Text Size

Stardrive

Tag » Black Hole
  1. Not all three statements are consistent it is claimed.
  2. 1) Hawking radiation is in a pure state.
  3. 2) The information carried by the radiation is emitted from the region near the horizon, with low energy effective field theory valid beyond some microscopic distance from the horizon.
  4. 3) The infalling observer encounters nothing unusual at the horizon.
 
 
Well 1) cannot be true since if Hawking radiation is black body it is not in a pure state it is a mixed state with a reduced density matrix that is not an idempotent projection operator.
 
 
So what is all the fuss about? ;-)
 
Throw away 1) and keep 2) and 3)?
 
Furthermore, there is no reason to go hog wild that the universe obeys unitarity at all levels of organization. Why should probability be conserved in the first place? Life does not seem to conserve probabilities. When Feynman gave an early lecture on his Lagrangian formulation of quantum theory Dirac was there with Einstein and Dirac asked Feynman if his theory was “unitary.” Feynman said he had no idea of what Dirac even meant at that time. Valentini has an extended quantum theory that is definitely not unitary for example. Feynman also asked why observables have to be Hermitian operators. Hermitian operators generate unitary transformations.
 
 
Unitarity is in Hilbert qubit pilot wave space what orthogonality is in the spacetime continuum. There is nothing sacred and absolute in either. There is no compelling reason to say that inner products of quantum states are invariant under time evolution. It works in a limited range of experiments - scattering experiments - very primitive smashing of things together - brute force not very subtle.
 
 
The S-MATRIX is a crude tool that has been elevated into The Golden Calf by the Priests of Orthodox Physics.
 
 
<imgres.jpg>
 

 

On May 3, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Paul Zelinsky <yksnilez@gmail.com> 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^2

In contrast we predict a second signal

f' = c/(A^1/2L)^1/2

Flux' = hc^2/L^2A

A = area of horizon where 

g00 = 0 in static LNIF exterior coordinates for Schwarzschild black hole

Z "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 technology

e.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 where

L = 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 <yksnilez@gmail.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

Tentatively

Black 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)^1/2

L = IR cutoff
A = area of horizon 

Details in a few days.

LIgo & lisa will not see them 
They only look for lfgw

If gravitons convert to photons efficiently that might explain the gamma rays at electron rest energy?


Also em radiation different numbers.

Sent from my iPad


On Dec 5, 2013, at 8:00 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:


 
From the beginning:
 
First Hawking
 
L = Schwarzschild radial coordinate distance to horizon classical 2D surface g00 = 0.
 
Newton's surface gravity ~ A^-1/2
 
A = area-entropy of g00 = 0
 
What they do in Wikipedia above comes down to this
 
Redshifted Unruh temperature a long distant from the black hole is
 
THawking ~ A^-1/2
 
Stefan-Boltzmann law
 
energy density ~ THawking^4 ~ A^-2
 
Total redshifted power
 
P ~ A (energy density) ~ A^-1
 
A ~ M^2
 
P ~ dM/dt
 
tlifetime ~ M^3
 
OK now my new prediction following the same argument as above
 
The redshifted thickness gravity Unruh temperature is
 
T' ~ (LA^1/2)^-1/2
 
If we take
 
Lp ~ mp = Planck mass
 
T' ~ (mpM)^-1/2
 
P' ~ AT'^4 ~ A/L^2A ~ L^-2 ~ mp^-2
 
dM'/dt ~ mp^-2
 
t' ~ mp^2M << t ~ M^3
 

https://www.academia.edu/5154144/Sarfattis_Stargate_Book_Version_of_Nov_19_2013_Work_in_Progress_

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

above is for Hawking's surface gravity modes - low energy.

This is ~ 10^-28 Watts per solar mass isotropic over 4pi solid angle

i.e. P ~ 1/A

A is area-entropy of the black hole horizon

For 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/L

P' ~ (A^1/2/L)10^-28 Watts per solar mass

Let r = distance of black hole from Earth (neglecting intervening curvature for simplicity)

The power flux density at Earth is then

P'/4pir^2 ~ (A^1/2/4pir^2L)10^-28 Watts per solar mass per unit area

There 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.”

