also in the Novikov loop theory it's impossible to prevent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle



This will be an on-going thread. George raises interesting issues and already as a teenager saw the conflict of the local equivalence principle with quantum nonlocality and global time. Indeed Feynman invited George to Cal Tech where he got his Ph.D. Ray Chiao has more recently written about the same problem. I will take the opposite position to George that quantum theory must break down because in a superfluid and other cases of spontaneous breakdown of ground state symmetries, the condensate order parameter Landau-Ginzburg equation is local and nonunitary as well as non-linear in contrast to the Schrodinger equation that is nonlocal with entanglements, unitary and linear in the sense of operators on qubit Hilbert space. George does not want to allow time travel to the past, I do. Without it, we have no chance to escape destruction of Earth by say a close supernova explosion or any number of other end of world scenarios. I do agree however with George's dark star idea because I independently thought of it myself. I also suggest its tiny brother the dark matter stabilized shell of repulsive electric charge as Bohm hidden variables for leptons and quarks. Just as repulsive vacuum fluctuation dark energy of negative pressure stops gravity collapse, so its opposite attractive vacuum fluctuation dark matter of positive pressure prevents the shell of charge from exploding. How would George's quantum critical surface replacing the black hole event horizon apply to our observer-dependent future de Sitter cosmological horizon?

George has a Cosmological Constant > 0 de Sitter interior solution even for rotating black holes that are less singular than the Kerr solution but still have CTCs that he does not want, but I do want them. I am willing to renounce linear unitary nonlocal quantum mechanics as the complete final solution for physical reality rather than an approximation when certain control parameters vanish. Presumably, a Cosmological Constant < 0 AdS version of George's idea would be a model for a Bohm hidden variable preventing the explosion of thin shells of electric charge (i.e., solution of the Poincare stress quandary of 100 + years ago.)

So I think George is inconsistent here since his own equations (1) to (4) below are LOCAL, NONLINEAR & NONUNITARY for the vacuum condensate order parameter that he correctly puts in Bohm form with the quantum potential in curved rotating spacetime. Try as he may he can't eliminate CTCs completely even in his new dark star solutions. His alternative to the Kerr solution is interesting of course.

The NONLOCAL, LINEAR, UNITARY rules only apply to the elementary excitations into and out of the vacuum condensate not to the condensate itself. The equations of course are coupled. The coherent vacuum condensate is a local nonlinear nonunitary c-number "signal" coupled to incoherent nonlocal linear unitary q-number "noise". Two sets of rules here, different strokes for different folks.


Superfluid Picture for Rotating Space-Times
George Chapline1? and Pawel O. Mazur2??
1 Physics and Advanced Technologies Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550
? E-mail: chapline1@llnl.gov
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
?? E-mail: mazur@mail.psc.sc.edu
(Dated: May 5, 2005

"The various developments of quantum field theory in curved space-time have left the false impression that general relativity and quantum mechanics are compatible. Actually though certain predictions of classical general relativity such as closed time-like curves and event horizons are in conflict with a quantum mechanical description of space-time itself. In particular, a quantum mechanical description of any system requires a universal time. In practice, universal time is defined by means of synchronization of atomic clocks, but such synchronization is not possible in space-times with event horizons or closed time-like curves. It has been suggested [1] that the way a global time is established in Nature is via the occurrence of off-diagonal long-range quantum coherence in the vacuum state."

Note I have derived the elastic LIF gravity field tetrad Cartan 1-forms from off-diagonal long-range quantum coherence in the vacuum state analogous to the irrotational superflow (see below).  However, I don't need a physically real global time. Also it would not be possible to have global time in our accelerating universe over long distances because of the cosmological redshift for LIF co-moving transceivers and because it would simply take too long and everyone would be dead by the time the reflected radar signals came back to us even if they could find us. Radar is only useful in real time when the range is small enough so quick decisions can be made. For example ICBMs coming in a nuclear attack against an ABM system. Synchronizing atomic clocks over really large distances is not a useful concept. We do not have world enough and time. Dame Nature is a Coy Mistress. http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/marvell/coy.htm

"Radar is an object-detection system which uses electromagnetic waves — specifically radio waves — to determine the range, altitude, direction, or speed of both moving and fixed objects such as aircraft, ships, spacecraft, guided missiles, motor vehicles, weather formations, and terrain. The radar dish, or antenna, transmits pulses of radio waves or microwaves which bounce off any object in their path. The object returns a tiny part of the wave's energy to a dish or antenna which is usually located at the same site as the transmitter."

