You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog Blog (Full Text Display)

Jan
15

Tagged in:

On Jan 15, 2011, at 11:52 AM, nick herbert wrote:*General relativity IS CLASSICAL, Jack. So is the concept of horizons.*

Sure, but any classical theory has quantum corrections.

So you deny the work of Bekenstein, Hawking, Unruh, Davies, Gibbons, t'Hooft & Susskind et-al on the quantum thermodynamics of classical horizons?

but not even Uri Gellar noticed

because this space-time event

is currently outside our event horizon.

Nick you are confused about the meaning of "event horizon" - that is not our future event horizon. Nick your argument is not even wrong because you are confounding past OPTICAL horizons with our FUTURE event horizon.

"event horizon" means gtt = 0

the past optical horizon you confound that with has nothing to do with gtt = 0 - the past optical horizon is only due to the finite speed of light not a property of the representation of the ds^2 metric field relative to a class of arbitrarily chosen detectors.

I don't know what Uri Geller has to do with this. Note correct spelling of his name.

and wipe out all non-microbial life forms on Earth.

Hey Nick, how do you know? Have you been doing precognitive remote viewing amping up the signal nonlocality efficiency of your brain with exotic nanomotors? ;-) Ah, so that's what my 1-5-11 precognition of dread was all about - this message of The End from you on 1-15-11?

for reasons he is not able to clearly explain.

My argument is that since virtual electron-positron pairs are clamped to horizons as accelerating static LNIFs relative to us at r = 0.

gtt = -1/grr = 1 - / ^2 observer dependent in the static LNIF representation of ds^2 absolute invariant.

Therefore, they see an Unruh temperature that provides enough energy to elevate them to a real electron-positron plasma that will absorb any null geodesic photons hitting the horizon.

However, this happens only within a Gme/c^2 ~ 10^-55 cm thickness of the 2D future event horizon much smaller than the Planck thickness.

Agreed my argument rests on shaky ground at the moment.

However, Hoyle and Narlikar have an independent argument leading to the same conclusion. Will collect that later.

are ubiquitous and nothing special

as far as the radiation that's crossing them is concerned.

You've shown me no reason to believe differently

Quoting big names, Jack,

is not the same as an argument.

At least I spell their names correctly - most of the time and I never use the big big D ;-)

On Jan 14, 2011, at 10:47 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Jan 14, 2011, at 10:21 PM, nick herbert wrote:

it's too far away for light to reach us--

separated from us by a (moving) horizon.

Yes, but you are ignoring all the work of Bekenstein, Hawking etc on the quantum thermodynamics of horizons.

You are thinking classically.

However, I admit this is very weird stuff.

The apparent subjectivity of our future horizon is one weird aspect.

that can't see us because our light has not reached them yet.

For some observers, we are exactly on the horizon.

The horizon thermodynamics is for accelerating observers.

It has no meaning to say we are exactly on the horizon even momentarily if we are geodesic observers. Also event horizons are 2D closed surrounding surfaces. World lines are 1D intersecting them.

See references below on "horizon complementarity".

Even in the case of the black hole which is not subjective, the geodesic observer does not see anything unusual at the horizon itself unlike the hovering static LNIF observer.*When ships seem to disappear "over the horizon" nothing really happens to them. Likewise at optical horizons.Maybe some people believed that ships actually went over the edge of the world when they disappeared beneath the horizon but hardly anyone believes that today.Some people believe that something special happens at optical horizons. I am not one of those people..* No, that is not the problem. The optical horizon analogy misses the point. It's not a valid comparison at all in my opinion.

"Black hole complementarity is a conjectured solution to the black hole information paradox, proposed by Leonard Susskind[1] and Gerard 't Hooft.[2]

Ever since Stephen Hawking suggested information is lost in evaporating black hole once it passes through the event horizon and is inevitably destroyed at the singularity and that this can turn pure quantum states into mixed states, some physicists have wondered if a complete theory of quantum gravity might be able to conserve information with a unitary time evolution. But how can this be possible if information can't escape the event horizon without traveling faster than light? This seems to rule out Hawking radiation as the carrier of the missing information. It also appears as if information can't be "reflected" at the event horizon as there is nothing special about it locally.

Leonard Susskind[3] proposed a radical resolution to this problem by claiming that the information is both reflected at the event horizon and passes through the event horizon and can't escape, with the catch being no observer can confirm both stories simultaneously. According to an external observer, the infinite time dilation at the horizon itself makes it appear as if it takes an infinite amount of time to reach the horizon. He also postulated a streched horizon, which is a membrane hovering about a Planck length outside the horizon which is both physical and hot. According to the external observer, infalling information heats up the stretched horizon, which then reradiates it as Hawking radiation, with the entire evolution being unitary. However, according to an infalling observer, nothing special happens at the event horizon itself, and both the observer and the information will hit the singularity. This isn't to say there are two copies of the information lying about — one at or just outside the horizon, and the other inside the black hole — as that would violate the no cloning theorem. Instead, an observer can only detect the information at the horizon itself, or inside, but never both simultaneously. Complementarity is a feature of the quantum mechanics of noncommuting observables, and Susskind proposed that both stories are complementarity in the quantum sense.

Interestingly enough, an infalling observer will see the point of entry of the information as being localized on the event horizon, while an external observer will notice the information being spread out uniformly over the entire stretched horizon before being re-radiated."

Now I am proposing a similar idea for our future event horizon. I agree it's strange and the issue is not settled.

Lenny only considers the distant hovering LNIF. Even more weird is the momentarily locally coincident LIF Alice and LNIF Bob just before Alice falls through the horizon. Can Alice catch fire from Bob for example if too close to him? The issue is unitarily non-equivalent quantum vacua for LIFs and LNIFs when coincident - not part of strictly classical GR of course.

[0811.4465] Horizon Complementarity and Casimir Violations of the ...

by B McInnes - 2008 - Cited by 1 - Related articles

Nov 27, 2008 ... Abstract: The principle of horizon complementarity is an attempt to extend ideas about black hole complementarity to all horizons, ...

arxiv.org › hep-th - Cached

?

[hep-th/9306069] The Stretched Horizon and Black Hole Complementarity

by L Susskind - 1993 - Cited by 385 - Related articles

Title: The Stretched Horizon and Black Hole Complementarity ...

arxiv.org › hep-th - Cached - Similar

Show more results from arxiv.org

Black hole complementarity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Instead, an observer can only detect the information at the horizon itself, or inside, but never both simultaneously. Complementarity is a feature of the ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_complementarity - Cached

[PDF] Using Finite-Dimensional Complementarity Problems to Approximate ...

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

by TF Rutherford - 2005 - Related articles

Oct 13, 2005 ... Using Finite-Dimensional Complementarity Problems to. Approximate In nite- Horizon Optimization Models. Thomas F. Rutherford ...

www.mpsge.org/ramseynlp/ramseynlp.pdf

How efficiency/equity tradeoffs resolve through horizon effects ...

Not only does social extension of planning horizons shift our relations away from substitution to complementarity but most direct interaction of planning ...

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5437/is_2_39/ai_n29189632/ - Cached

The future of theoretical physics and cosmology: celebrating ... - Google Books Result

Stephen W. Hawking, G. W. Gibbons, E. Paul S. Shellard - 2003 - Biography & Autobiography - 879 pages

19.3 Horizon Complementarity When you have eliminated all that is ... Sherlock Holmes The principle of Horizon Complementarity I interpret to mean that no ...

books.google.com/books?isbn=0521820812...

The Topsy Turvy World of Curved Space-Time Horizon Hologram Computers

Apr 2, 2010 ... This is an example of horizon complementarity - one has to specify precisely the total experimental arrangement to get sensible answers not ...

www.stardrive.org/index.php?option=com...horizon... - Cached

On Jan 14, 2011, at 6:06 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:37 PM, nick herbert wrote:

False I think.

Let's see

Now this is only on the cosmological scale where a galaxy is approximated as a "point".

It's not clear to me that your sentence above is true in the relevant context.

Our observable universe from the POV of everyone on Earth, indeed everyone in our galaxy I suppose, has pretty much almost the same past particle and future event horizon.

According to Hawking our future event horizon has thermodynamic properties. True even LNIF observer dependent Rindler horizons have thermodynamic properties.

So I don't quite see the relevance of your above sentence.

Nothing special is happening to light here on Earth (a horizon for some).

It's not true that our Earth's world line is a horizon for an observer. A horizon is a 2D surrounding surface. A 1D world line is not a surrounding 2D surface. Also a horizon is a null geodesic 2D surface for some metric guv field.

For example

ds^2 = (1 - / ^2)dt^2 - (1 - / ^2)^-1dr^2 - ....

is the de Sitter metric for static LNIFs with US at r = 0.

All static LNIFs at fixed r from us are accelerating in tensor sense with an Unruh temperature

~ c^2/^1/2(1 - / ^2)^-1/2 ---> infinity mathematically at the 2D horizon.

Thus I don't believe (as you seemingly do)

that a horizon acts as a Cramerian absorber of last resort.

I do agree with Nick that this horizon complementarity is very weird - a geodesic observer passing through our future event horizon will not see anything strange.