 

My review of Jim Woodward's Making Starships book - V1 under construction
  • Jack Sarfatti Sarfatti’s Commentaries on James F. Woodward’s book 
    Making Starships and Star Gates 
    The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes

    The book has many good insights except for some ambiguous statements regarding:

    1) The equivalence principle that is the foundation of Einstein’s theory of the gravitational field. This seems to be due to the author’s not clearly distinguishing between local frame invariant proper acceleration and frame dependent coordinate acceleration. Thus, the author says that Newton’s gravity force is eliminated in an “accelerating frame.” In fact, it is eliminated in a Local Inertial Frame (LIF) that has zero proper acceleration, though it has coordinate acceleration relative to the surface of Earth for example. All points of the rigid spherical surface of Earth have non-zero proper accelerations pointing radially outward. This violates common sense and confuses even some physicists as well as engineers not to mention laymen. It is a fact of the Alice in Wonderland topsy-turvy surreal world of the post-modern physics of Einstein’s relativity especially when combined with the faster-than-light and back from the future entanglement of particles and fields in quantum theory and beyond. 
    2) I find the author’s discussion of fictitious inertial pseudo forces puzzling. I include the centripetal force as a fictitious force in the limit of Newton’s particle mechanics sans Einstein’s local inertial frame dragging from rotating sources. That is, every local frame artifact that is inside the Levi-Civita connection is a fictitious inertial pseudo force. This includes, Coriolis, centrifugal, Euler, and most importantly Newton’s gravity force that is not a real force. The terms inside the Levi-Civita connection are not felt by the test particle under observation. Instead, they describe real forces acting on the observer’s local rest frame. A real force acts locally on a test particle’s accelerometer. It causes an accelerometer’s pointer to move showing a g-force. In contrast, Baron Munchausen sitting on a cannonball in free fall is weightless. This was essentially Einstein’s “happiest thought” leading him to the equivalence principle the cornerstone of his 1916 General Relativity of the Gravitational Field. 
    3) A really serious flaw in the book is the author’s dependence on Dennis Sciama’s electromagnetic equations for gravity. In fact, these equations only apply approximately in the weak field limit of Einstein’s field equations in the background-dependent case using the absolute non-dynamical globally-flat Minkowski space-time with gravity as a tiny perturbation. The author uses these equations way out of their limited domain of validity. In particular, the Sciama equations cannot describe the two cosmological horizons past and future of our dark energy accelerating expanding observable universe. What we can see with our telescopes is only a small patch (aka “causal diamond”) of a much larger “inflation bubble” corresponding to Max Tegmark’s “Level 1” in his four level classification of the use of “multiverse” and “parallel universes.” Our two cosmological horizons, past and future, that are thin spherical shells of light with us inside them at their exact centers may in fact be hologram computer screens projecting us as 3D images in a virtual reality quantum computer simulation. This is really a crazy idea emerging from Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Seth Lloyd and others. Is it crazy enough to be true? 
  • Jack Sarfatti 4) John Cramer’s Foreword: I agree with Cramer that it’s too risky in the long run for us to be confined to the Earth and even to this solar system. British Astronomer Royal, Lord Martin Rees in his book “Our Final Hour” gives detailed reasons. Of course if a vacuum strangelet develops like Kurt Vonnegut’s “Ice-9”, then our entire observable universe can be wiped out, our causal diamond and beyond shattered, and there is no hope. That is essentially the apocalyptic worst-case scenario of the Bible’s “Revelations” and we will not dwell on it any further. Let’s hope it’s not a precognitive remote viewing like what the CIA observed in the Stanford Research Institute studies in the 1970’s.  Cramer cites the NASA-DARPA 100 Year Star Ship Project that I was involved with in the first two meetings. Cramer’s text is in quotes and italics. There is “little hope of reaching the nearby stars in a human lifetime using any conventional propulsion techniques … the universe is simply too big, and the stars are too far away. … What is needed is either trans-spatial shortcuts such as wormholes to avoid the need to traverse the enormous distances or a propulsion technique that somehow circumvents Newton’s third law and does not require the storage, transport and expulsion of large volumes of reaction mass.”
    Yes, indeed. I conjecture as a working hypothesis based on the UFO evidence that traversable wormhole stargate time travel machines are the only way to go with warp drive used only as a secondary mechanism at low speeds mainly for silent hovering near the surfaces of planets and for dogfights with conventional aerospace craft. The stargates do not have the blue shift problem that the Alcubierre warp drive has although the Natario warp drive does not have the blue shift problem (high-energy collisions with particles and radiation in the path of the starship). Newton’s third law that every force acting on a material object has an equal and opposite inertial reaction force on the source of that force is a conservation law that follows from symmetry Lie groups of transformations in parameters of the dynamical action of the entire closed system of source and material object. This is a very general organizing principle of theoretical physics known as Noether’s theorem for global symmetries in which the transformations are the same everywhere for all times in the universe. For example:
    Space Translation Symmetry Linear Momentum Conservation
    Time Translation Symmetry Energy Conservation
    Space-Space Rotation Symmetry Angular Momentum Conservation
    Space-Time Rotation Symmetry
    Internal U1 EM Force Symmetry Conserve 1 Electric Charge
    Internal SU2 Weak Force Symmetry Conserve 3 Weak Flavor Charges
    Internal SU3 Strong Force Symmetry Conserve 8 Strong Color Charges
  • Jack Sarfatti In a propellantless propulsion system without the rocket ejection of real particles and/or radiation one must include the gravity curvature field (dynamical space-time itself) as a source and sink of linear momentum. Furthermore, if we include quantum corrections to the classical fields there is the remote possibility of using virtual particle zero point fluctuations inside the vacuum as a source and sink of linear momentum. However, the conventional wisdom is that this kind of controllable small-scale metastable vacuum phase transition is impossible in principle and to do so would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (extracting work from an absolute zero temperature heat reservoir). Even if we could do the seemingly impossible, propellantless propulsion while necessary is not sufficient for a true warp drive. A true warp drive must be weightless (zero g-force) timelike geodesic and without time dilation for the crew relative to the external observer outside the warp bubble that they were initially clock synchronized with. 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. 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 events that cannot be connected by a light signal. However, the local gauge principle is much stronger, because it applies to pairs of spacelike 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. Finally, we have the P.W. Anderson’s anti-reductionist “More is different” emergence of complex systems of real particles in their quantum ground states with quasi-particles and collective mode excitations in soft condensed matter in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This corresponds to spontaneous symmetry breaking of the quantum vacuum’s virtual particles, in its high energy standard model analog, to the Higgs-Goldstone “God Particle” now found at ~ 125 Gev in CERN’s LHC that gives rest masses to leptons and quarks as well as to the three weak radioactivity force spin 1 gauge W-bosons though not to the single spin 1 photon gauge boson and the eight spin strong force gluon gauge bosons. In this quantum field theory picture, the near field non-radiating interactions among the leptons and quarks are caused by the exchange of virtual spacelike (tachyonic faster-than-light off-mass-shell) gauge bosons continuously randomly emitted and absorbed by the leptons and quarks. To make matters more complicated unlike the single rest massless U1 photon, the three weak rest massive SU2 W bosons and the eight strong rest massless SU3 gluons carry their respective Lie algebra charges, therefore, they self-interact. A single virtual gluon can split into two gluons for example. The SU3 quark-quark-gluon interaction gets stronger at low energy longer separations. This is called quantum chromodynamic confinement and it explains why we do not see free quarks in the present epoch of our causal diamond observable universe patch of the multiverse. Free quarks were there in a different quantum vacuum thermodynamic phase shortly after the Alpha Point chaotic inflation creation of our observable universe that we see with telescopes etc. Indeed, most of the rest mass of protons and neutrons comes from the confined Heisenberg uncertainty principle kinetic energy of the three real confined up and down quarks and their plasma cloud of virtual zero point gluons and virtual quark-antiquark pairs. The Higgs Yukawa interaction rest masses of three bound real quarks is about 1/20 or less than the total hadronic rest masses.