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_synchronization

"It has been recognized for a long time that general relativity fails to describe accurately the physical situation in the regions of extremely high tidal forces (curvature singularities) of the type of a Big Bang or the interior of a black hole. Generally, this failure of general relativity was considered inconsequential because it was supposed to occur on Planckian length scales. In this case a rather soothing philosophy was adopted to the effect that some mysterious and still unknown quantum theory of gravitation will take care of the difficulty by ‘smoothing out’ the curvature singularities. It was recognized only recently that the physics of event horizons is a second example of the failure of general relativity but this time on the macroscopic length scales [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. In the following we consider a third kind of the failure of general relativity on the macroscopic length scales, associated with the occurrence of closed time-like curves (CTC). CTCs occur frequently in analytically extended space-times described by general relativity once there is rotation present in a physical system under consideration, which is quite common in nature."

George's "failure" is my "triumph" of general relativity. CTC's are not poison, but meat. ;-)

"As shown in [2], the hydrodynamic equations for a superfluid that one derives directly from the nonlinear Schrodinger equation are not exactly the classical Euler equations, but there are quantum corrections to these equations which become important when a certain quantum coherence length becomes comparable to length scale over which the superfluid density varies. ..."

But, I object, the nonlinear Schrodinger equation is not unitary and it is local. We have new rules.  We have new bottles for new wine.

Just in:
PRL 106, 080401 (2011)
PHYSICAL    REVIEW    LETTERS    week ending 25 FEBRUARY 2011
Experimental Test of the Quantum No-Hiding Theorem
Jharana Rani Samal,1,* Arun K. Pati,2 and Anil Kumar1
1Department of Physics and NMR Research Centre, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India 2Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Chhatnag Road, Jhunsi, Allahabad 211 019, India (Received 9 September 2010; published 22 February 2011)
"The no-hiding theorem says that if any physical process leads to bleaching of quantum information from the original system, then it must reside in the rest of the Universe with no information being hidden in the correlation between these two subsystems. Here, we report an experimental test of the no-hiding theorem with the technique of nuclear magnetic resonance. We use the quantum state randomization of a qubit as one example of the bleaching process and show that the missing information can be fully recovered up to local unitary transformations in the ancilla qubits. ... Linearity and unitarity are two fundamental tenets of quantum theory. Any consequence that follows from these must be respected in the quantum world. The no-cloning [1] and the no-deleting theorems [2] are the consequences of the linearity and the unitarity. Together with the stronger no-cloning theorem they provide permanence to quantum information [3], thus suggesting that in the quantum world information can be neither created nor destroyed. This is also connected to conservation of quantum information [4]. In this sense quantum information is robust, but at the same time it is also fragile because any interaction with the environment may lead to loss of information. The no-hiding theorem [5] addresses precisely the issue of information loss... If the original information about the system has disappeared, then one may wonder where it has gone. The no-hiding theorem proves that if the information is missing from one system then it simply goes and remains in the rest of the Universe. The missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between the system and the environment [5] ... To conclude, we have performed a proof-of-principle demonstration of the no-hiding theorem and addressed the question of missing information on a 3-qubit NMR quantum information processor. Using the state randomization as a prime example of the bleaching process, we have found that the original quantum information which is missing from the first qubit indeed can be recovered from the ancilla qubits. No information is found to be hidden in the bipartite correlations between the original qubit and the ancilla qubits. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first experimental verification of a fundamental theorem of quantum mechanics."

Feb 13
So far the Unruh effect is only a theoretical curiosity. However, I suspect that the dark energy accelerating our universe is Unruh radiation back from our future event horizon in accord with:

DOES THE UNIVERSE HAVE A DESTINY?
Is feedback from the future guiding the development of life, the universe, and, well, everything? Paul Davies at Arizona State University in Tempe and his colleagues are investigating whether the universe has a destiny—and if so, whether there is a way to detect its eerie influence.
Cosmologists have long been puzzled about why the conditions of our universe—for example, its rate of expansion—provide the ideal breeding ground for galaxies, stars, and planets. If you rolled the dice to create a universe, odds are that you would not get one as handily conducive to life as ours is. Even if you could take life for granted, it’s not clear that 14 billion years is enough time for it to evolve by chance. But if the final state of the universe is set and is reaching back in time to influence the early universe, it could amplify the chances of life’s emergence.

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=


More precisely, I claim that the observed dark energy density hc/(Hubble distance x Planck length)^4 is direct evidence of our future horizon as the hologram cosmic computer (Seth Lloyd) screen of ~ 10^123 BITs in which we ITs are hologram images back from the future.

The Unruh temperature of a static LNIF at distance Lp from our future horizon is hc/kB(Hubble distance x Planck length)^1/2.