But we see dark energy density that is the inverse area A of our future event horizon i.e.

dark energy density = hc/Lp^2A

So Nick how do you explain that? Merely a random coincidence?

Do you think Gibbons and Hawking are mistaken?

Jan
09

Tagged in:

in order that our future horizon is not only the hologram cosmic conscious computer screen, but is also the Aharonov post-selected Wheeler-Feynman total absorber final cause boundary condition>

Ray Chiao wrote:

"Black holes" are 'black,' in the sense that they are perfect absorbers of every kind of particle, including photons at all frequencies [5]. "

Can we transfer Ray Chiao's remarks on the black hole horizon total absorber to our future cosmological dark energy horizon even though there are significant topological and causal differences between them e.g.

1) the dark energy horizon is observer-dependent

2) we are outside a black hole horizon but inside our future horizon

3) we can see redshifted retarded radiation from outside the the black hole horizon.

4) mainstream opinion is that we cannot see redshifted advanced radiation from the inner surface of our future horizon.

The big question is can we use the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber condition on our future horizon that totally surrounds us?

Ibison seems to argue that classically we cannot do this because our future horizon is a "time mirror" not a "total absorber."

The virtual electron-positron pairs are clamped to the 2D horizon surface. Therefore, they are in effect accelerating static LNIFs.

for the corrected arithmetic look at the blog entry on 1-24-11

Jan
08

Tagged in:

Michael, Perhaps we can discuss this in June at the Retrocausation Workshop University of San Diego? Meantime I will try to understand the details of your paper.

On Jan 8, 2011, at 1:49 AM, michael ibison wrote:

*My original idea was similar. The problem is that absorption is a very particular event which the de Sitter singularity does not cause. Absorption is not a boundary condition in the usual sense of the word, where some condition is applied to the fields and / or their derivatives on a hypersurface of co-dimension 1. In fact there is no way that I know of to mimic absorption by such means. Absorption connotes cancellation of the incoming radiation in the forward direction (the direction in space and time of incoming light rays). For that to happen requires that there be matter at the boundary to take up the missing energy. There is no such matter at the future Conformal Singularity of de Sitter spacetime. So absorption, at least in its traditional meaning, does not happen at that boundary. In fact the incoming radiation apparently traverses the de SItter boundary unimpeded precisely because it is a singularity in a CONFORMAL factor, to which EM is insensitive. That's why people go to a conformal representation to analyze EM.*

Classically what you say is so of course. Indeed, this was Nick Herbert's objection. However, since the virtual electron-positron pairs of Hawking's mechanism are stuck at the horizon they are static LNIF's that feel an enormous Unruh acceleration temperature. Therefore, they get enough energy to be real electron-positron plasma at the Planck temperature that should absorb any photons that reach it. Lenny Susskind discusses this sort of horizon complementarity in his more technical little book on Fidos and Frefos. So the issue is what do the quantum thermodynamic corrections to your classical calculation entail?

*I do not know if the above argument applies to the BH horizon also. The reason I am not sure is because that horizon cannot be written conformally, as far as I know. Anyhow, though the future de Sitter singularity is not an absorber, it turns out impose a boundary condition due to the symmetry required /imposed by the Friedmann equation across the boundary. The scale factor is anti-symmetric about the horizon, so the universe must evolve on the other side in a time-reversed way. That turns out to imply a boundary condition on the EM fields. Some of that (but not all) is captured by requiring that B = 0 at the boundary. This is a mirror condition. (Physical mirrors generally work by setting E = 0, but a 'magnetic conductor' will do a similar job.)*

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 12:15 AM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Ray

The escaping member of the photon pair, which has torn apart by the strong gravitational tidal forces near the event horizon

change to

The escaping member of the photon pair, which has been torn apart by the strong gravitational tidal forces near the event horizon

:-)

So, now I need to understand Ibison's argument in detail as part of the question of how to apply the thermodynamics to our future cosmological horizon.

Ray Chiao writes:

"“Black holes” are “black,” in the sense that they are perfect absorbers of

every kind of particle, including photons at all frequencies [1]. Once particles

have passed through the event horizon of a BH, they can never get out again,

at a classical level of description. For in order for a particle to be able to escape

from the black hole, it would need somehow to acquire an escape velocity which

effectively exceeds the speed of light at the event horizon."

My basic idea that I tried to explain to Roger Penrose at Castiglioncello in 2008 is simply to apply the above idea for the black hole, to our future cosmological horizon. Therefore, trivially we have the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber final boundary condition in our accelerating universe that is heading for the de Sitter solution. We are not de Sitter in the past - an important Arrow of Time asymmetry there.

The only Hawking radiation we can see back-from-the-future is Wheeler-Feynman advanced thermal radiation that may well be the dark energy,

I also tried to explain this to Bernard Carr at King's College London - I think he got it, but Penrose did not because it contradicts his current idea of cyclic big bangs.

We are outside a black hole horizon, but inside our future horizon which is also observer dependent.

I don't yet understand Ibison's

"There is no conflict however if electromagnetic interactions on the advanced cone are principally negative rather

than positive energy interactions. If indeed they were, then the emission of positive energy radiation on the retarded

cone of a local source can be re-interpreted as an increment in the magnitude of negative binding energy propagating

(in forwards time) along the (here, necessarily) advanced cone of that source. No future sinks or sources are then

required. The predominance of retarded radiation as commonly understood then follows from the asymmetry of

advanced Greens functions which are the consequence of the boundary condition associated with a future time-like

mirror."

Ibison has this idea of a "time mirror" to replace the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber future boundary condition.

My original idea was simply this

1) No thermodynamic difference between a black hole horizon and our future cosmological horizon - other differences of course.

2) In both cases the static LNIF near the horizon sees infinite blue shift/Unruh temperature

3) i.e. for black hole

g(r) = (rs/r^2)(1 - 2rs/r)^-1/2

horizon at r = 2rs

4) for cosmological future horizon we are at r = 0 and

g(r) = c^2/\^1/2(1 - /\r^2)^-1/2

horizon at r = /\^-1/2

On Jan 8, 2011, at 1:49 AM, michael ibison wrote:

Classically what you say is so of course. Indeed, this was Nick Herbert's objection. However, since the virtual electron-positron pairs of Hawking's mechanism are stuck at the horizon they are static LNIF's that feel an enormous Unruh acceleration temperature. Therefore, they get enough energy to be real electron-positron plasma at the Planck temperature that should absorb any photons that reach it. Lenny Susskind discusses this sort of horizon complementarity in his more technical little book on Fidos and Frefos. So the issue is what do the quantum thermodynamic corrections to your classical calculation entail?

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 12:15 AM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Ray

The escaping member of the photon pair, which has torn apart by the strong gravitational tidal forces near the event horizon

change to

The escaping member of the photon pair, which has been torn apart by the strong gravitational tidal forces near the event horizon

:-)

So, now I need to understand Ibison's argument in detail as part of the question of how to apply the thermodynamics to our future cosmological horizon.

Ray Chiao writes:

"“Black holes” are “black,” in the sense that they are perfect absorbers of

every kind of particle, including photons at all frequencies [1]. Once particles

have passed through the event horizon of a BH, they can never get out again,

at a classical level of description. For in order for a particle to be able to escape

from the black hole, it would need somehow to acquire an escape velocity which

effectively exceeds the speed of light at the event horizon."

My basic idea that I tried to explain to Roger Penrose at Castiglioncello in 2008 is simply to apply the above idea for the black hole, to our future cosmological horizon. Therefore, trivially we have the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber final boundary condition in our accelerating universe that is heading for the de Sitter solution. We are not de Sitter in the past - an important Arrow of Time asymmetry there.

The only Hawking radiation we can see back-from-the-future is Wheeler-Feynman advanced thermal radiation that may well be the dark energy,

I also tried to explain this to Bernard Carr at King's College London - I think he got it, but Penrose did not because it contradicts his current idea of cyclic big bangs.

We are outside a black hole horizon, but inside our future horizon which is also observer dependent.

I don't yet understand Ibison's

"There is no conflict however if electromagnetic interactions on the advanced cone are principally negative rather

than positive energy interactions. If indeed they were, then the emission of positive energy radiation on the retarded

cone of a local source can be re-interpreted as an increment in the magnitude of negative binding energy propagating

(in forwards time) along the (here, necessarily) advanced cone of that source. No future sinks or sources are then

required. The predominance of retarded radiation as commonly understood then follows from the asymmetry of

advanced Greens functions which are the consequence of the boundary condition associated with a future time-like

mirror."

Ibison has this idea of a "time mirror" to replace the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber future boundary condition.

My original idea was simply this

1) No thermodynamic difference between a black hole horizon and our future cosmological horizon - other differences of course.

2) In both cases the static LNIF near the horizon sees infinite blue shift/Unruh temperature

3) i.e. for black hole

g(r) = (rs/r^2)(1 - 2rs/r)^-1/2

horizon at r = 2rs

4) for cosmological future horizon we are at r = 0 and

g(r) = c^2/\^1/2(1 - /\r^2)^-1/2

horizon at r = /\^-1/2

Jan
08

Tagged in:

It's a Novikov loop in time - the intelligence is in the future not in the past. It's Robert Anton WIlson's Cosmic Trigger. Future Intelligence pushes the plunger causing the Big Bang in the past via the Wheeler-Feynman advanced signal. It's like blowing the bridge over the river kwai.