    The author, James F. Woodward (JFW), introduces Mach’s Principle though in an ambiguous way to my mind. He says that the computation of the rest mass from local quantum field theory as has been in fact accomplished for hadrons by MIT Nobel Laureate, Frank Wilczek et-al using supercomputers is not sufficient to explain the inertia of Newton’s Second Law of Particle Mechanics. This does sound like Occult Astrology at first glance, but we do have the 1940 Wheeler-Feynman classical electrodynamics in which radiation reaction is explained as a back-from-the-future retro causal advanced influence from the future absorber on the past emitter in a globally self-consistent loop in time. Indeed, Feynman’s path integral quantum theory grew out of this attempt. Hoyle and Narlikar, and John Cramer have extended the original classical Wheeler-Feynman theory to quantum theory. Indeed, the zero point virtual photons causing spontaneous emission decay of excited atomic electron states can be interpreted as a back from the future effect. The electromagnetic field in the classical Wheeler-Feynman model did not have independent dynamical degrees of freedom, but in the Feynman diagram quantum theory they do. However, the retro causal feature survives. Therefore the only way I can make sense of JFWs fringe physics proposal is to make the following conjecture. Let m0 be the renormalized rest mass of a real particle computed in the standard model of local quantum field theory. Then, the observed rest mass m0’ equals a dimensionless nonlocal coefficient C multiplied by the local m0 renormalized rest mass. Mach’s Principle is then C = 0 in an empty universe of only real test particles without any sources causing spacetime to bend. Furthermore, C splits into past history retarded and future destiny advanced pieces. Now is there any Popper falsifiable test of this excess baggage?
  • Jack Sarfatti 1) Springer-Praxis Books in Space Exploration (2013)
    2) Einstein in Zurich over one hundred years ago read of a house painter falling off his ladder saying he felt weightless.
    3) I have since disassociated myself from that project, as have other hard
    ...See More
  • Jack Sarfatti 4) Roughly speaking, for particle mechanics, the dynamical action is the time integral of the kinetic energy minus the potential energy. The classical physics action principle is that the actual path is an extremum in the sense of the calculus of variations relative to all nearby possible paths with the same initial and final conditions. Richard P. Feynman generalized this classical idea to quantum theory where the actual extremum path corresponds to constructive interference of complex number classical action phases one for each possible path. There are more complications for velocity-dependent non-central forces and there is also the issue of initial and final conditions. The action is generalized to classical fields where one must use local kinetic and potential analog densities and integrate the field Lagrangian density over the 4D spacetime region bounded by initial history and final teleological destiny 3D hypersurfaces boundary constraints. Indeed, Yakir Aharonov has generalized this to quantum theory in which there are back-from-the-future retro causal influences on present weak quantum measurements made between the past initial and future final boundary constraints. Indeed, in our observable expanding accelerating universe causal diamond, these boundary constraints, I conjecture, are our past cosmological particle horizon from the moment of chaotic inflation leading to the hot Big Bang, together with our future dark energy de Sitter event horizon. Both of them are BIT pixelated 2D hologram computer screens with us as IT voxelated “weak measurement” 3D hologram images projected from them. The horizon pixel BIT quanta of area are of magnitude (~10^-33 cm or 10^19 Gev)^2. The interior bulk voxel IT quanta of volume are of magnitude (~10^-13 cm or 1 Gev)^3. This ensures that the number N of BIT horizon pixels equals the number of IT interior voxels in a one-to-one correspondence. The actually measured dark energy density is proportional to the inverse fourth power of the geometric mean of the smallest quantum gravity Planck length with the largest Hubble-sized scale of our future de Sitter causal diamond ~ 10^28 cm. This, when combined with the Unruh effect, corresponds to the Stefan-Boltzmann law of black body radiation that started quantum physics back in 1900. However, this redshifted Hawking horizon blackbody radiation must be coming back from our future de Sitter cosmological horizon not from our past particle horizon.
  • Jack Sarfatti 5) 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.”
  •  
     
