Text Size


Famous theorists are plagued by amateurs claiming to have found a 'theory of everything'. Gerardus 't Hooft strikes back with an online physics class.


Gerard 't Hooft's biography puts him in strong contention for the title of the father of modern theoretical physics. He won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1999 for his elucidation of the mathematics that now underlies the Standard Model of particle physics.


Click here.

't Hooft also invented the world hologram idea (along with Susskind), but neither of them seem to know that the source of our observer-dependent world hologram's influence on our present must be in our future not in our past. The Wheeler-Feynman theory comes to the rescue because the hologram is also the perfect future absorber enforcing net retarded causality through subterranean retrocausality. In Wheeler's terms:

Retrocausality without retrocausality.

Nonlocality without nonlocality.

On May 12, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Mc wrote:

"The exponential metric is not Puthoff's idea. It was developed then truncated to fit Einstein's field equations. Even Einstein is quoted saying the exponential metric should of been used. The truncated metric gives an unphysical singularity" Rmc
Yes of course Dicke first wrote it in 1961, but Hal Puthoff has used it extensively in the late 90's in his index of refraction approach - which BTW I am now using Hal's idea to some extent in my idea to increase effective gravity field inside superconducting negative index of refraction metal-material fuselage to make the anti-gravity field for zero g-force warp drive propulsion in vacuum.
The basic coupling should be (index of refraction)^4GNewton/c(vacuum)^4
the superconductor slows light to a stop i.e. index >> 1 & the negative index means that static non-radiative EM fields, e.g. w = + 1/3 in Casimir quantum wells will antigravitate! That is a big bang for small buck. I mean good efficiency in bending spacetime for small amounts of applied EM energy density.
The singularity in the mainstream vacuum Kerr solution is not a problem. (So far no astrophysical charged black holes we don't need the Kerr-Newman solution there, we do need it of course as Bohm hidden variables (dual to strings) on the hadronic scale and perhaps as models for quarks.


On May 12, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Mc wrote:

If we use the exponential metric there are no Black Holes, but the problem with an exponential metric is it doesn't solve Einstein's field equations so the metric gets truncated. 

The problem with that is we wind up with singularities, a physical impossibility from the standpoint of good Physics. 

So, what's wrong with Einstein's field equations that it can't accept an exponential metric which Einstein thought was correct?" Rmc




Black holes are an observational fact.

The metric representations are relative to timelike congruence of ideal observers formally defined by tetrad gravity fields.
You can write Puthoff's SSS exponential metric in the static LNIF set of observers and then ask what kind of matter stress-energy tensor Tuv would give that solution according to Einstein's field equation
Guv + (8piG/c^4)Tuv = 0
so far no observational evidence that it's useful.
Detailed studies of radiation from accretion disks etc by Martin Rees British Astronomer Royal, Master of Trinity College Cambridge, Head of the Royal Society and his Institute for Theoretical Astronomy have proved conclusively the factual status of black holes essentially described by the Kerr solution to a good approximation.

I think the facts make it very clear that there is no acceptable alternative to Einstein's GR that fits the astrophysical observations. That's my opinion for the record. All the evidence you need you can find here

& here
This is not to exclude torsion field effects in devices using superconductors along the lines of Ray Chiao. 
Torsion is a natural extension of Einstein's basic theory viewed as a local gauge theory on the global symmetries of his special relativity.
On May 12, 2010, at 8:57 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:19 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
You can write any damn metric you like and then compute the energy tensor needed for that metric

"I think this is about an alternative set of field equations that is consistent with known observational data. It's not clear that Einstein's equations are the only ones that are mathematically admissible."
Who cares? All sorts of models are mathematically admissible, but are not useful for explaining and predicting real observations.

"It's not clear even in the context of Einstein's Riemannian model for gravity that Einstein's field equations  are the only ones that are consistent with observations."
The urls above clearly demonstrate that you are mistaken.
It's completely ignorant of real physics to say "Einstein was wrong" - that's really crackpot

"Einstein himself said that Einstein was wrong on fundamental issues Jack. For example, Einstein retreated from his early position that Poincare's ether was not a scientifically meaningful concept in physics. So I think  you are overplaying your hand here."
We have discussed this ad-nauseum you are, in my opinion, pulling Einstein's remarks out of context. Basically it's irrelevant what transient opinions the creators of their own theory may have had about their theories in the absence of relevant measurements and observations. Einstein died before the relevant technology had been developed to test his theory. The "ether" is a Red Herring. Depends what one means by "ether". Of course in quantum theory we have virtual particles inside the vacuum that is an "ether" that respects the local symmetries of GR in the appropriate limit. Sure you can think of the four spin 1 gravity tetrad Lorentz group vector fields e^I as fields on a locally flat Minkowski space where
ds^2 = (Minkowski)IJe^Ie^J = guv(accelerating local frame)e^ue^v
e^I(unaccelerating local frame) = (tetrad)^Iue^v(accelerating locally coincident frame)
In addition, the IT tetrads e^I are Bell pair spinor qubit entangled states in the quantum informational pre-geometry
e^I = (Newman-Penrose)^Iii'(Qubit)^i(Qubit')^i'