Jack's Profile · Jack's Wall 2260 friends

Jack Sarfatti

Is God alive and well on our future event horizon? FACEBOOK http://bit.ly/hUQFGI

21 hours ago via AutoTweet Connector · Like · Comment

Alexandria Tesla and Shantul Khan like this.

Peter Rothman Jack, so you think Tipler is right? What is the experiment that will test this hypothesis?

20 hours ago · Like · 1 person

Jack Sarfatti Roughly he may be. Dark energy is one test when properly understood. There will be others.

20 hours ago · Like · 1 person

Alexander Dore Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 for explaining all particles can travel backward in time (This interpretation is still the explanation currently accepted today.)

Feynman then speculated that perhaps the entire universe...

See More

16 hours ago · Like · 1 person

Jack Sarfatti No God is not the electron. Definitely not. The electron an IT from only a few BITS. God the once and future hologram has an IQ of 10^124 BITS. We know this from actual measurements of the dark energy density accelerating the expansion of the universe. Of course there are a lot of advanced physics ideas inbetween needed to really understand the logic behind what I have just said. Nothing you have learned in the past is adequate to understand what I am saying. These ideas are very new and have not trickled down to the public yet.

15 hours ago · Like · 1 person

Peter Rothman What do you mean here by IQ? I think you mean something more specific.

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Also there are two states of being of the electron - real and virtual. Not only that, but electrons are only one type of elementary particle, there are also quarks, and other leptons. The electron is a lepton. We also have 12 gauge bosons that give the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces.

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti PS I knew Feynman personally and of course am very familiar with the ideas you mention above.

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti I mean the amount of information that the "brain" of God has. It's 10^123BITS roughly give or take a power of ten either way. This comes from the theory of Einstein as developed by Bekenstein, Unruh, Wald, Hawking, Ellis and many others.

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti I should have mentioned Seth Lloyd at MIT.

15 hours ago · Like

Alexander Dore I am glad you took up Richard's mantle but don't underestimate my IQ I went off the charts when I was nine at MENSA in the UK! and I am officially Jewish thanks to a certificate I received from the Chief Rabbi in London after my mother passed away. WHo would have guessed?

15 hours ago · Like

Alexander Dore SO who is Dr. Who? does the 10^123 BITS power the Tardis?

This is UK humor

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti I was talking about God's IQ not yours or Richard's. We are hologram images like compressed zip files of much lower than 10^123 BITS maybe what 10^9 or even 10^14? Actually take the metabolic rate and divide by kT to get a rough estimate of the channel capacity of our entire bodies.

15 hours ago · Like

Alexander Dore is a hologram a membrane or is the hologram enveloped in a membrane, in your view, similar to a plasma screen I can't see how we can transition from a physical form to a spiritual entity without a wrapper?

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti This is all well developed physics. Google Kip Thorne "black hole membrane".

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti I have papers on vixra showing how material IT is related to informational BIT in terms of the actual math of modern physics. Basically it's Roger Penrose's spinor formulation of Einstein's gravity. A basic spinor is a single quantum BIT.

15 hours ago · Like

Alexander Dore yes but does the membrane hold the dark matter from matter and is dark matter anti or is it gravity matter which is the combination of + and - ? Yin and Yang and how does the Ouroboros figure in all of this?

15 hours ago · Like

Alexander Dore The Ouroboros the dragon eating its tail in a circle

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti The four dimensions of curved spacetime are the entangled Bell pair states of spinor qubits used in quantum information/computer/cryptography/teleportation theory.

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti The spinors are properties of Einstein's invariant light cones as explained in detail by Roger Penrose in his papers and books. This is not easy stuff and there is no cheap path to really understanding it.

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Search Results

Amazon.com: Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm (9780300037708 ...

1 review - $40.00 - In stock

Amazon.com: Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm (9780300037708): Kip S. Thorne, Douglas A. MacDonald, Richard H. Price: Books.

www.am...

See More

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Amazon.com: Spinors and Space-Time: Volume 1, Two-Spinor Calculus ...

1 review - $59.25 - In stock

Spinors and Space-Time: Volume 2, Spinor and Twistor Methods in Space-Time Geometry (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics) by Roger P...

See More

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti [quant-ph/0605169] A Bell pair in a generic random matrix environment

by C Pineda - 2006 - Cited by 5 - Related articles

May 18, 2006 ... The initial state of the pair is a Bell state, though we also consider arbitrary pure states. Decoheren...

See More

15 hours ago · Like

Alexander Dore you have stock in Amazon Jack thanks signing out watching inglorious bastards

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_paradigm

15 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Not a good film. I got bored. It has a few moments like in the cellar of the beer house.

15 hours ago · Like

Alexander Dore you have to admit Cristoph Walz was excellent as the interrogator

14 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Yes, it has its moments.

14 hours ago · Like

Peter Rothman If God's mind possesses a finite number of bits, regardless of how large, there must be programs he can't run.

52 minutes ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Correct. God is neither omnipotent, nor omniscient. It's simply the largest intelligence in a finite universe - one of an infinity of parallel universes with an infinity of local Gods.

50 minutes ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Now whether there is a super God of Gods - perhaps.

49 minutes ago · Like

Alexander Dore Maybe The Big Bang ex=plosion (yang) is the ZIg and the Big Bang Im-plosion (ying) is the Zag and that it is the largest pulsar and actually it is only a nano-second in universal time and happens billions and billions of times infinite and that our universe is really a sphere in which billions of electrical charges causing billions of elements to roam and behave in chaotic formations such as galactical clustering and that outside of the universe membrane is an intelligent God elemental table manager? Thats abstraction

36 minutes ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti No, I explain it on front page of http://stardrive.org/

It's a Novikov loop in time - the intelligence is in the future not in the past. It's Robert Anton WIlson's Cosmic Trigger.

Future Intelligence pushes the plunger causing the Big Bang in the past via the Wheeler-Feynman advanced signal. It's like blowing the bridge over the river kwai.

11 minutes ago · Like

Jan
08

Tagged in:

Ray

The escaping member of the photon pair, which has torn apart by the strong gravitational tidal forces near the event horizon

change to

The escaping member of the photon pair, which has been torn apart by the strong gravitational tidal forces near the event horizon

:-)

So, now I need to understand Ibison's argument in detail as part of the question of how to apply the thermodynamics to our future cosmological horizon.

Ray Chiao writes:

"“Black holes” are “black,” in the sense that they are perfect absorbers of

every kind of particle, including photons at all frequencies [1]. Once particles

have passed through the event horizon of a BH, they can never get out again,

at a classical level of description. For in order for a particle to be able to escape

from the black hole, it would need somehow to acquire an escape velocity which

effectively exceeds the speed of light at the event horizon."

My basic idea that I tried to explain to Roger Penrose at Castiglioncello in 2008 is simply to apply the above idea for the black hole, to our future cosmological horizon. Therefore, trivially we have the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber final boundary condition in our accelerating universe that is heading for the de Sitter solution. We are not de Sitter in the past - an important Arrow of Time asymmetry there.

The only Hawking radiation we can see back-from-the-future is Wheeler-Feynman advanced thermal radiation that may well be the dark energy,

I also tried to explain this to Bernard Carr at King's College London - I think he got it, but Penrose did not because it contradicts his current idea of cyclic big bangs.

We are outside a black hole horizon, but inside our future horizon which is also observer dependent.

I don't yet understand Ibison's

"There is no conflict however if electromagnetic interactions on the advanced cone are principally negative rather

than positive energy interactions. If indeed they were, then the emission of positive energy radiation on the retarded

cone of a local source can be re-interpreted as an increment in the magnitude of negative binding energy propagating

(in forwards time) along the (here, necessarily) advanced cone of that source. No future sinks or sources are then

required. The predominance of retarded radiation as commonly understood then follows from the asymmetry of

advanced Greens functions which are the consequence of the boundary condition associated with a future time-like

mirror."

Ibison has this idea of a "time mirror" to replace the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber future boundary condition.

My original idea was simply this

1) No thermodynamic difference between a black hole horizon and our future cosmological horizon - other differences of course.

2) In both cases the static LNIF near the horizon sees infinite blue shift/Unruh temperature

3) i.e. for black hole

g(r) = (rs/r^2)(1 - 2rs/r)^-1/2

horizon at r = 2rs

4) for cosmological future horizon we are at r = 0 and

g(r) = c^2/\^1/2(1 - /\r^2)^-1/2

horizon at r = /\^-1/2

The escaping member of the photon pair, which has torn apart by the strong gravitational tidal forces near the event horizon

change to

The escaping member of the photon pair, which has been torn apart by the strong gravitational tidal forces near the event horizon

:-)

So, now I need to understand Ibison's argument in detail as part of the question of how to apply the thermodynamics to our future cosmological horizon.