Planck's 1900 law that black body energy density ~ T^4 then gives the correct observed dark energy density. This, admittedly still mysterious result in "The Dread Sarfatti Fog Zone" (Nick Herbert) can hardly be a meaningless chance coincidence. I think it is a profound clue that will revolutionize our conception of the cosmos as did the Copernican paradigm shift did away from the Ptolemaic universe.

I find this simple model amazing and it must be a profound clue that will completely change our conception of the cosmos.
It can't be just a coincidence.
If we use for our future horizon hologram screen cosmic computer
g(r) = (surface gravity on the horizon)g00(r)^-1/2
for the de Sitter static LNIF metric
g00 = 1 - / ^2
surface gravity = c^2/^1/2
r = /^-1/2 - d
d << /^-1/2
1 - / ^2 = 1 - /(/^-1 - 2/^-1/2d + d^2) = 1 - 1 + 2/^1/2d
g00(r)^-1/2 ~ /^1/4/d^1/2 = 1/(RHd)^1/2
since we are at r = 0 we see c^2/^1/2 ~ 1 nanometer/sec^2
However, the dark energy density is directly from our future horizon T^4 (Planck) ---> hc/(RHLp)^2
Conclusion: dark energy is advanced Wheeler-Feynman-Hawking-Unruh black body radiation on our future hologram screen "computer "(Seth Lloyd) and we are the computations.

Feb 11

Unruh effect ---> virtual computed reality?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Subject: Re: Woodward's objection - frame artifacts Unruh effect ---> virtual computed reality?


On Feb 10, 2011, at 12:11 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:45 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

On Feb 9, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Depending on how this result -- if it holds up -- is rationalized theoretically.

J: How does that help? Think of this more like a murder investigation. We have a very important clue - a natural derivation of

hc/RH^2LP^2

as a horizon Unruh effect, but the horizon must be in our future in accord with Yakir Aharonov's QM for example.

Z: Well the thing is, this is a Rindler horizon, not a black hole horizon. A Rindler horizon is a frame artifact.

J: (BTW from EEP near any horizon there is an equivalent small Rindler wedge - indeed one form of entropy emergent gravity uses that trick.)

Exactly, and so is our cosmological horizon! So what's your point?

g00 = 1 - /\r^2  

(in static LNIF (fixed r) representation using the "gravity shift" not the FLRW "cosmological shift" for co-moving LIF representation where g00 = 1)

is observer-dependent we here now at a(t) = 1 in Tamara's picture are at r = 0 - at z = 0.


Z: Agreed that the issues I'm trying to raise here are built into the entire Davies-Fuller-Unruh model in which the level of excitation  of the quantum fields is inherently observer frame dependent. According Crispino et al. these same questions have been raised  by many physicists. In fact I gather there has been quite a lot of skepticism regarding the whole idea of Unruh radiation in the  literature. Crispino et al. argue that detectors are not important, since the physical results of applying field quantization to a classical  wave equation, even in a flat spacetime, are *inherently* frame dependent. the number of quanta automatically varies according  to which coordinate frame is used to describe the quantized field. For me this raises serious questions about the physical  meaning of field quantization, or about the mathematical formulation of the theory of quantized fields.

J: Operationally, only relationships between COINCIDENT local frames are physically meaningful and they are ultimately small idealized detectors. All the gauge transformations are between such coincident detectors.

tetrad transformations are LIF <---> LNIF

Lorentz group transformations are LIF <---> LIF'

GCTs aka T4(x) are LNIF <---> LNIF'

That's all the real spacetime physics (purely formal coordinate relabelings are always divided out of the physical measurements).

Then there are the internal symmetries U1, SU2, SU3 - that ultimately must be formulated in terms of detectors also, though I don't think anyone really worked it out since Bohr and Rosenfeld and Wigner.

Z: That's why I suggested that Einstein may have got it right in the title of his 1905 paper: the idea of "particles of light" is merely a heuristic point of departure.

J: I have no idea how that is relevant. There is no competing explanation of the fact of dark energy free of excess baggage - none as parsimonious as what I suggest using only elementary battle-tested physics..

Z: But you are saying in effect that dark energy is a frame artifact.

J: The quantum vacua and their excited state profiles at least for photons are dependent on the acceleration of the detectors - Unruh effect. In the case of charged spinors we need to excite fermion-antifermion pairs out of the zero point vacuum polarization to preserve charge conservation laws. When we write

g00 = 1 - /\r^2  static LNIF

that is frame aka detector dependent

as is

g00 = 1 in the FRLW co-moving detector representation http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2701v2

Z: No question that you are not the only one following this approach. For example you showed us the Gibbons-Hawking paper. So if there is a problem with this it will also be a problem with the reasoning in the Gibbons-Hawking paper.
I think you are missing some subtleties here. The mere fact that differently accelerating detectors interact differently
with the vacuum does not necessarily mean that they are "seeing" different vacuums. It's still possible to explain this
as the result of different objective physical interactions between the detectors and the vacuum.