"How about black holes? Einstein said he didn't believe in them. You say that black holes are an observational  fact. Doesn't that make Einstein wrong, according to your own arguments?"
All irrelevant. If Einstein were alive today he would not dispute the reality of black holes.

On May 12, 2010, at 8:57 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

How about black holes? Einstein said he didn't believe in them. You say that black holes are an observational 
fact. Doesn't that make Einstein wrong, according to your own arguments?

All irrelevant. If Einstein were alive today he would not dispute the reality of black holes.

"The point here is if you are right about black holes, then you are basically saying that Einstein was wrong on a major  issue in gravitational theory, since as a matter of historical fact he rejected them as physical solutions to the 1916
field equations.. 

Does that make you a 'crackpot'? "

Einstein did not understand the full implications of the solutions of his field equations
no one did until Penrose & Hawking's global light cone techniques more than 5 years after Einstein died - assuming classical positive energy conditions violated in quantum theory of course. Paul your way of looking at theory is very bizarre in my opinion. You draw silly conclusions from innocuous historical accidents. 
What matters is
Guv + kTuv = 0
one can make singularity-free dark star solutions of them invoking dark energy / > 0 in the interior - so what?
From the outside it looks just like a black hole.
Your point is a quibble in my opinion.
On May 13, 2010, at 7:13 AM, Paul Murad wrote:

"Sorry but I have to agree with Paul.  Your first comment was in response to an individual that indicated we need to keep an open mind and perhaps review what we know about the situation.
It was uncalled for that you would characterize him as a crackpot.  There is nothing wrong with saying we should go back and question the conventional wisdom because we may gain some new or unknown insights."
Paul M
Anyone who does not accept Einstein's theory of gravity as the only viable theory that fits observation in its proper domain of validity is ipso-facto a physics illiterate crank in my book. That's my opinion. I gave the reference from Cliff Will that supports my case. Alternative theories of gravity have the same status as the Nazi hollow Earth theory in my opinion.
Now this does not exclude the natural extensions of Einstein's 1916 GR e.g. adding "square root" tetrads, torsion, spinors etc - an experimental issue that does not contradict the basic principles of Einstein's theory, especially when viewed in terms of the deep principle of local gauge invariance.


May 11

Cloning Pointer Quantum States?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 


Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

Wojciech Hubert Zurek Theory Division, LANL, Mail Stop B210, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545

(Published 22 May 2003 Reviews of Modern Physics)
"The manner in which states of some quantum systems become effectively classical is of great significance for the foundations of quantum physics, as well as for problems of practical interest such as quantum engineering. In the past two decades it has become increasingly clear that many (perhaps all) of the symptoms of classicality can be induced in quantum systems by their environments. Thus decoherence is caused by the interaction in which the environment in effect monitors certain observables of the system, destroying coherence between the pointer states corresponding to their eigenvalues. This leads to environment-induced superselection or einselection, a quantum process associated with selective loss of information. Einselected pointer states are stable. They can retain correlations with the rest of the universe in spite of the environment. Einselection enforces classicality by imposing an effective ban on the vast majority of the Hilbert space, eliminating especially the flagrantly nonlocal ‘‘Schrodinger-cat states.’’ The classical structure of phase space emerges from the quantum Hilbert space in the appropriate macroscopic limit. Combination of einselection with dynamics leads to the idealizations of a point and of a classical trajectory. In measurements, einselection replaces quantum entanglement between the apparatus and the measured system with the classical correlation. Only the preferred pointer observable of the apparatus can store information that has predictive power. When the measured quantum system is microscopic and isolated, this restriction on the predictive utility of its correlations with the macroscopic apparatus results in the effective ‘‘collapse of the wave packet.’’ The existential interpretation implied by einselection regards observers as open quantum systems, distinguished only by their ability to acquire, store, and process information. Spreading of the correlations with the effectively classical pointer states throughout the environment allows one to understand ‘‘classical reality’’ as a property based on the relatively objective existence of the einselected states. Effectively classical pointer states can be ‘‘found out’’ without being re-prepared, e.g, by intercepting the information already present in the environment. The redundancy of the records of pointer states in the environment (which can be thought of as their ‘‘fitness’’ in the Darwinian sense) is a measure of their classicality. A new symmetry appears in this setting. Environment-assisted invariance or envariance sheds new light on the nature of ignorance of the state of the system due to quantum correlations with the environment and leads to Born’s rules and to reduced density matrices, ultimately justifying basic principles of the program of decoherence and einselection."
Simple eh? ;-)
"How the classical world arises from an ultimately quantum substrate has been a question since the advent of quantum mechanics [17]. Decoherence is now commonly used to study this quantum-classical transition [810]. Its theory, however, treats the environment as a sink where information about the system gets lost forever. Yet the information deposited in the environment can be intercepted, and it is our primary source of information about the Universe. Indeed, decohering interactions with the environment can amplify and store an impression of the system. Amplification was invoked already by Bohr [11] in the context of measurements. Early [12], as well as more recent [9,13,14], discussions of decoherence note the importance of redundancy, and provide an information- theoretic framework for how the environment acts as an amplifier and as a source of information about the ‘‘system of interest’’ [1519].