Ray Chiao writes:

"“Black holes” are “black,” in the sense that they are perfect absorbers of

every kind of particle, including photons at all frequencies [1]. Once particles

have passed through the event horizon of a BH, they can never get out again,

at a classical level of description. For in order for a particle to be able to escape

from the black hole, it would need somehow to acquire an escape velocity which

effectively exceeds the speed of light at the event horizon."

My basic idea that I tried to explain to Roger Penrose at Castiglioncello in 2008 is simply to apply the above idea for the black hole, to our future cosmological horizon. Therefore, trivially we have the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber final boundary condition in our accelerating universe that is heading for the de Sitter solution. We are not de Sitter in the past - an important Arrow of Time asymmetry there.

The only Hawking radiation we can see back-from-the-future is Wheeler-Feynman advanced thermal radiation that may well be the dark energy,

I also tried to explain this to Bernard Carr at King's College London - I think he got it, but Penrose did not because it contradicts his current idea of cyclic big bangs.

We are outside a black hole horizon, but inside our future horizon which is also observer dependent.

I don't yet understand Ibison's

"There is no conflict however if electromagnetic interactions on the advanced cone are principally negative rather

than positive energy interactions. If indeed they were, then the emission of positive energy radiation on the retarded

cone of a local source can be re-interpreted as an increment in the magnitude of negative binding energy propagating

(in forwards time) along the (here, necessarily) advanced cone of that source. No future sinks or sources are then

required. The predominance of retarded radiation as commonly understood then follows from the asymmetry of

advanced Greens functions which are the consequence of the boundary condition associated with a future time-like

mirror."

Ibison has this idea of a "time mirror" to replace the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber future boundary condition.

My original idea was simply this

1) No thermodynamic difference between a black hole horizon and our future cosmological horizon - other differences of course.

2) In both cases the static LNIF near the horizon sees infinite blue shift/Unruh temperature

3) i.e. for black hole

g(r) = (rs/r^2)(1 - 2rs/r)^-1/2

horizon at r = 2rs

4) for cosmological future horizon we are at r = 0 and

g(r) = c^2/\^1/2(1 - /\r^2)^-1/2

horizon at r = /\^-1/2

Jan
07

Tagged in:

God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope http://bit.ly/hIWeSf

Yesterday at 11:09am via AutoTweet Connector · Like · Comment

Susan Waitt, Richard Jensen, Justin Smith and 2 others like this.

Adam Crowl But who was Behind God?

17 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Who do you think?

"Get behind me Satan."

I have not read the original link yet. If you look you will see Kim posted it.

16 hours ago · Like · 1 person

Adam Crowl Of course. Should've known.

15 hours ago · Like

Kevin Dufoort Thought.

14 hours ago · Like

Adam Crowl The Fred Hoyle quote at the bottom of that post is stunningly outdated and inaccurate these days. Biomolecules - especially enzymes - aren't like the parts of a Jumbo at all. There's a lot more "wiggle room" in the amino acid sequences of enzymes - a huge range of working enzymes are produced in the natural world which do the same chemical task with very different sequences. Hoyle's problem isn't the problem it is portrayed to be.

13 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti I put your quote in the news item.

12 hours ago · Like

Adam Crowl Kewl.

12 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti The real evidence for God is the dark energy accelerating the expansion of our observable universe that comes from a future horizon that is a back-from-the-future hologram computer.

12 hours ago · Like · 1 person

Adam Crowl Will we be resurrected by the Omega Point in your opinion?

11 hours ago · Like

Richard Jensen God is a holographic computer that exists in the future? True or False ?

4 hours ago · Like

Kevin Dufoort False

2 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti True!

about an hour ago · Like · 1 person

Richard Jensen I think I'm understanding your theories Jack :)

about an hour ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Kevin is clueless. His opinion on this is is based on total ignorance of the physics involved. Yes, God is the holographic computer at the future horizon boundary of our observable universe. That's precisely my idea that will change religious beliefs.

about an hour ago · Like · 1 person

Jack Sarfatti This idea is scientific - Popper falsifiable. Blind ignorant faith plays no role at all.

about an hour ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Now, that said, I make no specific claims that God is personally interested in us - that is a separate problem. My view is like Einstein's more pantheistic.

about an hour ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti My view is consistent with Teilhard de Chardin's however. Also Pope Benedict would like it.

about an hour ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti I see Kevin is a smart a$$ kid of 18 who dares to challenge the Whiz of What Is! ;-)

about an hour ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Read Seth Lloyd's papers. He is at MIT. He argues that gravity horizons are computers.

about an hour ago · Like

Richard Jensen hehehe Jack, we were all smart a$$ kids of 18 once.

about an hour ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Also read P.K. Dick's VALIS, Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker, Fred Hoyle's Black Cloud, also Stan Lem's Solaris, and look up I.J. Good's "GOD(D)" Deux Ex Machina has a new meaning and Henri Bergson's "elan vital" is post-quantum signal nonlocality allowing not only back from the future destiny matrix communication but also creation!

about an hour ago · Like · 1 person

Jack Sarfatti Indeed, but the survival of the planet depends on these ideas being understood in time and the revolution is starting here. This meme must go viral now on Facebook as a start or all is lost in this timeline of the multiverse.

about an hour ago · Like · 1 person

Jack Sarfatti See Frank Tipler Physics of Immortality on resurrection. Since we are all back-from-the-future hologram images of our future event horizon Mind of God computer - seems like Jesus Christ may have known a thing or two about that. ;-)

a few seconds ago · Like

Yesterday at 11:09am via AutoTweet Connector · Like · Comment

Susan Waitt, Richard Jensen, Justin Smith and 2 others like this.

Adam Crowl But who was Behind God?

17 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Who do you think?

"Get behind me Satan."

I have not read the original link yet. If you look you will see Kim posted it.

16 hours ago · Like · 1 person

Adam Crowl Of course. Should've known.

15 hours ago · Like

Kevin Dufoort Thought.

14 hours ago · Like

Adam Crowl The Fred Hoyle quote at the bottom of that post is stunningly outdated and inaccurate these days. Biomolecules - especially enzymes - aren't like the parts of a Jumbo at all. There's a lot more "wiggle room" in the amino acid sequences of enzymes - a huge range of working enzymes are produced in the natural world which do the same chemical task with very different sequences. Hoyle's problem isn't the problem it is portrayed to be.

13 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti I put your quote in the news item.

12 hours ago · Like

Adam Crowl Kewl.

12 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti The real evidence for God is the dark energy accelerating the expansion of our observable universe that comes from a future horizon that is a back-from-the-future hologram computer.

12 hours ago · Like · 1 person

Adam Crowl Will we be resurrected by the Omega Point in your opinion?

11 hours ago · Like

Richard Jensen God is a holographic computer that exists in the future? True or False ?

4 hours ago · Like

Kevin Dufoort False

2 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti True!

about an hour ago · Like · 1 person

Richard Jensen I think I'm understanding your theories Jack :)

about an hour ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Kevin is clueless. His opinion on this is is based on total ignorance of the physics involved. Yes, God is the holographic computer at the future horizon boundary of our observable universe. That's precisely my idea that will change religious beliefs.

about an hour ago · Like · 1 person

Jack Sarfatti This idea is scientific - Popper falsifiable. Blind ignorant faith plays no role at all.

about an hour ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Now, that said, I make no specific claims that God is personally interested in us - that is a separate problem. My view is like Einstein's more pantheistic.

about an hour ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti My view is consistent with Teilhard de Chardin's however. Also Pope Benedict would like it.

about an hour ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti I see Kevin is a smart a$$ kid of 18 who dares to challenge the Whiz of What Is! ;-)

about an hour ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Read Seth Lloyd's papers. He is at MIT. He argues that gravity horizons are computers.

about an hour ago · Like

Richard Jensen hehehe Jack, we were all smart a$$ kids of 18 once.

about an hour ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Also read P.K. Dick's VALIS, Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker, Fred Hoyle's Black Cloud, also Stan Lem's Solaris, and look up I.J. Good's "GOD(D)" Deux Ex Machina has a new meaning and Henri Bergson's "elan vital" is post-quantum signal nonlocality allowing not only back from the future destiny matrix communication but also creation!

about an hour ago · Like · 1 person

Jack Sarfatti Indeed, but the survival of the planet depends on these ideas being understood in time and the revolution is starting here. This meme must go viral now on Facebook as a start or all is lost in this timeline of the multiverse.

about an hour ago · Like · 1 person

Jack Sarfatti See Frank Tipler Physics of Immortality on resurrection. Since we are all back-from-the-future hologram images of our future event horizon Mind of God computer - seems like Jesus Christ may have known a thing or two about that. ;-)

a few seconds ago · Like

Jan
07

Tagged in:

Where is Timi Sora? Sounds like a fictional country in a book by Jorge Luis Borges. Is it in a parallel universe? ;-)

I define "gravity" in general as the compensating local SPIN 1 vector potential Cartan 1-forms (connections on the co-tangent bundle etc.) that result from locally gauging ALL the UNIVERSAL space-time invariance groups G of all the non-gravity matter field global actions (integrals over the entire history of the observable universe at least).

1005.5052v2.pdf Martin Rees - What is gravity? Can we unify it with the U1xSU2xSU3 fields?