J: The Rev Mod Phys reference http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5373v1 I gave you shows all the detailed quantum field theory machinery behind what I said. Indeed, no one in the field questions that much.

Z: In fact many such questions of this sort have been raised about the Unruh model. Part of the purpose of review articles
like Crispino's is to deal with such objections. They say that the excitation state of a quantum field is inherently frame dependent, regardless of the nature of the physical detectors and regardless of the nature of any physical interaction of the detectors with the vacuum. They argue that such frame dependence is built into the field quantization procedure on a more abstract level.

J: You are making a difference that does not make a difference. While the precise design of this or that detector is not relevant so long as it works, you must have some kind of detector because physics is about what detectors measure - or can in principle measure. If the physics cannot be done in terms of gedankenexperiments where the rubber touches the ground then it's not good physics. It may be good mathematics masquerading as physics. If it does not help an experimentalist then it is essentially worthless as physics.

Z: Which leads me to conclude that field quanta are not physical objects. And yet they are supposed to carry matter/energy
through the vacuum.

J: Your classical concept of physical objects is what is obsolete especially if we are merely back from the future hologram image computations in a virtual reality. ;-)

Z: So if Crispino et al. are correct, this conceptual problem is built into the field quantization model from the get-go. It's certainly not a criticism specifically about your Wheeler-Feynman model. OK, then what exactly is the argument against excitation of on-mass-shell quanta out of the vacuum by objective physical interaction with dynamically accelerating detectors? Should be easy to explain, since you clearly consider the answers here to be obvious.

J: Huh? I showed you the numbers! What don't you get?

Z: This is not simply about the numbers.

J:  For me right now it's all about numbers. I am not interested in some airy fairy fantasy in la la land. We have a problem Houston. We measure hc/RH^2Lp^2 dark energy density accelerating the universe, whilst our best theories including sting theory (pun intended) predict hc/Lp^4 or maybe smaller, but still much too large.I am explaining hc/RH^2Lp^2  here - that is the point here. Off-topic tangents are noise in the signal here.

Z: If Crispino et al. have it right, in any QFT formulated in Minkowski spacetime, field quanta  are inherently frame dependent. They are not physical objects. The field as a whole may be a physical object, but not the excitation states of the field. This is what was originally proposed by Davies by analogy with Hawking radiation in his 1974 paper:

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/ScalarParticleProductionInSchwarzchild%2015.pdf

This was followed up by Unruh in his Physical Review D paper. As Crispino et al. remark, these proposals generated considerable perplexity among physicists.

J: Sure - but stay on point, which is to make some kind of sense of hc/RH^2Lp^2 .

To summarize where things stand at the moment in my opinion.

using standard GR starting from the static LNIF representation of the de Sitter metric to which we are evolving

g00 = 1 - /\r^2

g(r) = c^2VNewton,rg00^-1/2 --> 2c^2/\r(1 - /\r^2)^-1/2 ---> c^2/\^1/4(/\^-1/2 - r)^-1/2 ---> infinity classically at our future horizon r = /\^-1/2

The Unruh temperature/energy per degree of freedom is

kBTUnruh = hg/c ---> hc/\^1/4(/\^-1/2 - r)^-1/2

Z: OK. And in Unruh's model the vacuum thermal distribution is clearly frame dependent.

J: But the detector's proper acceleration is a tensor.

Using the Planck cutoff

(/\^-1/2 - r) = Lp = 10^-33 cm

/\ = 1/RH^2 = 10^-56cm^-2

kBTUnruh = hg/c ---> hc/\^1/4(/\^-1/2 - r)^-1/2 = hc(RHLP)^-1/2 ~ 10^-2710^10/(10^2810^-33)^1/2 ~ 10^-1710^3 ~ 10^-14 ergs ~ 10^-2ev

much too small for a real electron-positron plasma to be pulled out of the vacuum, but just right for the dark energy density from Planck's law

energy density = sigmaT^4 ---> hc/RH^2LP^2

Z: OK so now your model for dark energy is an Unruh radiation field?

J: Yes, but it must come back from our future event horizon! Area of our past particle horizon will be too small where-when our past light cone intersects it. This can't be a mere random coincidence in my opinion.

Z; If the numbers come out right it's certainly enough to launch an investigation.