Quantum Darwinism reflects this new focus on the environment as a communication channel [1517]. When one receives a fragment of the environment by, for instance, intercepting with one’s eyes a portion of photons that are scattered off a system of interest (e.g., the text of this Letter), one acquires information about it. Previous studies found that, with an initially pure environment, one can acquire information about the preferred observables of the system even from small environment fragments [17]. This explains the emergence of objectivity, as it allows many initially ignorant observers to independently obtain nearly complete information and reach consensus about the state of the system by intercepting different fragments of the environment. Classicality of states can now be quantified in terms of the redundancy of information transferred to and recorded by the environment. However, it is unclear how well one can accumulate information starting with a mixed, or hazy, environment, such as one at finite temperature. Yet the photon environment that is responsible for the vast majority of the information we gain has precisely such a hazy character. This Letter shows that even hazy environments will, in the end, communicate a very clear image."

PRL 103, 110402 (2009)
Quantum Darwinism in a Mixed Environment
Michael Zwolak, H. T. Quan, and Wojciech H. Zurek
Theoretical Division, MS-B213, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
(Received 29 April 2009; revised manuscript received 8 August 2009; published 8 September 2009)


May 11

Question for Nick Herbert

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Why doesn't W. Zurek's quantum Darwinism violate the no-cloning a quantum theorem?

"The basis of almost any theoretical quantum-to-classical transition lies in the concept of decoherence. In the quantum world, many possible quantum states “collapse” into a single state due to interactions with the environment. To quantum Darwinists, decoherence is a selection process, and the final, stable state is called a “pointer state.” Although pointer states are quantum states, they are “fit enough” to be transmitted through the environment without collapsing and can then make copies of themselves that can be observed on the macroscopic scale. Although everything in our world is quantum at its core, our classical view of the universe is ultimately determined by these pointer states." Physics Org

New evidence for quantum Darwinism found in quantum dots

Is this the answer? i.e. "pointer states" must be pairwise orthogonal for a "good measurement".

Non-clonability can be seen as a property of arbitrary sets of quantum states. If we know that a system's state is one of the states in some set S, but we do not know which one, can we prepare another system in the same state? If the elements of S are pairwise orthogonalthe answer is always yes: for any such set there exists a measurement which will ascertain the exact state of the system without disturbing it, and once we know the state we can prepare another system in the same state. If S contains two elements that are not pairwise orthogonal (in particular, the set of all quantum states includes such pairs) then an argument like that given above shows that the answer is no.

It may be that the gravity Weyl vacuum energy is local in Penrose Twistor Space. Twistors are spinor qubits of the conformal light cone group. Curvature & torsion as relative relations between neighboring light cones. Light cones are entangled pair qubit states. Spacetime local events are collisions of twistor lines (so to speak).

May 07

David McMahon is a physicist at Los Alamos interested in exotic propulsion who has written a very useful series of self-study advanced physics books. The one I use here is his "Relativity, DeMystified".  His solution 9.3 for gravity-free Minkowski space-time using spherical-polar coordinates shows that for that particular choice, the Penrose-Rindler null tetrads are

l = (cdt +dr)/2^1/2 

for the retro-causal "destiny" advanced light ray propagating positive energy backwards in time along the past light cone.

n = (cdt - dr)/2^1/2 

for the usual causal "history" retarded light ray propagating positive energy forward in time along the future light cone.