Thanks Jonathan this looks very relevant to what I am doing.

Einstein's equivalence principle ultimately is the UNIVERSAL minimal coupling of G's potentials to the matter fields.

Spin 2 is a composite of entangled pairs of Spin 1. Also there must be Spin 1 and Spin 0 gravity though it might be massive - short-ranged from a Higgs mechanism. The de Sitter extension of the Poincare group including additional dilation and special conformal hyperbolic Rindler horizon boosts must be added.

The vacuum energy density must be a scalar dynamical field /\(x) that when negative on smaller scales is dark matter and that when positive on larger scales is dark energy. That's my answer to "What is gravity?" as a local gauge field in a nutshell.

There are additional aspects such as Wheeler-Feynman holography etc. (e.g. Ibison's paper)

On Jan 7, 2011, at 10:20 AM, Jonathan Post wrote:

*Was it this thread that discussed symmetries?*

There's a revised version of

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.1472v5.pdf

The physical meaning of the de Sitter invariants

Ion I. Cot?aescu ∗

West University of Timi¸soara,

V. Parvan Ave. 4, RO-300223 Timi¸soara

January 7, 2011

Abstract

We study the Lie algebras of the covariant representations trans-

forming the matter fields under the de Sitter isometries. We point out

that the Casimir operators of these representations can be written

in closed forms and we deduce how their eigenvalues depend on the

field’s rest energy and spin. For the scalar, vector and Dirac fields,

which have well-defined field equations, we express these eigenvalues

in terms of mass and spin obtaining thus the principal invariants of

the theory of free fields on the de Sitter spacetime. We show that in

the flat limit we recover the corresponding invariants of the Wigner

irreducible representations of the Poincar´e group.

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:32 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Kim

I posted this already yesterday on stardrive science news

I suspect the paper is not right. Ptolemy's epicycles fit the data at the

time pretty well also. However, I have not had time to read it carefully. I

still do not understand the basic picture the author is proposing. However

he cites Martin Rees helping him so I am not ready to dismiss it as crank.

His model seems to dispense with Einstein's GR hence my bias against it.

On Jan 5, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Kim Burrafato wrote:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.5052v2.pdf

From the paper's conclusions. Pretty straightforward.

1) The galaxies are attracted to each other by gravity, but there is another

repulsive force which cancels it, perhaps called ”dark energy” or ”the

cosmological constant”. We then need to explain the origin of dark energy

and why it cancels gravity so exactly. This cancellation was apparently

valid when the galaxies were closer together, so dark energy would have to

follow the same inverse square law as gravity. Why does this repulsive force

not show up inside the galaxies? While the observations are indicating zero

force, the evidence for a new hitherto unknown force is perhaps not

compelling.

I define "gravity" in general as the compensating local SPIN 1 vector potential Cartan 1-forms (connections on the co-tangent bundle etc.) that result from locally gauging ALL the UNIVERSAL space-time invariance groups G of all the non-gravity matter field global actions (integrals over the entire history of the observable universe at least).

1005.5052v2.pdf Martin Rees - What is gravity? Can we unify it with the U1xSU2xSU3 fields?

Thanks Jonathan this looks very relevant to what I am doing.

Einstein's equivalence principle ultimately is the UNIVERSAL minimal coupling of G's potentials to the matter fields.

Spin 2 is a composite of entangled pairs of Spin 1. Also there must be Spin 1 and Spin 0 gravity though it might be massive - short-ranged from a Higgs mechanism. The de Sitter extension of the Poincare group including additional dilation and special conformal hyperbolic Rindler horizon boosts must be added.

The vacuum energy density must be a scalar dynamical field /\(x) that when negative on smaller scales is dark matter and that when positive on larger scales is dark energy. That's my answer to "What is gravity?" as a local gauge field in a nutshell.

There are additional aspects such as Wheeler-Feynman holography etc. (e.g. Ibison's paper)

On Jan 7, 2011, at 10:20 AM, Jonathan Post wrote:

There's a revised version of

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.1472v5.pdf

The physical meaning of the de Sitter invariants

Ion I. Cot?aescu ∗

West University of Timi¸soara,

V. Parvan Ave. 4, RO-300223 Timi¸soara

January 7, 2011

Abstract

We study the Lie algebras of the covariant representations trans-

forming the matter fields under the de Sitter isometries. We point out

that the Casimir operators of these representations can be written

in closed forms and we deduce how their eigenvalues depend on the

field’s rest energy and spin. For the scalar, vector and Dirac fields,

which have well-defined field equations, we express these eigenvalues

in terms of mass and spin obtaining thus the principal invariants of

the theory of free fields on the de Sitter spacetime. We show that in

the flat limit we recover the corresponding invariants of the Wigner

irreducible representations of the Poincar´e group.

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:32 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Kim

I posted this already yesterday on stardrive science news

I suspect the paper is not right. Ptolemy's epicycles fit the data at the

time pretty well also. However, I have not had time to read it carefully. I

still do not understand the basic picture the author is proposing. However

he cites Martin Rees helping him so I am not ready to dismiss it as crank.

His model seems to dispense with Einstein's GR hence my bias against it.

On Jan 5, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Kim Burrafato wrote:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.5052v2.pdf

From the paper's conclusions. Pretty straightforward.

1) The galaxies are attracted to each other by gravity, but there is another

repulsive force which cancels it, perhaps called ”dark energy” or ”the

cosmological constant”. We then need to explain the origin of dark energy

and why it cancels gravity so exactly. This cancellation was apparently

valid when the galaxies were closer together, so dark energy would have to

follow the same inverse square law as gravity. Why does this repulsive force

not show up inside the galaxies? While the observations are indicating zero

force, the evidence for a new hitherto unknown force is perhaps not

compelling.

Jan
06

Tagged in:

On Jan 6, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:*I think in one option he dispenses with GR but only in the sense that the large scale metric of spacetime is considered to be flat, with only intragalactic matter-induced curvature, rendering GR irrelevant outside the galaxies.*

I have not read the paper in detail. 3D space is already flat in the standard cosmology. If he means 4D flat then that's very ad-hoc - not pretty. On the other hand, he claims Martin Rees endorses his model - I find that claim a bit odd. So I am waiting for the real experts to give their opinion. This kind of fitting of models to data can be very tricky and I personally do not have the time nor sufficient expertise to assess the claim.*Although he does seem to be leaning towards the conclusion that neither Newtonian theory nor GR are necessarily accurate in the intergalactic regions. If so he wouldn't be the only one, since we all know that modifications of the inverse square law are currently being entertained by a number of cosmologists in order to solve the "dark matter" problem.*

My own opinion is that there is no attractive dark matter or repulsive dark energy problem at all. It's a pseudo-problem. / > 0 is simply because the density of virtual bosons exceeds the density of virtual fermion closed loops at large scale for the very simple elementary reason that virtual bosons anti-gravitate and closed virtual fermion loops gravitate. This is shown by John Peacock in "Cosmological Physics" and by Peter Milonni "Quantum Vacuum" using only battle-tested physics

1) Lorentz invariance

2) Equivalence Principle

3) Elementary quantum field theory - boson vacuum energy is positive with w = - 1, hence 3 x negative pressure

fermion vacuum energy is negative with w = -1, hence 3 x positive pressure

the sign of the gravity attraction or repulsion is ~ (energy density)(1 + 3w)

4) retro-causal hologram principle explains WHY the dark energy density is so small

past light cone dark energy density ~ (area/entropy of post-selected future light cone cosmological event horizon)

in a Novikov loop in time.

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:32 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

kim

i posted this already yesterday on stardrive science news

I suspect the paper is not right. Ptolemy's epicycles fit the data at the time pretty well also. However, I have not had time to read it carefully. I still do not understand the basic picture the author is proposing. However he cites Martin Rees helping him so I am not ready to dismiss it as crank. His model seems to dispense with Einstein's GR hence my bias against it.

On Jan 5, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Kim Burrafato wrote:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.5052v2.pdf

From the paper's conclusions. Pretty straightforward.*1) The galaxies are attracted to each other by gravity, but there is another repulsive force which cancels it, perhaps called ”dark energy” or ”the cosmological constant”. We then need to explain the origin of dark energy and why it cancels gravity so exactly. This cancellation was apparently valid when the galaxies were closer together, so dark energy would have to follow the same inverse square law as gravity. Why does this repulsive force not show up inside the galaxies? While the observations are indicating zero force, the evidence for a new hitherto unknown force is perhaps not compelling.*

Jan
04

Tagged in:

Yes, I know, but what is your final conclusion - bottom line on this issue?

Do you think the future horizon is effectively a Wheeler-Feynman total absorber?

I know Hoyle and Narlikar do say that any cosmology with a future horizon obeys the Wheeler-Feynman condition for retarded causality, i.e. the effects of the future advanced signals cancel out in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In other words the dark energy accelerating the universe is precisely what we need to make the old Wheeler-Feynman idea work. Also the connection to Aharonov's post-selected final boundary condition needs clarification.

