On May 3, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Paul Zelinsky <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Z: "What observational confirmations are available for plain vanilla Hawking radiation, as predicted by Hawking? Or is that too only a "matter of principle" at this stage?"JS: None in practise for direct detection on Earth, but it's Popper falsifiable in principle.f = c/A^1/2 Flux = hc^2/A^2In contrast we predict a second signalf' = c/(A^1/2L)^1/2Flux' = hc^2/L^2AA = area of horizon where g00 = 0 in static LNIF exterior coordinates for Schwarzschild black holeZ "According to my information there is as yet no generally accepted empirical confirmation of the existence of any form of BH radiation, let alone data that would allow us to discriminate between Hawking's predictions and yours."JS: Our prediction is much higher frequency and flux.Z: "The theoretical framework for the prediction of Hawking-type radiation is only semi-classical (QFT in curved spacetime). How much confidence should we invest in such predictions?"JS: The whole point is that our model may be falsifiable practically speaking with current technology Indeed it provides a model for dark energy if one throws off the heavy yoke of t Hooft's S Matrix unitarity that Seth Lloyd et al jump through hoops to preserve in a zero sum game in Matt Visser's "boring universe" grim scenario of magic without magick. The miracle of unitarity requires unnatural fine tuning in Seth Lloyd's recent attempt to eliminate firewalled horizons.Z: "And how do we measure BH lifetimes? I can see that accelerated BH evaporation would be much more significant for small BHs, but the existence of small black holes in nature is little more than speculation at this point. Maybe the next generation of particle colliders will enable their production in the lab? Even so, I think the suggestion that your additional "A coefficient" contribution to such radiation for a cosmological horizon tracks the currently postulated dark energy contribution to / is interesting."On 5/3/2014 2:05 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:only a matter of technologye.g. detection of low flux of 10^21 Hz GRAVITONS from black hole at center of our galaxy for example.So far Kip Thorne et-al have not succeeded in low freq range.obviously what we predict is Popper falsifiable IN PRINCIPLE - we predict frequencies and fluxes and type of quanta, gravitons, photons - Sinziana is making detailed tables. If you want to do something useful play with graphic plots of our new prediction for black hole evaporation lifetimes for actual numerical values of the parameters a, b, M, L below whereL = 10^-33 cm gravitons from virtual Planck mass blackhole “quantum foam", 10 ^- 11 cm photons from virtual electron-positron pairs, perhaps 10^-16 cm etc.On May 2, 2014, at 11:34 PM, Paul Zelinsky <email@example.com> wrote:Why wouldn't it be detectable? Is this a falsifiable prediction, or not?On 5/2/2014 1:39 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:obviously if black holes evaporate much faster than everyone thinks and emit high energy quanta in doing so, it’s obviously important and may be directly detectable
TentativelyBlack body thermal gravitons radiated from the black hole at the center of our galaxy should each have an energy equal to the electron rest energy 10 ^-6 ergs. There should be 10^21 of these gravitons passing through us each second per square centimeter. It has mass ~ 5 million Suns and is 26 000 light years away.This assumes quantum foam of Planck mass zero point gravity field fluctuations converted to my new second high energy peak of the Hawking radiation.f = c/(LA^1/2)^1/2L = IR cutoffA = area of horizon Details in a few days.LIgo & lisa will not see them They only look for lfgwIf gravitons convert to photons efficiently that might explain the gamma rays at electron rest energy?Also em radiation different numbers.Sent from my iPad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiationabove is for Hawking's surface gravity modes - low energy.This is ~ 10^-28 Watts per solar mass isotropic over 4pi solid anglei.e. P ~ 1/AA is area-entropy of the black hole horizonFor the new quantum thickness radiation we are now predicting.P' ~ 1/(LA^1/2)P'/P = [1/(LA^1/2)]/[1/A] = A/(LA^1/2) = A^1/2/LP' ~ (A^1/2/L)10^-28 Watts per solar massLet r = distance of black hole from Earth (neglecting intervening curvature for simplicity)The power flux density at Earth is thenP'/4pir^2 ~ (A^1/2/4pir^2L)10^-28 Watts per solar mass per unit areaThere is a spectrum of L's.If L = Lp that is from virtual Planck scale black holes of Wheeler's quantum foam getting energy from the gravity near field emitting spin 2 gravitons. For example, I get ~ 10^-6 gravitons of ~ 10^21 Hz per square meter per second hitting Earth from the 4 million solar mass black hole at the center of our Milky Way. Too small to measure most likely even though it's much larger than the flux from Hawking's surface modes.On the other hand if L = h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm these are virtual electron positron pairs getting energy from the gravity near field and the charges that escape the horizon accelerate emitting photons.Similarly L ~ 10^-13 cm will be radiation from virtual nucleon pairs etc.However, clearly the HFGW mechanism at L = Lp dominates.