The remaining two complex null tetrads are

m = (rd(theta) + irsin(theta)d(phi)/2^1/2

and its complex conjugate m*

This can be generalized for the static LNIFs of the Schwarzschild black hole outside the event horizon

l' = [(1-rs/r)^1/2cdt + dr/(1 - rs/r)^1/2]/2^1/2  etc

g00 = -1/grr = 1 - rs/r

as well as the dark energy observer-dependent de Sitter accelerating universe solution with us at r = 0.

l" = [(1 - Lambda r^2)^1/2cdt + dr/(1 - Lambda r^2)^1/2]/2^1/2

goo = - 1/grr = 1 - Lambda r^2

Lambda = Einstein's cosmological constant = 1/Area of retro-causal future event horizon

~ dark energy density

It From Qubit: Wheeler-Feynman Null Tetrad Gravity


Jack Sarfatti


Local observers are defined by orthonormal “non-holonomic” (aka “non-coordinate”) tetrad gravity fields (Cartan’s “moving frames”). The tetrads are spin 1 vector fields under the 6-parameter homogeneous Lorentz group SO1,3 of Einstein’s 1905 special relativity. You can think of the tetrad gravity fields as the square roots of Einstein’s 1916 spin 2 metric tensor gravity fields. We will see that we must also allow for spin 0 and spin 1 gravity because the spin 1 tetrads, in turn, are Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen entangled quantum states of pairs of 2-component Penrose-Rindler qubits in the quantum pre-geometry.


to be continued (work in progress)

May 07

UFO Report near Vandenberg AFB, California

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Thank You For Filling Out This Form: 
Below is what you submitted to ufocntr@nwlink.com,cstepien@experlogix.com on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 17:16:39
Date: 05/04/2010  Time: 21:20    Duration: 12 minutes   Sighting City: Santa Clarita  Sighting State: ca  Sighting Zip: 91354  Sighting County: Los Angeles   Witnesses: 2   Shape:Formation  Number of Craft: 2?
Description: It was around 9:20pm last night (May 4, 2010) and it was pitch black; the sky was clear and we could see the stars, and there was some wind, it was warm. My husband and I were walking our 2 dogs, and we were passing through the parking lot at Bridgeport Shopping Center, which is at the NE corner of the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and McBean Parkway, in Valencia, California. Valencia is part of the incorporated town of Santa Clarita, if you're searching for it on a map. Bridgeport Shopping Center has pedestrian walkways and lower buildings - it's new, and is mostly empty in the evenings, we guess there were about 10 other people around the shopping center at that moment but no one was near us. We were at the far East side of the parking lot where there are few street lights. We were walking East toward Grandview Drive when my husband noticed a long line of red lights in the sky that appeared above the treeline, not too high up, and were acting in a very bizarre fashion. If the lights were on some kind of craft/s then it was completely silent. There were about 12 lights - all RED, no white, and they were in a line, as if connected to a leading edge.
At first it was just hovering - for maybe one minute, and then started to slowly float Southeast. The string of lights never descended. We didn't see a solid shape behind the lights, it was too dark, we could only see the lights themselves. They all seemed to be about the same size. The size of the lights themselves -- relative to a star in the night sky -- they were the same size as the brightest star in the sky. All together, the span of the lights in a line reached almost completely across our entire field of view. They were above the horizon, well above the treeline, and above the rooftops of everything around. It was very hard to gauge where exactly the thing was, we guestimated it was over Eastern Santa Clarita, East of the 5 Freeway, but West of the 14, North of Lyons Avenue and potentially South of Newhall Ranch Road, where we were standing – although it appeared directly over us. It was a straight line of lights at a 45 degree angle. Like a stick, turned up on an angle. This was the shape "/", with the tallest part rising on its right side, with the whole thing heading slowly South by Southeast. It (the string of lights) never broke formation. It slowly floated South-South East until it became so dim we could no longer see it, without ever changing the distances between the lights themselves. They were not evenly spaced. The whole line silently hovered and then slowly floated off, with entire sections blinking on and off randomly. It was very long/wide! As a gauge, if I hold my thumb out away from me (about 2.5 feet) and my thumb represents one of the lights that we saw - then the whole line of lights took up my entire field of view. (It took about 5 minutes for it to disappear from view.)
Just when we thought the whole line was lit up, another light would blink on, to the far left or far right - making the total string even wider/longer. The lights did not look like flares to me. I have seen flares and these lights were constantly blinking on and off, wildly -- quickly pulsating. There was never a time when all the lights were on uniformly at the same time, they were always shimmering. Sometimes whole sections would just go out and come back on again 10 seconds later, in random order. The lights, always red, were all blinking/shimmering fast, but not uniformly, and not strobing in any regular pattern and with no regular timing, not the way aircraft safety lights would. Any one light also had an irregular pattern. We thought -- could it be a squadron of helicopters? But the lights didn't behave in a predictable way. These red lights would go on and off in random order and with random timing by first becoming dim, then bright, then dim, then off, and then bright again -- as if they were shimmering. My husband commented that it looked like the special effects on TV when a craft goes into "cloaking" mode, or the way lights look reflected in water. He is a skeptic and he was dumbfounded as to what we were seeing. Position relative to each other: the lights kept their exact distance from one another the whole time, even as the line of lights drifted South. The size of the individual lights was like looking at red car brake lights from 2 miles away. That's the only way I can describe it - against the night sky they were as bright and big as the biggest/brightest star in the sky. We can't tell how high the string of lights was, but we couldn't see any other stars through them.
We could not see if it was one solid craft, or many lights. They did remain in a stable position relative to one another - at least giving the illusion that they were along the edge of one craft. I've seen sheriff's dept. helicopters fly nightly over town and I would say these lights appeared to be floating around the same height. They were not too distant, definitely over town, not over the mountains. It took several minutes for them to go a few miles. We ran East along the sidewalk to keep a view of it, and eventually the line disappeared as it floated out of view, and became dimmer, eventually disappearing completely from our line of sight. We stared for 5 more minutes and then started to walk home, heading East toward the edge of the parking lot. Then we saw another set of lights, doing exactly the same thing, just over the treeline to the East of Grandview Road. The line had the same weird pattern of red lights shimmering off and on and lasted for 2-3 minutes but was not quite as wide and was oriented horizontally. It didn't drift or descend, it just got more and more dim and finally was down to 2 lights, and then disappeared. We stared a little longer, and then walked home. I immediately called the Sheriff station for Santa Clarita. I reported what we saw and the police officer said they had over 100 calls reporting UFOs already that night. He could not say if people reported the same thing we saw. The sky was filled with other aircraft that night, heading into Burbank airport or LAX. They all looked normal compared to this. Our backgrounds: My husband is in IT and I am a technology and science editor for a national publication. We've never seen anything out of the ordinary before and have lived here 3 years, so we also know what's common in the sky here. My husband is a firm skeptic, and I'm uncertain. I'm aware of military testing at VAFB and I have seen missile tests at a distance from the 101, and this didn't look like that. I've also seen small meteors and meteor showers and they don't hover and glide.