On Jan 3, 2011, at 9:43 PM, michael ibison wrote:

Dear Jack

I had looked at the consequences of a future conformal singularity with a particular interest in determining the boundary condition that implies for matter and radiation and its relevance to the Wheeler and Feynman theory. An arxiv version of a recent AIP paper on that topic is at http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.3074v1.

Best,

Michael

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:28 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote to Ray Chiao:

Ray

You wrote "Since a classical BH is a perfect absorber,..."

For me the important question is whether our future cosmological event horizon is a perfect absorber as well just like the black hole. Then the old Wheeler-Feynman argument works for our accelerating universe. Of course, the only Hawking radiation we can "see" from our future horizon is advanced back from the future radiation. I have been debating this with Nick Herbert and James Woodward. More anon. There is also an obvious connection to Yakir Aharonov's destiny vector idea. :-)

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/zhc2ozivJF2/Obama+Awards+National+Medals+Science+Technology/Rh0sVd15psu/Yakir+Aharonov

Do you think the future horizon is effectively a Wheeler-Feynman total absorber?

I know Hoyle and Narlikar do say that any cosmology with a future horizon obeys the Wheeler-Feynman condition for retarded causality, i.e. the effects of the future advanced signals cancel out in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In other words the dark energy accelerating the universe is precisely what we need to make the old Wheeler-Feynman idea work. Also the connection to Aharonov's post-selected final boundary condition needs clarification.

On Jan 3, 2011, at 9:43 PM, michael ibison wrote:

Dear Jack

I had looked at the consequences of a future conformal singularity with a particular interest in determining the boundary condition that implies for matter and radiation and its relevance to the Wheeler and Feynman theory. An arxiv version of a recent AIP paper on that topic is at http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.3074v1.

Best,

Michael

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:28 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote to Ray Chiao:

Ray

You wrote "Since a classical BH is a perfect absorber,..."

For me the important question is whether our future cosmological event horizon is a perfect absorber as well just like the black hole. Then the old Wheeler-Feynman argument works for our accelerating universe. Of course, the only Hawking radiation we can "see" from our future horizon is advanced back from the future radiation. I have been debating this with Nick Herbert and James Woodward. More anon. There is also an obvious connection to Yakir Aharonov's destiny vector idea. :-)

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/zhc2ozivJF2/Obama+Awards+National+Medals+Science+Technology/Rh0sVd15psu/Yakir+Aharonov

Jan
04

Tagged in:

Who cares about these nit-picking distinctions of the philofawzers? - unless it makes a prediction and/or explains anomalies like dark energy etc. If you show me that then I will reconsider.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com>

Date: January 3, 2011 12:50:30 PM PST

To: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>

Subject: Re: Fwd: Fock's position is simply silly in my opinion

On 12/31/2010 8:52 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Subject: Fock

Sure no problem with that.

General covariance is T4 ---> T4(x)

Of course one can have LNIFs even when the curvature is zero.

OK.

This is mere quibbling about definitions.

There is no necessary link between "relativity" and "uniformity".

There is a link between "relativity" and the uniformity of Minkowski spacetime wrt

the Lorentz group.

Obviously in the case of zero curvature globally.

The principle of relativity as stated by Einstein in his 1905 paper requires that the phenomena

*directly observed* by an observer in inertial motion be exactly the same for every inertial frame.

It *also* requires that the mathematical description of such phenomena be identical in every

inertial frame (Einstein wearing his Machian-empiricist "hat" expresses this as "the physical laws

are the same in every inertial frame of reference").

Sure, so what? The same thing is true in 1916 GR PROVIDED THAT Alice and Bob are LOCALLY COINCIDENT.

Now local coincidence is a restriction, but there is also a new freedom. Alice and Bob need not be inertial, though they can be.

This is a consequence of local gauge invariance.

In SR this in turn requires the objective uniformity of Minkowski spacetime, as Fock defines it in

his "Three Lectures".

Yes, in SR which is the global Poincare symmetry prior to at least localizing T4 ---> T4(x) introducing "nonuniformity" in the four translations.

Going further localizing SO1,3 ---> SO1,3(x) gives anisotropy in the 6 spacetime rotations. We can also have nonuniform dilations (Weyl 1918) as well as inhomogenous special conformal acceleration boosts to Rindler observers. Finally we need to use the de Sitter group localized to a /\(x) that can be both positive and negative on different scales. So really we need x and a new scale parameter related to the hologram horizon getting us to the entropic emergent gravity perhaps.

Covariance is trivial once the physical laws are put in tensor form.

Well known.

Uniformity of spacetime is not trivial.

That's the meaning of local gauge invariance applied to the universal spacetime symmetries of the global dynamical actions of all interaction non-gravity matter fields. Gravity is the local gauging of all universal spacetime symmetries. EEP is a consequence of local gauging.

Both the geometric uniformity of globally flat space and the geometric non-uniformity of

a general Riemannian space can be expressed covariantly using the Riemann metric. The two

issues -- covariance and uniformity -- are conceptually "orthogonal".

Glad you finally got that. ;-)

What you are talking about here from the mathematical standpoint is covariance of tensor

quantities and tensor equations, with coordinates adapted to and interpreted as representing

observer reference frames. But theories (such as Newton's , as shown by Elie Cartan) that are

not considered "relativistic" can also be formulated in a generally covariant manner.

No, you still don't understand that local gauging is Fock's "nonuniformity." The global actions of the original matter fields now supplemented with the induced GeoMetroDynamical (GMD) connections are invariant under the larger group G ---> G(x). Global G is a subgroup of G(x).

Tensors and spinors are simply multilinear maps relative to the group G (covariance). The PHYSICS is the choice of which G and which subgroup of G to localize (nonuniformity).

So this is not really the issue, is it? And that is Fock's point.

Why wouldn't your definition of "relativity" apply to Cartan's generally covariant formulation of

Newtonian theory?

The principle of relativity has two parts covariance and nonuniformity.

Newton's PHYSICS is that of GLOBAL Galilean group G with absolute time.

Localize Galilean group and indeed you have Einstein's GR in the weak curvature and non-relativistic limit v/c << 1 for test particles.

I'm not sure if you can do black hole and cosmological horizons there because static LNIF accelerations are infinite at the horizons.

e.g. outside a black hole of mass M

g(r) = (GM/r^2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1/2 ---> infinity as r ---> 2GM/c^2 +

The hot Unruh temperature at the horizon generates a relativistic plasma for the hovering static LNIF observer Bob - not directly seen by the LOCALLY COINCIDENT LIF observer Alice - unless Alice gets too close and catches fire as Bob burns up. Now this horizon complementarity is very weird.

Sure spacetime is uniform in 1905 SR, i.e. curvature field vanishes globally.

Right.

And introducing LNIFs into uniform spacetime gives us curvilinear metrics guv(x)

with connection fields of zero curl.

I assume by "curvilinear metrics" you mean curvilinear coordinate representations of

the Minkowski metric (g_uv = n_uv in rectilinear coordinates, g'_u'v' =/= n_uv in curved

coordinates).

Yes, physically those are the metrics for accelerated observers not on geodesics.

The new physical difference between 1905 SR and 1916 GR is the non-vanishing curl of the LC connection - the curvature.

The relativity is still there.

Depending on what you mean by "relativity". EInstein thought it meant coordinate covariance. Fock,

like Kretschmann before him, rejected that view.

No, Einstein always meant by relativity exactly what I mean.

Einstein said exactly what he meant in 1905: the laws describing the physics observed in different inertial frames are "the same".

Of course, and in 1916 the laws in different COINCIDENT local frames are also the same whether or not each frame is inertial - it does not matter.

In a LIF: GIJ + kTIJ = 0 Einstein's T4(x) gravity field equation.

In a COINCIDENT LNIF: Guv + kTuv = 0

Guv(LNIF) = eu^Iev^JGIJ(LIF)

eu^I = &u^I + Au^I

Au^I = T4(x) induced compensating spin 1 gravity tetrad field.

This is the analog of the electromagnetic U1(x) vector potential Au(LNIF) = eu^IAI(LIF).

||&u^I|| = 4x4 identity matrix (Kronecker delta)

But there is a subtlety here. Einstein's 1905 concept of a "physical law" was heavily influence by Mach. It was an empiricist definition:

if the phenomena directly observed by a moving observer are the same, then the physical laws are the same, since physical laws

are nothing more than mathematical descriptions of what is directly observed.

No one in foundations of physics or philosophy of science thinks this way any more. Physical laws are not simply mathematical descriptions

of what is empirically observed.

So Einstein was not talking about tensor covariance in 1905. He was talking about something quite different.

Einstein did not learn tensors from Marcel Grossman until after 1905 as I recall. So what?

Alice and Bob each measure the same events. They compute the invariants from their measurements of those events. If their invariants are aways the same numbers then

1) the theory is good

2) their measurements are good

So why doesn't this also apply to Cartan-Newton? Are you saying that Cartan-Newton is not generally covariant? Or are you saying

that Cartan-Newton is "relativistic"?

You are hung up on a very trivial semantic point. Of course C-N is generally covariant. Its physics is that of the localized Galilean group which is the limit of the localized Poincare group as c ---> infinity.

One can define a spacetime manifold, coordinate frames, frame fields, and so on in generally covariant Newtonian theory.

