Hologram principle is:1) RH^2 ~ NLP^2
&
2) &V = LP^2RH = 3D quantum of interior bulk volume of the 2D hologram image projection
On my walk to the gym from iphone
On Mar 26, 2010, at 5:50 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
TH ~ N^-1/2LP^-1 ~ 1/RH
EH ~ NkBTH ~ N^1/2kBhc/LPVH ~ N^3/2LP^3
EH/VH ~ N^1/2hc/N^3/2LP^4 ~ hc/NLP^4
But it comes from the future.
Before I knew of Antony Valentini's work which only seems to date back ten years ago 2000.
Click here.
On Mar 23, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:More precisely, horizons can be *modeled* as electrical membranes.Yes, and that means it's AS IF electrical charges absorb the photons and trigger advanced waves in a Cramer transaction.
I am working on a more detailed refractive index model based on the H-N papers but modified by the discovery of DE since H-N did their 1995 paper.Note that the effective number density of real on-mass shell "charges" N is~ 4 x 10^-2(Einstein cosmological constant)(Gravity radius of the proton)^-1~ 4 x 10^-2(10^-56)(10^52) ~ 4x10^-6 electron charges per cc using "4%" - mostly hydrogen clouds.
On Mar 23, 2010, at 12:46 AM, james f woodward wrote:Exactly, but the only way it can happen is because of our future horizon. Remember most physicists are blissfully unaware of Tamara Davis's 2004 PhD and do not know there even is a future horizon! They think it's the past particle horizon! I think even Lenny Susskind makes this mistake?As an experimentalist I am inclined to say that Partridge's absorber experiment (discussed by HN) suggests that perfect future absorption
happens -- no matter how it takes place in detail.But you see it IS the 2D horizon itself because of the hologram principle that the bulk is merely the retrocausal 3D image projection of the horizon! It's the only consistent model. My model is the worst of all models proposed except for every other! ;-)The theoretical task, then, is not to explain whether, but rather how this can be. Accelerating expansion means that you can't just keep on going forever
(with a finite density of absorbers) as HN suggest since the distance photons can reach is bounded by the horizon. So the absorbing stuff must lie within the horizon.
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:01:39 -0700 JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
writes:They also said that about Feynman's virtual particles as merely terms in a perturbation expansion of the Dyson S-Matrix. However, virtual bosons anti-gravitate (dark energy) and virtual fermion-antifermion pairs gravitate (dark matter). Similarly, the horizon acts as an effective absorber of real photons sending back advanced pilot waves in a "transaction" as if charges were there. In fact, charges may really be there because of the Hawking mechanism, essentially a true quantum gravity effect beyond semi-classical geometrodynamical models. Hawking & Gibbons point out that the very notion of particles is highly observer dependent (e.g. Unruh effect, non-equivalent quantum gravity vacua - one observer's real quanta is another's virtual quanta connected by Bogoliubov transformation )."The formal and physical significance of the unitarily inequivalence among representations is that the vacuum state in each of them cannot be expressed in terms of the vacua of other representations. Thus, for example, the vacuum of a metal in the superconductive phase cannot be expressed in terms of the vacuum of the (same) metal in the “normal” phase."
From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@PacBell.net>
Date: March 24, 2010 8:59:44 AM PDT
To: james f woodward <jfwoodward@juno.com>
Subject: [Starfleet Command] Re: Electrical membrane horizon a mere fiction? Or?
Reply-To: SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com
On Mar 24, 2010, at 1:00 AM, james f woodward wrote:Yes, you are right they don't. Not doing so is their greatest blunder. The only mainstream cosmologist aware of it seems to be Bernard Carr. Every paper I know of only invokes the past particle horizon as the hologram screen - none of them mention the future horizon as the hologram screen because that demands WF retrocausation without retrocausation (a Wheelerism). Quite obviously, the future dark energy horizon is the Godzilla in the closet! Quite obviously it is effectively the WF future absorber explaining the Partridge experiment. There is no plausible alternative consistent with parsimony. If there is, then show me.Well, as Edward Harrison makes "clear" in his chapter on horizons (where, I note, the coordinates used by Davis are introduced), this business can get a bit complicated and confusing. But I suspect that most folks doing cosmology assume the existence of a future deSitter horizon (and perhaps a particle horizon too). I also expect that almost none of them worry much, if at all, about perfect future absorption as they don't take WF action at a distance theory seriously. :-)Hologram principle demands1) future 2D event horizon = pixelated hologram screen - conformal anyon quantum field theory2) 3D bulk geometrodynamical field as the retrocausal hologram image3) entropy of 3D observable universe bounded by area of this future horizon hologram computer screen4) Therefore Arrow of Time is trivial 1 Bit at t = 0 (inflation) asympotic to 10^123 BITs.