J: You got that right Bhubba! Meantime the Pundits don't get it yet. However, if we think of the electron as a Bohm hidden variable Kerr-Newman black hole with roughly gravity radius 10^-56 cm and use that as the cut-off we get a large enough Unruh temperature of black body photons to pull virtual electron-positron pairs out of the vacuum - even virtual quark-antiquark pairs i.e. charged mesons.

i.e. 10^-17/(10^2810^-56)^1/2 = 10^-3 ergs = 10^9 ev ~ nucleon mass/energy

Z: OK I think this is moving too fast for me.

J: Faster than the speeding photon.

Poor Earthman! ;-)

Z: I have. I read the Gibbon-Hawking paper and Unruh's stuff. And I don't see any argument against a covariant
treatment of the Unruh effect in terms of objective physical interactions of accelerating detectors with the
EM vacuum.

J: Who cares? Of course it's covariant. The proper acceleration of the detector is a GCT first-rank  tensor! Your question is trite. It's obviously covariant.

Z: True but irrelevant to what I'm talking about now. What I'm talking about now -- and what Crispino at al. are talking
about -- is the *inherent* frame dependence of field quantization in Minkowski spacetime.

J: It's even worse when you add curvature & torsion.

Z: So OK if Crispino et al. are correct, you're off the hook -- this is all built into canonical field quantization procedures.

J: g^u(detector) = d^2x^u(detector)/ds + (LC)^uvw(observer)(dx^v(detector)/ds)(dx^w(detector)/ds)

Z: Jack, the review article YOU POSTED on Unruh raises exactly these kinds of points. And answers them. And they agree with me that there has been much confusion among physicists about this topic.  The whole Davies-Unruh model is based on an analogy between Hawking radiation from black hole horizons, and the supposed Unruh radiation from Rindler horizons. But a black hole horizon is a physical object, whereas  a Rindler horizon is a frame artifact. So there is a real conundrum there.

J: Not at all. The Rindler horizon is a property of the accelerating detector independent of its design and composition so long as it detects photons.

Z: However, it is not specific or peculiar to your proposal.

J: 1) is the future horizon a total Wheeler-Feynman absorber? Hoyle and Narlikar say yes independently of the Unruh effect.

Z: OK, but The Devil is in the details here.

J: Keep Nick Herbert out of this. ;-)

Z: I assume here you are talking about an asymptotically de Sitter universe?

J: Yes, I am talking about Tamara Davis's model.


2) why is the dark energy density hc/RH^2LP^2 and not hc/LP^4 as naive quantum field theory demands?

Z: OK, good question.

J: To which I assert I have a good answer - better than anyone else's answer as far as I know.

Z: My question has been answered: field quanta are not physical objects. They are inherently frame dependent,
regardless of the nature of any possible interaction of dynamically accelerating detectors with the vacuum. And
this is all built into the canonical field quantization procedure carried out in Minkowski spacetime.

J: Glad you are happy but that question was not of interest to me - I already accepted that is the case.




Cosmologists have long been puzzled about why the conditions of our universe—for example, its rate of expansion—provide the ideal breeding ground for galaxies, stars, and planets. If you rolled the dice to create a universe, odds are that you would not get one as handily conducive to life as ours is. Even if you could take life for granted, it’s not clear that 14 billion years is enough time for it to evolve by chance. But if the final state of the universe is set and is reaching back in time to influence the early universe, it could amplify the chances of life’s emergence.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=
Hi Carlos
So your approach is different from mine.
The Koreans never mention that its a future horizon, I think they imagine it's a past horizon. I don't remember that they mention the hologram idea - maybe they do. They do not do my simple analysis
g00 = 1 - / ^2
we are at r = 0 where a(t) = 1
static LNIF generally covariant tensor proper acceleration at fixed r is
g(r) = 2c^2/ (1 - / ^2)^-1/2 ---> g(d) = c^2/^1/4/d^1/2 = c^2/(geometric mean of horizon scale with shrinking distance from the horizon)
Using RH & LP cutoff, the Unruh temperature is
kBTUnruh = hg(d)/c = hc/^1/4/LP^1/2 = hc/(RHLP)^1/2
Planck's black body law
energy density = sigma T^4 = hc/(RHLP)^2 = observed value of the dark energy density
this is clearly a horizon effect, therefore we are hologram images computed back from our future.
The horizon is not in our past, it must be in our POST-SELECTED (Hoyle-Aharonov) future - see Tamara Davis's PhD.
Every clear concept gets mooshed down here
into black, sticky, jargon-encrusted, non-equilibrium,
Valentinian, holographic, sub-quantum, post-selected gruel.
And worst of all, this undead, mind-dissolving mess
is not just some Lovecraftian fiction.
It's real. And it walks among us."
"And like heroin,
it explains everything.