Michael Friedman is good on all that:

1905 special relativity is that Alice and Bob are each on geodesics.

No there are no "geodesics" in 1905 Einstein relativity. There is no Minkowski spacetime in 1905 Einstein relativity.

You are quibbling and being over pedantic. I don't mean how Einstein thought about it back in 1905. Who cares? I mean how his ideas have been further developed now in 2011. Of course he did not have the mathematical tools in 1905 and he never apparently understood Cartan's exterior calculus and tetrads. He died in 1955.

Now if you treat Minkowski spacetime as a globally flat Riemann manifold, then yes Alice and Bob are moving along

geodesics -- the geodesics of the generally covariant "Minkowski" metric, [g_uv] = [n_uv] (in inertial coordinates).

Since there is no curvature they need not be close together when they measure the same events e.g. the redshifts from a group of Type1a super novae far from either of them.

OK.

In 1916 GR Alice and Bob must be close together when they measure the same Type 1a supernovae but they can be each in any motion they like geodesic or non-geodesic.

But the theory allows us to correct non-local measurements for gravitational effects. Are you saying that we can only

make *local* objective measurements in GR?

What are "non-local measurements"? You mean light from a distant source on the past light cone of the detector?

If so this would appear to be a strong argument against curved spacetimes, and in favor of a Minkowski background.

1916 GR is the local T4(x) version of 1905 SR.

Only by correspondence.

Quibble - I ALWAYS mean by correspondence.

In 1905 SR we only look at maps between Global Inertial Frames (GIFs) that we can extend to LNIFs

i.e. accelerating and rotating detectors e.g. Sagnac effect.

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

Special relativity means invariants for GIF's --> GIF's

Global invariants.

General Relativity means invariants for LNIFs---> LNIF's

Local invariants.

with the new requirement of LOCAL COINCIDENCE and the EEP

EEP means TETRAD maps LIF <---> LNIF.

It means that the metric assumes its diagonal normal form [-1, 1, 1, 1] in LIFs.

That's what I said.

That is automatic for any orthonormal vector basis. The vector representation of the metric

takes the normal form.

In the Einstein-Cartan tetrad model this means an orthonormal set {e_a} of non-coordinate

basis vectors (tetrad) at each spacetime point.

In the coordinate frame model it means Riemann normal coordinates.

It's Fock who wrote philofawzical nonsense in my opinion.

Fock was a leading mathematical physicist, not a "cocktail party philosopher".

Yes indeed. He gave lectures at Harvard I think in 1960.

Obviously the Global T4 group of 1905 SR is a SUBGROUP of local T4(x).

Fock's remark that

is what is nonsensical in my opinion.

He's saying that the term "relativity" means one thing in 1905 SR (uniformity of spacetime),

and quite another in 1916 GR (coordinate generality).

Not clear. In any case it's a quibble.

It's not considered to be a "quibble" in the mainstream view Jack. I think you're on your own here. Fock's

views are now quite influential.

Among who? Name names. Also Fock restricts himself to those harmonic coordinates with asymptotic boundary conditions that are too restrictive.

General coordinate covariance as "general relativity" is now considered to be a red herring. Einstein even

admitted he had been confused on this point, and was forced to retreat by Kretschmann and others.

Who cares about these nit-picking distinctions of the philofawzers? - unless it makes a prediction and/or explains anomalies like dark energy etc. If you show me that then I will reconsider.

Fock's complaint was that Einstein did not follow this argument through to its full logical consequences,

and continued to use the language of "general relativity" after it had ceased to have any legitimate

meaning in the context of the 1916 theory.

Actually "relativity" refers to a number of things.

As originally stated by Poincare, the "principle of relativity" simply means that the mathematical

descriptions of physical phenomena ("laws of the phenomena") observed in different inertial frames

of reference are identical.

No, that's part of 1905 special relativity. You also need that speed of light in vacuum is the same for all inertial geodesic observers.

I'm sorry Jack but this was all published by Poincare well before 1905. In particular Poincare published what

*he* called the "principle of relativity" well before 1905. Einstein's version as stated in his 1905 paper was almost

identical.

More quibbling over minor pedantry in my opinion.

However there was a very subtle difference in the two versions, which can be attributed at least in part to Mach's

influence on the young Einstein.

If you want to write a history about Einstein's transient thinking along the way fine - but I am not interested in that - unless it solves the dark energy, the dark matter and the Pioneer Anomaly problems and more.

If you are in any doubt about this I'll give you a bibliography.

Even if you are right, it's not important in my opinion. When you solve a major empirical mystery let me know. I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

In his 1905 paper, Einstein substituted "physical laws" for Poincare's

"laws of the phenomena"; for Einstein, the physical laws were quite literally *the same* for all

inertial frames, as long as the phenomena observed in such frames *look* the same to the inertially

moving observers.

But the use of tensor quantities and tensor equations in physics shows quite clearly that the

phenomena can *look* different to different observers, even while the physical laws (expressed as

tensor equations) are the same.

In the context of 1905 SR, "relativity" also refers to the *relativity of simultaneity*, which in the

modern SR formalism clearly has nothing to do with covariance of the physical equations. There

is no logical connection in SR between the coordinate invariance of the Minkowski interval s, and

the relativity of simultaneity that formed the theoretic foundation of Einstein's 1905 paper.

Obviously,

OK.

however 1916 GR lets the observers be in any motion including non-inertial translational accelerations and rotations about their centers of mass.

Even in a globally flat spacetime.

Agreed that GR in flat spacetime is a generally covariant formulation of Minkowski SR.

Also they must be close together when measuring the same events. Furthermore special relativity works in Local Inertial Frames (LIFs), i.e. EEP

Yes SR works (to a good approximation) in LIFs. LIFs cover finite regions of spacetime, so the agreement is not exact.

Which is fine as a local correspondence principle!

So where's the beef?

Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com>

Date: January 3, 2011 12:50:30 PM PST

To: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>

Subject: Re: Fwd: Fock's position is simply silly in my opinion

On 12/31/2010 8:52 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Subject: Fock

Sure no problem with that.

General covariance is T4 ---> T4(x)

Of course one can have LNIFs even when the curvature is zero.

OK.

This is mere quibbling about definitions.

There is no necessary link between "relativity" and "uniformity".

There is a link between "relativity" and the uniformity of Minkowski spacetime wrt

the Lorentz group.

Obviously in the case of zero curvature globally.

The principle of relativity as stated by Einstein in his 1905 paper requires that the phenomena

*directly observed* by an observer in inertial motion be exactly the same for every inertial frame.

It *also* requires that the mathematical description of such phenomena be identical in every

inertial frame (Einstein wearing his Machian-empiricist "hat" expresses this as "the physical laws

are the same in every inertial frame of reference").

Sure, so what? The same thing is true in 1916 GR PROVIDED THAT Alice and Bob are LOCALLY COINCIDENT.

Now local coincidence is a restriction, but there is also a new freedom. Alice and Bob need not be inertial, though they can be.

This is a consequence of local gauge invariance.

In SR this in turn requires the objective uniformity of Minkowski spacetime, as Fock defines it in

his "Three Lectures".

Yes, in SR which is the global Poincare symmetry prior to at least localizing T4 ---> T4(x) introducing "nonuniformity" in the four translations.

Going further localizing SO1,3 ---> SO1,3(x) gives anisotropy in the 6 spacetime rotations. We can also have nonuniform dilations (Weyl 1918) as well as inhomogenous special conformal acceleration boosts to Rindler observers. Finally we need to use the de Sitter group localized to a /\(x) that can be both positive and negative on different scales. So really we need x and a new scale parameter related to the hologram horizon getting us to the entropic emergent gravity perhaps.

Covariance is trivial once the physical laws are put in tensor form.

Well known.

Uniformity of spacetime is not trivial.

That's the meaning of local gauge invariance applied to the universal spacetime symmetries of the global dynamical actions of all interaction non-gravity matter fields. Gravity is the local gauging of all universal spacetime symmetries. EEP is a consequence of local gauging.

Both the geometric uniformity of globally flat space and the geometric non-uniformity of

a general Riemannian space can be expressed covariantly using the Riemann metric. The two

issues -- covariance and uniformity -- are conceptually "orthogonal".

Glad you finally got that. ;-)

What you are talking about here from the mathematical standpoint is covariance of tensor

quantities and tensor equations, with coordinates adapted to and interpreted as representing

observer reference frames. But theories (such as Newton's , as shown by Elie Cartan) that are

not considered "relativistic" can also be formulated in a generally covariant manner.

No, you still don't understand that local gauging is Fock's "nonuniformity." The global actions of the original matter fields now supplemented with the induced GeoMetroDynamical (GMD) connections are invariant under the larger group G ---> G(x). Global G is a subgroup of G(x).

Tensors and spinors are simply multilinear maps relative to the group G (covariance). The PHYSICS is the choice of which G and which subgroup of G to localize (nonuniformity).

So this is not really the issue, is it? And that is Fock's point.

Why wouldn't your definition of "relativity" apply to Cartan's generally covariant formulation of

Newtonian theory?

The principle of relativity has two parts covariance and nonuniformity.