  • JackSarfatti's comment on A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox via @nytimes http://t.co/I671P9aoP3 1 of 2
    A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox
    nyti.ms
    A paradox around matter leaking from black holes puts into question various scientific axioms: Either information can be lost; Einstein’s principle of equivalence is wrong; or quantum field theory needs fixing.
  • Jack SarfattiActually I was the first to propose a connection between gravity wormholes and quantum entanglement back in the early 1970's when I was at Abdus Salam's Institute in Trieste, Italy. The idea is explicit in the zany book Space-Time and Beyond (Dutton, 1975) that I co-authored with New Age artist Bob Toben and physicist Fred Alan Wolf. MIT Professor David Kaiser describes this history in his award winning book "How the Hippies Saved Physics." Curious that this article thinks that traversable wormholes are impossible. Many physicists think otherwise. Traversable wormholes held open by gravitationally repulsive exotic dark energy without horizons would of course permit faster-than-light communication via entanglement in violation of orthodox quantum theory. Indeed, Antony Valentini has written papers on such signal nonlocality using David Bohm's interpretation of quantum theory when the "beables" are not in thermal equilibirium.
  • Jack SarfattiThe black hole horizon is already quite physical without violating Einstein's equivalence principle for the hovering observer who must have an increasingly large proper acceleration the closer he gets to the horizon. By the Unruh effect, the hovering observer Bob sees a large temperature of real thermal photons. If Bob burns up from hovering too close to the horizon, and if Alice free falls into the black hole in close contact with Bob, then it seems plausible that Alice will feel Bob's heat and indeed catch fire herself. Furthermore, the virtual electron-positron pairs stuck to the horizon in Hawking's radiation mechanism will also feel the photon heat high temperature and will get enough energy from the gravity field to excite into a real electron positron plasma within a Compton wavelength thickness, so that free-falling Alice should see that as a quantum firewall. The equivalence principle is a classical physics idea prior to quantum corrections. Hence, I see no real paradox if looked at from this perspective.