from "The Case of the Dread Sarfatti Fog Zone"
Nick Herbert's reaction to my explanation of the dark energy accelerating our universe's expansion as a back-from-the-future Destiny Matrix world hologram effect.
Backward causation and a hologram in our future go hand-in-hand. We cannot separate them anymore than King Solomon could cut the baby in the bathwater.
On Feb 10, 2011, at 2:47 AM, Carlos Castro wrote:
Dear Jack :
About maximal proper force/acceleration I was invoking Born's reciprocity principle of relativity and I was working in phase space.
About a new way to look at the Unruth temperature, ...... look at the work in the
arXiv by a friend mine : Manuel Calixto  
Yes, I recall the Chinese paper where they play with the idea of a future hologram
and Hawking radiation to explain dark energy.
Backward causation is another story.
Best wishes
Carlos

Feb 10
Therefore they see Rindler vacuum thermal photons with temperature, if we use the Lp cutoff

kBTUnruh ~ hc/\^1/4/d^1/2 ~ 10^-2710^10/(10^2810^-33)^1/2 ~ 10^-1710^3 ~ 10^-14 ergs ~ 10^-2ev

On the other hand, if we use the gravity radius of the electron Gm/c^2 ~ 10^-56 cm, we get

kBTUnruh ~ hc/\^1/4/d^1/2 ~ 10^-2710^10/(10^2810^-56)^1/2 ~ 10^-1710^14 ~ 10^-3 ergs ~ 10^9 ev >> 2mc^2 (electrons)

However, that seems to contradict normal ideas of quantum gravity that 10^-33 cm is the shortest physical distance.



‎"Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!" Erwin Schrödinger
See also John A. Wheeler's description of quantum reality as the the "Great Smoky Dragon" that Nick replaces with the "Dread Sarfatti Fog"
Nick Herbert's reaction to my explanation of the dark energy accelerating our universe's expansion as a back-from-the-future Destiny Matrix world hologram effect.
On Feb 9, 2011, at 9:46 AM, nick herbert wrote:
====================================================
"I've never seen anything more disgusting, Holmes.
I'm afraid I may just drop my lunch.
Every clear concept gets mooshed down here
into black, sticky, jargon-encrusted, non-equilibrium,
Valentinian, holographic, sub-quantum, post-selected gruel.
And worst of all, this undead, mind-dissolving mess
is not just some Lovecraftian fiction.
It's real. And it walks among us."
"And like heroin,
it explains everything.
I'm sorry you had to see this, Watson.
I always feel dirty
whenever I come down here."
            from "The Case of the Dread Sarfatti Fog Zone"
======================================================
I'm sure you're sure this time
You've surely "got it", Jack.
Defend your priority like a dog.
A toast to all who would escape
the Dread Sarfatti Fog.
I'm escapin'
Nick Herbert
http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com

On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
This was when Bohr was hammering away at Schrödinger at his hospital bed, insisting on
the *a priori* impenetrable epistemological opacity of the quantum of action.

Is that how you like to see yourself?

Subject: Re: Nick Herbert joins Erwin Schrodinger

As usual Z you see through the Crazy House Mirror Topsy Turvy Upside Down.
In the analogy I am Niels Bohr and Nick is Schrodinger!
I am hammering away at Nick who has given up on physics and is ready to escape, to leap on all fours into the Abyss!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMyDtX4hj_g

Is not the Dread Sarfatti Fog like Bohr's famous mumbling and oft obscure writings like yours?

On the other hand, my argument is really quite clear - simple algebra.

However, the Unruh temperature at our future horizon while enough to "explain" the dark energy density is 100 times too small to excite real electron-positron pairs out of the vacuum into a real plasma absorber. However, we can fall back on the Hoyle-Narlikar argument for that.

