Text Size


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

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

Is that how you like to see yourself?

Subject: Re: Nick Herbert joins Erwin Schrodinger

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we are at a(t) = 1

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

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

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

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

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

T^4 ~ hc/|/Lp^2

so something real is in the Dread Sarfatti Fog Zone!

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

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

How does that help?

Think of this more like a murder investigation.

We have a very important clue - a natural derivation of


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

g00 = 1 - / ^2

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

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

The Unruh temperature/energy per degree of freedom is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't focus on the the PHYSICS points.

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

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