May 07

The tetrads are spin 1 fields in flat spacetime and they are square roots of the Einstein spin 2 tensor field. 

The qubit Penrose spinors are the square roots of the tetrads - intuitively speaking, hence 4th roots of the Einstein metric field.

A non-zero energy momentum tensor using the tetrads & spin connections as the basic gravity fields rather than the Levi-Civita connection may be possible. The two formulations would be compatible.
Note, that in the analogy with Yang-Mills fields
connection = gauge potential
curvature = field
From this POV, the gravity field energy tensor should be made from the 4th rank curvature tensor Ruvwl analog to Yang-Mills Fuv^a
But that is not obviously compatible with Einstein's field equation
Guv + kTuv = 0
Tuv^;v = 0
; relative to Levi-Civita connection
Waldyr et-al use new connections willy nilly - the theory is defined in terms of the connection e.g. Ashtekar - so Waldyr has an alternative gravity theory that needs an operational measurement theory or it is only a formal game without physics. Einstein's GR has a very clear successful measurement theory.

On May 6, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:


Note that Waldyr has Poltorak's non-metricity model toward the end of the paper, but no mention of Poltorak in the text, and no citation in the bibliography.

I think the relationship between Waldyr's and Kleinert's models for gravity would be an interesting topic for discussion, especially if you could get Kleinert and Rodrigues directly involved.

May 06

Lubos Motl vs Sean Carroll - my commentaries

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Commentary 1
re: The Reference Frame: The analogy between the Universe and a black hole Lubos Motl
"A black hole is defined as a region whose interior is separated by the event horizon from the exterior (because of the curvature caused by a sufficient mass, according to the rules of general relativity): a black hole is an object from which it's causally impossible to ever return to the exterior world which is why not even light is allowed to ever escape from the black hole again."
We are outside the event horizon of a black hole, but we are inside both our past particle horizon and our future event horizon. Both of these observer dependent horizons are spherical 2D surfaces (Planck length thick) and we are always at the exact center. The distance to our future spherical shell horizon is decreasing though we never reach it in finite proper time. The distance to our past horizon is increasing. Details are in Tamara Davis's 2004 PhD online.