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:45 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
"Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!"
Erwin Schrödinger
Thought-Experiments In Honor of John Wheeler :: Paul Davies ...
Feb 14, 2002 ... About twenty years ago I ran into John Wheeler at a ...
www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/.../Default.aspx -
John A. Wheeler, Physicist Who Coined the Term 'Black Hole,' Is ...
Apr 14, 2008 ... John A. Wheeler, Physicist Who Coined the Term 'Black Hole,' Is Dead at 96... that Dr. Wheeler sometimes referred to as “a smoky dragon.” ...
www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?... - Add to iGoogle
John Wheeler (1911-2008) - The International Society on General ...
Apr 14, 2008 ... John Wheeler, a visionary physicist and teacher who helped invent the theory of .... that Wheeler sometimes referred to as "a smoky dragon. ...
www.isgrg.org/wheeler.php -
John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) : The Quantum Pontiff
Apr 14, 2008 ... John Archibald Wheeler and the Smoky Dragon by. Jonathan Vos Post ============== ====================================== ...
scienceblogs.com/pontiff/.../john_archibald_wheeler_1912200.php - Cached
Quantum Mechanics: The Physics of the Microscopic World
In this final lecture, you ponder John A. Wheeler's metaphor of the Great Smoky Dragon, a creature whose tail appears at the start of an experiment and ...
www.teach12.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1240 - Cached
Nick, our legacies are here being imprinted. So you don't like Valentini's theory of signal nonlocality as sub-quantal non-equilibrium of the hidden variables? And you don't like Yakir Aharonov's post-selection back from the future retro-causality? And you don't like 'tHooft-Susskind hologram screen with Seth Lloyd's horizon computer ideas?
Really?
You mean this?
I don't quite understand why Nick Herbert is having so much trouble seeing the amazing result here. I will keep trying to make it clear to his aging mind.
On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:28 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:
As I understand Jack's argument, he invokes Susskind's horizon "complementarity"
Yes in a more generalized sense than Lenny has used.
to claim that, while photons observed near the horizon do indeed appear to local observers to be heavily redshifted
NO, they are heavily BLUE SHIFTED for static LNIFS!
RED SHIFTED for co-moving LIFS sitting still in the Hubble flow.
There is no event horizon in the comoving FRW metric for our early universe in contrast to the static de Sitter metric (our future universe)
g00 = 1 - /| ^2   for static LNIF detectors
observer is at r = 0
horizon is at r = /|^-1/2

/| = Einstein's cosmological constant ~ 10^-56 cm^-2 = 1/RH^2

static LNIF acceleration is
g(r) = 2c^2/ g00^-1/2 = 2c^2/ (1 - /| ^2)^-1/2  ---> infinity classically at the horizon.
The corresponding Unruh temperature is
kBTUnruh = hg(r)/c ---> infinity classically at the horizon.
This is obviously a blue shift.
Now let  r = /|^-1/2 - d
d/|^-1/2 << 1
g(d) ~  c^2/|^1/4/d^1/2 = c^2/(RHd)^1/2   as d ---> 0
i.e. c^2/(geometric mean of horizon scale with d)
Use Lp as minimum d
Planck's black body law gives
energy density ~ sigmaT^4 ---> hc/(RHLP)^2 = observed value from Type 1a supernovae.
Now this can hardly be a coincidence.
BTW same geometric mean formula obtains even in the Schwarzschild black hole case g00 = 1 - rs/r.
Tamara Davis's PhD Fig 1.1c
==========================================================

On Feb 9, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:48 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

No, Z you are confused on the formalities of changing coordinates and the actual physics of the detectors.

I think Woodward was talking about the behavior of *photons* at a black hole event horizon, not just the behavior of detectors. I think he was using this as an example of different observers seeing different things. He was arguing against the idea that different observers can see different physical situations *at the same time*. He was arguing that there is no meaningful definition of "at the same time" in the case of the behavior of light at a black hole horizon, when observed locally and by a distant observer.

I'm am not sure about what he was and what you are talking about. However, it's not what I am talking about and I have been very precise.I am talking about static LNIFs a small distance from our horizon in the sense of Tamara Davis's Fig 1.1 c on front page.

i.e. static LNIF is at a(t) ~ 2 at roughly 8 Gly comoving distance from us NOW,

we are at a(t) = 1

1 + z = femit/fabsorb = 0 i.e. infinite blue shift classically for the static LNIF at our horizon.

However, even if we use Lp = 10^-33 cm we do not get enough T to make a real electron-positron plasma

If we use 2Gm/c^2 = 10^-56 cm we do - but that seems to go against normal ideas of quantum gravity

However, the Hoyle-Narlikar argument works independent of this and so I think the future horizon is the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber.

The dark energy density as advanced Wheeler-Feynman black body Unruh radiation comes out perfectly as

T^4 ~ hc/|/Lp^2

so something real is in the Dread Sarfatti Fog Zone!


On Feb 9, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Depending on how this result -- if it holds up -- is rationalized theoretically.

How does that help?

Think of this more like a murder investigation.

We have a very important clue - a natural derivation of

hc/RH^2LP^2

as a horizon Unruh effect, but the horizon must be in our future in accord with Yakir Aharonov's QM for example.

There is no competing explanation of the fact of dark energy free of excess baggage - none as parsimonious as what I suggest using only elementary battle-tested physics.

No question that you are not the only one following this approach. For example you showed us the Gibbons-Hawking paper. So if there is a problem with this it will also be a problem with the reasoning in the Gibbons-Hawking paper.  I think you are missing some subtleties here. The mere fact that differently accelerating detectors interact differently  with the vacuum does not necessarily mean that they are "seeing" different vacuums. It's still possible to explain this as the result of different objective physical interactions between the detectors and the vacuum.