There is another point. Although retarded signals from us r = 0 center vertical world line in above modified Fig 1.1c T.Davis 2004 PhD redshift to essentially zero frequency at our future horizon, static LNIFs near that horizonr ~ /^-1/2 need enormous off-geodesic accelerationg(r) ~ c^2/^1/2(1 - / ^2)^-1/2 ---> infinityfrom rocket engines in order to stay at fixed r, hence they see very hot Unruh radiation, which should not be confused with the very cold black body Hawking radiation of temperature /^1/2 coming from the horizon itself seen by all observers inside the horizon (with suitable Lorentz & GCTs). (h = c = G = kB = 1). This is analogous to the black hole case, but we need to be careful. We are inside our future cosmic horizon and can never get retarded signals from it. We are outside black hole horizons and can get retarded signals from in-falling matter outside it (e.g. accretion disk).On Mar 22, 2010, at 8:20 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:Dear James
Yes, you are raising points that must be addressed.
However, it is clear to me, that the future r = 0 observer-dependent dS horizon is the nearly WF perfect absorber (long wave limit). I suspect Kip Thorne's electrical membrane picture of the horizon as well as the Hawking mechanism need to be invoked to get a more complete conceptual picture of exactly how the total absorber works relative to the r = 0 observers in the static LNIF representation
g00 = - 1/grr = 1 - / ^2
g00 = 0 when / ^2 = 1
Note, this is not the representation where Q(t) = e^t/^1/2.
I hope to clean up these unresolved conceptual issues in the next few weeks.
On Mar 22, 2010, at 7:54 PM, james f woodward wrote:With accelerating expansion it seems that the cosmic horizon becomes the boundary for retarded signals within, so one need not be concerned about horizon crossings and whether events beyond the horizon can affect events within the horizon via advanced signals. From my perspective, that's the neat thing about accelerating expansion, for it cuts off interactionswith a finite upper bound. From the HN and WF point of view, this may be problematic if insufficient absorbers lie along future light cones within the horizon.It might be a good idea to await John Cramer's retrocausal signaling experiment results. Should that produce curious results, the issue of perfect future absorption will become a bit more complicated. :-)
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html
I am not sure if Cramer's experiment can resolve this issue which exists even on the classical level without entanglement? - says JackOn Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:13:58 -0700 JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
writes:
Actually my original thought on all this about two years ago was very simple.1 + z = ke/ka = Q(ta)/Q(te)
a = absorptione = emission
z > 0 redshiftin dS metricQ(t) = e^t/^1/2= e^t(dark energy density)^1/2
in the accelerating expanding universe retarded radiation toward the future is redshifted, advanced radiation toward the past is blue shifted.The redshift at our future dark energy horizon a finite distance from us is infinite - this is effective absorption - vanishing of the real photon to almost zero frequency ( actually 10^10/10^28 ~ 10^-18 Hz).In microscopic terms, the Hawking mechanism - effective geometrodynamical field ionization of virtual electron-positron pairs into real pairs with one particle beyond ther = 0 observer-dependent horizon and other particle inside it - effective plasma charge neutrality on both sides of the horizon - cause the return advanced signals back to the r = 0 emitter inside the cosmic horizon.From the principle of horizon complementarity we don't give a hoot what an LIF at r ~ /^-1/2 crossing the horizon sees. What only matters is what we see at r = 0. We each see a consistent picture, but it is not the same picture.On Mar 21, 2010, at 12:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
James
You are raising valid points to be squarely addressed I will study in coming weeks.However, the key point to remember in all this is that the fact that we only see retarded EM waves and not advanced waves implies that we have a future perfect absorber and an imperfect past absorber in the context of the Wheeler Feynman QED. Therefore, our future dark energy de Sitter horizon must be in effect a kind of lumped parameter perfect future horizon since we cannot ever get any retarded signals from it - unlike the black hole case. Only advanced signals from beyond our future horizon can get to us as you point out correctly - and they come from future absorbers in other regions of the (Max Tegmark) Level 1 inflation bubble perhaps.The fine points of Hoyle-Narlikar - e.g. the high k cutoff related to /, vacuum polarization are not easy to follow in detail. H-N assert they can do all zero point energy vacuum QED & radiative corrections from the FUTURE absorber influence functional in which the de Sitter horizon plays the key role. The light cone structure at the observer-dependent null-geodesic horizon is invariant for all observers LIF & LNIF at r = 0 in the static LNIF representationg00 = - 1/grr = 1 - / ^2where we are at r = 0 - note r = 0 is degenerate LIF = LNIF like static LNIF --> LIF at r ---> infinity in the Schwarzschild case.Clearly quantum gravity Hawking mechanism needs to be included, i.e. all r = 0 observers see the horizon temperature /^1/2. Kip Thorne's electrical membrane picture of horizons clearly is needed as some kind of lumped parameter model - the horizon being an effective barrier (hence its entropy) except for advanced signals.On accelerating expansion - had they realized de Sitter is essentially same as Steady State in terms of future absorber they might have predicted dark energy. However, my main point is that since dark energy has w = -1 it is zero point vacuum virtual bosons therefore FROM THE FUTURE in the Wheeler-Feynman ---> H-N ---> Cramer type paradigm - no question of that, and the fact of only retarded EM means our dark energy de Sitter future event horizon is an AS IF effective perfect future absorber and our past particle horizon is imperfect.More anon - have out of town guest for next few days.On Mar 21, 2010, at 2:31 AM, james f woodward wrote:Well, going through HN's paper, the issue of how far EM waves (or photons) propagate seems only incidental to most of their calculationsthat center on processes. This does come up on a couple of occasionsthough. For example, on page 126 at the end of the first full paragraphthey talk of "a future absorber of constant density and infinite extent"being needed to get perfect absorption and fully retarded interactions.And in their discussion of a "cutoff at the absorber", at the bottom ofthe first column on page 140, they allow that "l" has to go to infinityto provide perfect absorption.
In any event, it is clear that in the action at a distance picture EMwaves propagate through horizons if the absorption events that providethe advanced component needed to produce a fully retarded interactionlies beyond the horizon.
I see nothing in HN's paper that suggests that they were on the verge ofasserting accelerating expansion. It seems not to have been an issue forthem at all. I suppose that it may have occurred to them -- and Narlikarmight be able to shed some light on this. But their chief concern seemsto have been to show that the action at a distance picture could accountfor EM processes encompassed by classical and quantum EM -- with theadded bonus of a cutoff due to a future horizon that obviates the needfor the renormalization program of QED.
As for the membrane picture, as I have understood it from my late friend,Ron Crowley (who was a coauthor with Thorne on one of the chapters in thebook), the membrane was never intended to be taken as physically real.It was merely a way of sidestepping complicated internal processes thatmade the math intractable. As such, it is an explicitly fictitiousdevice to simplify calculations.
The reason why I have asserted that those taking the WF (or TI picture ofJohn Cramer) seriously should have predicted accelerating expansion stemsfrom a different consideration than those issues addressed in the
HN
paper. It is a consequence of the fact that horizons for normal
retarded
interactions do not act as cutoffs for retarded-advanced (RA)
interactions. The problem with this is particularly easy to see
in the
context of gravity and inertial (as opposed to EM) -- especially
in
Dennis Sciama's vector approximation to GR where he shows the
condition
that obtains for inertial reaction forces to be produced by the
gravitational action of chiefly distant matter. That depends on
the
gravitoelectric field having, in analogy with EM, two terms. One
is the
usual gradient of the scalar potential. The other is the time
derivative
of the vector potential (with suitable coefficient). The vector
potential is the integral of the matter current density,
presumably out
to the particle horizon. Sciama used a trick to avoid a messy
calculation involving retarded Green's functions, and got that
the vector
potential is just the scalar potential times the velocity of an
accelerating test particle where the inertial reaction force is
to be
evaluated. And since the vector potential thus goes as 1/r,
Sciama
identified this as a radiational process.
If the process is radiational, and if inerital reaction forces
are
instantaneous (as they are), then clearly a WF process must be
involved.
But WF processes do not respect horizons (particle, event, or
otherwise).
So cutting off the interaction at the particle (or other) horizon
is
something you have to do to get a reasonable result, even if you
haven't
got a compelling physical reason for doing so (other than it
works).
This is what I was getting at in Killing Time.
As an experimentalist chiefly interested in building stuff and
trying to
get it to work, I assumed that there must be a plausible
explanation for
this problem and went on with my experimental program. Only when
reading
Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos (in which Mach's principle
features
prominently) did I happen upon the explanation of the cutoff I
had
assumed must exist: accelerating expansion -- as explained in a
footnote
by Greene here attached.