1) . I intuited the connection between the Einstein-Rosen (ER) wormhole and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) quantum entanglement back in 1973 when I was with Abdus Salam at the International Centre of Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy. This idea was published in the wacky book “Space-Time and Beyond” (Dutton, 1975) described by MIT physics historian David Kaiser in his book “How the Hippies Saved Physics.” Lenny Susskind, who I worked with at Cornell 1963-4, rediscovered this ER = EPR connection in the black hole “firewall” paradox. Lenny envisions a multi-mouthed wormhole network connecting the Hawking radiation particles their entangled twins behind the evaporating event horizon. “each escaping particle remains connected to the black hole through a wormhole” Dennis Overbye, Einstein and the Black Hole, New York Times August 13, 2013. The no-signaling theorem corresponds to the wormhole pinching off before a light speed limited signal can pass through one mouth to the other. Now we know that traversable wormhole stargates are possible using amplified anti-gravity dark energy. This corresponds to signal-nonlocality in post-quantum theory violating orthodox quantum theory.
1) Localizing global symmetries requires the addition of compensating gauge connections in a fiber bundle picture of the universe. Indeed, the original global symmetry group is a smaller subgroup of the local symmetry group. The gauge connections define parallel transport of tensor/spinor fields. They correspond to the interactions between the several kinds of charges of the above symmetries. I shall go into more details of this elsewhere. Indeed localizing the above spacetime symmetries corresponds to generalizations of Einstein’s General Relativity as a local gauge theory.[i] For example, localizing the space and time global translational symmetries means that the Lie group transformations at different events (places and times) in the universe are independent of each other. If one believes in the classical special relativity postulate of locality that there are no faster-than-light actions at a distance, then the transformations must certainly be independent of each other between pairs of spacelike separated events that cannot be connected by a light signal. However, the local gauge principle is much stronger, because it applies to pairs of events that can be connected not only by a light signal, but also by slower-than-light timelike signals. This poses a paradox when we add quantum entanglement. Aspect’s experiment and others since then, show that faster-than-light influences do in fact exist in the conditional probabilities (aka correlations) connecting observed eigenvalues of quantum observable operators independently chosen by Alice and Bob when spacelike separated. I shall return to this in more detail elsewhere. However, the no entanglement-signaling postulate is thought by many mainstream theoretical physicists to define orthodox quantum theory. It’s believed that its violation would also violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Note that the entanglement signal need not be faster-than-light over a spacelike separation between sender and receiver. It could be lightlike or timelike separated as well. Indeed it can even be retrocausal with the message sent back-from-the-future. John Archibald Wheeler’s “delayed choice experiment” is actually consistent with orthodox quantum theory’s no-signaling premise. The point is, that one cannot decode the message encoded in the pattern of entanglement until one has a classical signal key that only propagates forward in time. What one sees before the classical key arrives and a correlation analysis is computed is only local random white noise. However, data on precognitive remote viewing as well as brain presponse data suggests that no-entanglement signaling is only true for dead matter. Nobel Prize physicist, Brian Josephson first published on this. I have also suggested it using Bohm’s ontological interpretation (Lecture 8 of Michael Towler’s Cambridge University Lectures on Bohm’s Pilot Wave). Antony Valentini has further developed this idea in several papers. Post-quantum “signal nonlocality” dispenses with the need to wait for the light-speed limited retarded signal key propagating from past to future. Local non-random noise will be seen in violation of the S-Matrix unitarity “conservation of information” postulate of G. ‘t Hooft, L. Susskind et-al. Indeed the distinguishable non-orthogonality of entangled Glauber macro-quantum coherent states seems to be the way to get signal nonlocality. This gets us to the “Black Hole War” between Susskind and Hawking about information loss down evaporating black holes. It seems that Hawking caved in too fast to Susskind back in Dublin in 2004. I intuited the connection between the Einstein-Rosen (ER) wormhole and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) quantum entanglement back in 1973 when I was with Abdus Salam at the International Centre of Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy. This idea was published in the wacky book “Space-Time and Beyond” (Dutton, 1975) described by MIT physics historian David Kaiser in his book “How the Hippies Saved Physics.” Lenny Susskind, who I worked with at Cornell 1963-4, rediscovered this ER = EPR connection in the black hole “firewall” paradox.