Read the literature. The Rev Mod Phys reference http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5373v1 I gave you shows all the detailed quantum field theory machinery behind what I said. Indeed, no one in the field questions that much.

OK, then what exactly is the argument against excitation of on-mass-shell quanta out of the vacuum by objective physical interaction with dynamically accelerating detectors? Should be easy to explain, since you clearly consider the answers here to be obvious.

Huh? I showed you the numbers! What don't you get?
To summarize where things stand at the moment in my opinion.

Using standard GR starting from the static LNIF representation of the de Sitter metric to which we are evolving

g00 = 1 - / ^2

g(r) = c^2VNewton,rg00^-1/2 --> 2c^2/ (1 - / ^2)^-1/2

---> c^2/^1/4(/^-1/2 - r)^-1/2 ---> infinity classically at our future horizon r = /^-1/2

The Unruh temperature/energy per degree of freedom is

kBTUnruh = hg/c ---> hc/^1/4(/^-1/2 - r)^-1/2
Using the Planck cutoff

(/^-1/2 - r) = Lp = 10^-33 cm

/ = 1/RH^2 = 10^-56cm^-2

kBTUnruh = hg/c ---> hc/^1/4(/^-1/2 - r)^-1/2 = hc(RHLP)^-1/2 ~ 10^-2710^10/(10^2810^-33)^1/2 ~ 10^-1710^3 ~ 10^-14 ergs ~ 10^-2ev

much too small for a real electron-positron plasma to be pulled out of the vacuum, but just right for the dark energy density from Planck's law

energy density = sigmaT^4 ---> hc/RH^2LP^2

this can't be a mere random coincidence in my opinion.

However, if we think of the electron as a Bohm hidden variable Kerr-Newman black hole with roughly gravity radius 10^-56 cm and use that as the cut-off we get a large enough Unruh temperature of black body photons to pull virtual electron-positron pairs out of the vacuum - even virtual quark-antiquark pairs i.e. charged mesons.

i.e. 10^-17/(10^2810^-56)^1/2 = 10^-3 ergs = 10^9 ev ~ nucleon mass/energy
 
Do some homework at least.

I have. I read the Gibbon-Hawking paper and Unruh's stuff. And I don't see any argument against a covariant  treatment of the Unruh effect in terms of objective physical interactions of accelerating detectors with the EM vacuum.

Who cares? Of course it's covariant. The proper acceleration of the detector is a GCT first-rank  tensor!  It's obviously covariant.

g^u(detector) = d^2x^u(detector)/ds + (LC)^uvw(observer)(dx^v(detector)/ds)(dx^w(detector)/ds)

You don't focus on the the PHYSICS points.

1) is the future horizon a total Wheeler-Feynman absorber? Hoyle and Narlikar say yes independently of the Unruh effect.

2) why is the dark energy density hc/RH^2LP^2 and not hc/LP^4 as naive quantum field theory demands?

I don't quite understand why so many are having trouble seeing the amazing result here. I will keep trying to make it clear.

On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:28 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

As I understand Jack's argument, he invokes Susskind's horizon "complimentarity"

Yes in a more generalized sense than Lenny has used.

to claim that, while photons observed near the horizon do indeed appear to local observers to be heavily redshifted

NO, they are heavily BLUE SHIFTED for static LNIFS!

RED SHIFTED for co-moving LIFS sitting still in the Hubble flow.

There is no event horizon in the comoving FRW metric for our early universe in contrast to the static de Sitter metric (our future universe)

g00 = 1 - /\r^2   for static LNIF detectors


observer is at r = 0

horizon is at r = /\^-1/2

static LNIF acceleration is

g(r) = 2c^2/\rg00^-1/2 = 2c^2/\r(1 - /\r^2)^-1/2  ---> infinity classically at the horizon.

The corresponding Unruh temperature is

kBTUnruh = hg(r)/c ---> infinity classically at the horizon.

This is obviously a blue shift.

Now let  r = /\^-1/2 - d

d/\^-1/2 << 1

g(d) ~  c^2/\^1/4/d^1/2 = c^2/(RHd)^1/2   as d ---> 0

i.e. c^2/(geometric mean of horizon scale with d)

Use Lp as minimum d

Planck's black body law gives

energy density ~ sigmaT^4 ---> hc/(RHLP)^2 = observed value from Type 1a supernovae.

Now this can hardly be a coincidence.

BTW same geometric mean formula obtains even in the Schwarzschild black hole case g00 = 1 - rs/r.