It may be possible to write down a consistent WF action at a
distance
theory that encompasses classical and quantum EM without
accelerating
expansion. Though, if you are right, then this isn't so. I
expect it is
impossible to get Mach's principle to work, however, without
accelerating
expansion to cut off the gravitational interaction at a finite
upper
bound. While gravity and EM are analogous in many ways, gravity
is not
just EM in disguise.
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:24:42 -0700 JACK SARFATTI
<sarfatti@pacbell.net>
writes:
The key mathematically is
exponential scale function
Q(t) = e^/^1/2t
and constant density / = (area of future horizon)^-1
Hawking temperature of horizon = /^1/2
(using h = c = G = kB = 1)
Kip Thorne shows that horizons are electrical membranes -
peculiar
quantum effects at horizons - the Hawking mechanism pulls
virtual
electron positron pairs out of the vacuum - one charge goes
behind
the horizon the other in front of it - these charges both can
absorb
photons.
Horizon complementarity may play a role here - for LIFs falling
through the horizon the explanation you give here may be
appropriate, however for us at r = 0 the electrical membrane
picture
may be the appropriate explanation.
However, this is the key point, it's only because there is such
an
observer-dependent horizon with dark energy density / that we
have
retarded radiation without any net advanced radiation. If / = 0
then we would see advanced signals.
I
On Mar 18, 2010, at 10:37 PM, james f woodward wrote:
Lots of diversions, so I'm still reading, but almost done. It
seems
clear though that HN, while allowing that there is a future
event
horizon, understand that the perfect absorber need not be
located
within
or at the horizon. That is, EM waves, or photons, can
propagate
beyond
that horizon and that their absorption beyond the horizon will
nonetheless produce the requisite advanced disturbance required
for the
action at a distance theory to work.
James what precise text in HN lead you to conclude that?
That is correct. Anywhere an EM
disturbance can get to, no matter what horizons crossed, the
advanced
wave produced by absorption processes make it back to the
origin
of the
disturbance. So, NH's lone photon propagating at/near a
deSitter
horizon
-- which nearby inertial observers (NInOs) see tooling along at
speed c
-- if the principle of mediocrity is correct (and spacetime is
much the
same everywhere allowing for large scale evolution) -- will not
encounter
a material absorber at the horizon and likely pass on through
--
notwithstanding that a distant inertial observer (DInO) near
the
point of
emission will "see" the photon infinitely redshifted at the
horizon.
When it is eventually absorbed, the advanced disturbance
propagates time
reversed down its worldline to the source.
I'm going to finish the paper before commenting on accelerating
expansion. :-)
Q(t) = e^/^1/2t means accelerating expansion - necessary for
net
retarded causality.
Let me clarify - whether or not there is a quantum electrical
total
absorber relative to us at the horizon is not the point - my
only
claim is that it is AS IF there is one there.
The key here is that different observers in GR do not
necessarily
have the same quantum vacuum - unitarily inequivalent vacua.
However, your argument requires the multiverse of Max Tegmark's
levels 1 & 2 in order to work, which is also interesting.
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:19:08 -0700 JACK SARFATTI
<sarfatti@pacbell.net>
writes:
The point of the paper is that only the deSitter solution
(equivalent
here to the steady state) can explain retarded radiation.
"Einstein-de Sitter" is not the "de Sitter" solution - look at
the
Q(t) functions in the table as well as the density function
rho(t).
The key formulas are Q(t) = e^Ht & rho(t) = constant = /
(G=h=c=1)
_
Actually my original thought on all this about two years ago was very simple.
This is a an excellent article on a subject that I seldom see discussed. It's now becoming a serious issue, in that our orbiting space junk has become so prevalent, that it threatens key communications and military satellites. To read the article, click here.
Click here to start. Also
Problem is thermodynamics. We cannot sustain projected population 9 billion + at current energy levels of consumption even if we have zero point energy because of the waste heat that would really cause extreme global warming - there may be one loop hole however to eliminate the waste heat. In any case planet is too crowded for quality of life for all. Only happy solution short of mass extinction is star gates to parallel unpopulated Earth type planets on similar solar systems.
If we have a Haisch-Moddell zero point energy generator operating between a cold positive temperature and a hot negative quantum spin temperature then all the waste heat Qcold is converted to useful work.
W/Qhot= 1 + |Tcold/Thot| > 100%
This might prevent global warming from waste heat, but we would still be overcrowded and quality of life would diminish severely.