Newton's PHYSICS is that of GLOBAL Galilean group G with absolute time.

Localize Galilean group and indeed you have Einstein's GR in the weak curvature and non-relativistic limit v/c << 1 for test particles.

I'm not sure if you can do black hole and cosmological horizons there because static LNIF accelerations are infinite at the horizons.

e.g. outside a black hole of mass M

g(r) = (GM/r^2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1/2 ---> infinity as r ---> 2GM/c^2 +

The hot Unruh temperature at the horizon generates a relativistic plasma for the hovering static LNIF observer Bob - not directly seen by the LOCALLY COINCIDENT LIF observer Alice - unless Alice gets too close and catches fire as Bob burns up. Now this horizon complementarity is very weird.

Sure spacetime is uniform in 1905 SR, i.e. curvature field vanishes globally.

Right.

And introducing LNIFs into uniform spacetime gives us curvilinear metrics guv(x)

with connection fields of zero curl.

I assume by "curvilinear metrics" you mean curvilinear coordinate representations of

the Minkowski metric (g_uv = n_uv in rectilinear coordinates, g'_u'v' =/= n_uv in curved

coordinates).

Yes, physically those are the metrics for accelerated observers not on geodesics.

The new physical difference between 1905 SR and 1916 GR is the non-vanishing curl of the LC connection - the curvature.

The relativity is still there.

Depending on what you mean by "relativity". EInstein thought it meant coordinate covariance. Fock,

like Kretschmann before him, rejected that view.

No, Einstein always meant by relativity exactly what I mean.

Einstein said exactly what he meant in 1905: the laws describing the physics observed in different inertial frames are "the same".

Of course, and in 1916 the laws in different COINCIDENT local frames are also the same whether or not each frame is inertial - it does not matter.

In a LIF: GIJ + kTIJ = 0 Einstein's T4(x) gravity field equation.

In a COINCIDENT LNIF: Guv + kTuv = 0

Guv(LNIF) = eu^Iev^JGIJ(LIF)

eu^I = &u^I + Au^I

Au^I = T4(x) induced compensating spin 1 gravity tetrad field.

This is the analog of the electromagnetic U1(x) vector potential Au(LNIF) = eu^IAI(LIF).

||&u^I|| = 4x4 identity matrix (Kronecker delta)

But there is a subtlety here. Einstein's 1905 concept of a "physical law" was heavily influence by Mach. It was an empiricist definition:

if the phenomena directly observed by a moving observer are the same, then the physical laws are the same, since physical laws

are nothing more than mathematical descriptions of what is directly observed.

No one in foundations of physics or philosophy of science thinks this way any more. Physical laws are not simply mathematical descriptions

of what is empirically observed.

So Einstein was not talking about tensor covariance in 1905. He was talking about something quite different.

Einstein did not learn tensors from Marcel Grossman until after 1905 as I recall. So what?

Alice and Bob each measure the same events. They compute the invariants from their measurements of those events. If their invariants are aways the same numbers then

1) the theory is good

2) their measurements are good

So why doesn't this also apply to Cartan-Newton? Are you saying that Cartan-Newton is not generally covariant? Or are you saying

that Cartan-Newton is "relativistic"?

You are hung up on a very trivial semantic point. Of course C-N is generally covariant. Its physics is that of the localized Galilean group which is the limit of the localized Poincare group as c ---> infinity.

One can define a spacetime manifold, coordinate frames, frame fields, and so on in generally covariant Newtonian theory.

Michael Friedman is good on all that:

1905 special relativity is that Alice and Bob are each on geodesics.

No there are no "geodesics" in 1905 Einstein relativity. There is no Minkowski spacetime in 1905 Einstein relativity.

You are quibbling and being over pedantic. I don't mean how Einstein thought about it back in 1905. Who cares? I mean how his ideas have been further developed now in 2011. Of course he did not have the mathematical tools in 1905 and he never apparently understood Cartan's exterior calculus and tetrads. He died in 1955.

Now if you treat Minkowski spacetime as a globally flat Riemann manifold, then yes Alice and Bob are moving along

geodesics -- the geodesics of the generally covariant "Minkowski" metric, [g_uv] = [n_uv] (in inertial coordinates).

Since there is no curvature they need not be close together when they measure the same events e.g. the redshifts from a group of Type1a super novae far from either of them.

OK.

In 1916 GR Alice and Bob must be close together when they measure the same Type 1a supernovae but they can be each in any motion they like geodesic or non-geodesic.

But the theory allows us to correct non-local measurements for gravitational effects. Are you saying that we can only

make *local* objective measurements in GR?

What are "non-local measurements"? You mean light from a distant source on the past light cone of the detector?

If so this would appear to be a strong argument against curved spacetimes, and in favor of a Minkowski background.

1916 GR is the local T4(x) version of 1905 SR.

Only by correspondence.

Quibble - I ALWAYS mean by correspondence.

In 1905 SR we only look at maps between Global Inertial Frames (GIFs) that we can extend to LNIFs

i.e. accelerating and rotating detectors e.g. Sagnac effect.

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

Special relativity means invariants for GIF's --> GIF's

Global invariants.

General Relativity means invariants for LNIFs---> LNIF's

Local invariants.

with the new requirement of LOCAL COINCIDENCE and the EEP

EEP means TETRAD maps LIF <---> LNIF.

It means that the metric assumes its diagonal normal form [-1, 1, 1, 1] in LIFs.

That's what I said.

That is automatic for any orthonormal vector basis. The vector representation of the metric

takes the normal form.

In the Einstein-Cartan tetrad model this means an orthonormal set {e_a} of non-coordinate

basis vectors (tetrad) at each spacetime point.

In the coordinate frame model it means Riemann normal coordinates.

It's Fock who wrote philofawzical nonsense in my opinion.

Fock was a leading mathematical physicist, not a "cocktail party philosopher".

Yes indeed. He gave lectures at Harvard I think in 1960.

Obviously the Global T4 group of 1905 SR is a SUBGROUP of local T4(x).

Fock's remark that

is what is nonsensical in my opinion.

He's saying that the term "relativity" means one thing in 1905 SR (uniformity of spacetime),

and quite another in 1916 GR (coordinate generality).

Not clear. In any case it's a quibble.

It's not considered to be a "quibble" in the mainstream view Jack. I think you're on your own here. Fock's

views are now quite influential.

Among who? Name names. Also Fock restricts himself to those harmonic coordinates with asymptotic boundary conditions that are too restrictive.

General coordinate covariance as "general relativity" is now considered to be a red herring. Einstein even

admitted he had been confused on this point, and was forced to retreat by Kretschmann and others.

Who cares about these nit-picking distinctions of the philofawzers? - unless it makes a prediction and/or explains anomalies like dark energy etc. If you show me that then I will reconsider.

Fock's complaint was that Einstein did not follow this argument through to its full logical consequences,

and continued to use the language of "general relativity" after it had ceased to have any legitimate

meaning in the context of the 1916 theory.

Actually "relativity" refers to a number of things.

As originally stated by Poincare, the "principle of relativity" simply means that the mathematical

descriptions of physical phenomena ("laws of the phenomena") observed in different inertial frames

of reference are identical.

No, that's part of 1905 special relativity. You also need that speed of light in vacuum is the same for all inertial geodesic observers.

I'm sorry Jack but this was all published by Poincare well before 1905. In particular Poincare published what

*he* called the "principle of relativity" well before 1905. Einstein's version as stated in his 1905 paper was almost

identical.

More quibbling over minor pedantry in my opinion.

However there was a very subtle difference in the two versions, which can be attributed at least in part to Mach's

influence on the young Einstein.

If you want to write a history about Einstein's transient thinking along the way fine - but I am not interested in that - unless it solves the dark energy, the dark matter and the Pioneer Anomaly problems and more.

If you are in any doubt about this I'll give you a bibliography.

Even if you are right, it's not important in my opinion. When you solve a major empirical mystery let me know. I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

In his 1905 paper, Einstein substituted "physical laws" for Poincare's

"laws of the phenomena"; for Einstein, the physical laws were quite literally *the same* for all

inertial frames, as long as the phenomena observed in such frames *look* the same to the inertially

moving observers.

But the use of tensor quantities and tensor equations in physics shows quite clearly that the

phenomena can *look* different to different observers, even while the physical laws (expressed as

tensor equations) are the same.

In the context of 1905 SR, "relativity" also refers to the *relativity of simultaneity*, which in the

modern SR formalism clearly has nothing to do with covariance of the physical equations. There

is no logical connection in SR between the coordinate invariance of the Minkowski interval s, and

the relativity of simultaneity that formed the theoretic foundation of Einstein's 1905 paper.

Obviously,

OK.

however 1916 GR lets the observers be in any motion including non-inertial translational accelerations and rotations about their centers of mass.

Even in a globally flat spacetime.

Agreed that GR in flat spacetime is a generally covariant formulation of Minkowski SR.

Also they must be close together when measuring the same events. Furthermore special relativity works in Local Inertial Frames (LIFs), i.e. EEP

Yes SR works (to a good approximation) in LIFs. LIFs cover finite regions of spacetime, so the agreement is not exact.

Which is fine as a local correspondence principle!

So where's the beef?