[i] Localizing the four space and time translations corresponds to Einstein’s general coordinate transformations that are now gauge transformations defining an equivalence class of physically identical representations of the same curvature tensor field. However, the compensating gauge connection there corresponds to torsion fields not curvature fields. The curvature field corresponds to localizing the three space-space rotations and the three space-time Lorentz boost rotations together. Einstein’s General Relativity in final form (1916) has zero torsion with non-zero curvature. However, T.W.B. Kibble from Imperial College, London in 1961 showed how to get the Einstein-Cartan torsion + curvature extension of Einstein’s 1916 curvature-only model by localizing the full 10-parameter Poincare symmetry Lie group of Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity. The natural geometric objects to use are the four Cartan tetrads that correspond to Local Inertial Frame (LIF) detector/observers that are not rotating about their Centers of Mass (COM) that are on weightless zero g-force timelike geodesics. Zero torsion is then imposed as an ad-hoc constraint to regain Einstein’s 1916 model as a limiting case. The ten parameter Poincare Lie group is subgroup of the fifteen parameter conformal group that adds four constant proper acceleration hyperbolic Wolfgang Rindler horizon boosts and one dilation scale transformation that corresponds to Herman Weyl’s original failed attempt to unify gravity with electromagnetism. The spinor Dirac square roots of the conformal group correspond to Roger Penrose’s “twistors.”
Jack Sarfatti proper acceleration in a static coordinate metricds^2 = gttdt^2 - grrdr^2 - r^2(spherical coordinate metric)isg(r) ~ gtt^-1/2d(g00/dr)the two metrics of interest aregtt = 1 - A^1/2/r black hole of area entropy A we at r ---> infinity outside black holegtt = 1 - r'^2/A de Sitter horizonwe at r' = 0inside cosmological horizonuse1 + z = femit/fobserve f = frequency1 + z = [gtt(observe)gtt(emit)]^1/2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RedshiftQuantum gravity says horizons gtt = 0 are really Lp thick.so for both metrics above usingr = A^1/2 + Lp for black hole&r' = A^1/2 - Lpget same factors (Lp/A^1/2)^1/2 redshift of radiation emitted from A(A^1/2/Lp)^1/2 blue shift of radiation falling into A.Now the Hawking black hole radiation temperature at A isT ~ h(A^1/2/Lp)c^2/cA^1/2kB ~ hc/kB(LpA^1/2)^1/2and this redshifts down to hc/A^1/2kB ~ Newtonian horizon surface gravity just as Hawking says.In contrast, for the new quantum gravity radial oscillations of the thickness of the horizonT' ~ hc/LpkBwhich redshifts down to us to T' ~ hc/kB(LpA^1/2)^1/2by Stephan Boltzman T^4 lawthis gives hc/Lp^2Aboth for anomalous w = +1/3 radiation from black holes whose horizon is not observer dependent& also dark energy density from future horizon which looks like w = -1 virtual photon vacuum energy peaked at c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 frequency whose horizon is observer dependent.We need to use John Cramer's TI here.
en.wikipedia.orgIn physics (especially astrophysics), redshift happens when light seen coming from an object that is moving away is proportionally increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. More generally, when an observer detects electromagnetic radiation outside the visible spectrum, "red...