Jack Sarfatti proper acceleration in a static coordinate metric

ds^2 = gttdt^2 - grrdr^2 - r^2(spherical coordinate metric)

is

g(r) ~ gtt^-1/2d(g00/dr)

the two metrics of interest are

gtt = 1 - A^1/2/r black hole of area entropy A

we at r ---> infinity outside black hole

gtt = 1 - r'^2/A de Sitter horizon

we at r' = 0

inside cosmological horizon

use

1 + z = femit/fobserve f = frequency

1 + z = [gtt(observe)gtt(emit)]^1/2

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

Quantum gravity says horizons gtt = 0 are really Lp thick.

so for both metrics above using

r = A^1/2 + Lp for black hole

&

r' = A^1/2 - Lp

get 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 is

T ~ h(A^1/2/Lp)c^2/cA^1/2kB ~ hc/kB(LpA^1/2)^1/2

and 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 horizon

T' ~ hc/LpkB

which redshifts down to us to T' ~ hc/kB(LpA^1/2)^1/2

by Stephan Boltzman T^4 law

this gives hc/Lp^2A

both 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...

4
  1.  
  2. Nick Herbert's paradox - my solution
    "We argue that the following three statements cannot all be true: (i) Hawking radiation is in a pure state, (ii) the information carried by the radiation is emitted
    from the region near the horizon, wit
    h low energy effective field theory valid beyond some microscopic distance from the horizon, and (iii) the infalling observer encounters
    nothing unusual at the horizon. Perhaps the most conservative resolution is that the infalling observer burns up at the horizon. Alternatives would seem to require
    novel dynamics that nevertheless cause notable violations of semiclassical physics at macroscopic distances from the horizon."
    Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?
    Ahmed Almheiri,1* Donald Marolf,2*y Joseph Polchinski,3y and James Sully4*
    *Department of Physics
    University of California
    Santa Barbara, CA 93106
    We are outside objective black hole horizons whose Penrose diagram (no rotation) is
    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxP-Xhgy7E25XJkzfz3Ul4VIpd7vI5NKE1HcbO17rdYHDy04oZSA
    In contrast we are inside our subjective past and future cosmological horizons that form the causal diamond.
    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPgIpJhNz73AUqqa7ZZlSLiUrP6Fwm_n4IZ6FCszbNcO7Wa0T3
    Hawking & Gibbons show that Bekenstein-Unruh thermodynamics applies in both cases. So does Tamara Davis's PhD (2004 Univ New South Wales).
    http://stardrive.org/stardrive/images/stories/DavisFig1-1Hologram.jpg
    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTFxuJ0grFfMeEZ0OVXAyX6h6GTkrc9XROJJo2D2P5Aag1G2PmK
    However, in terms of Black Hole Complementarity the two situations are qualitatively different.
    (iii) must be true for our cosmological future event horizon because the latter is subjective relative to us in an undivided whole (Cramer transaction)
    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRkG8IoWQXTsqqQYJWg8Qna0sY8BTHwoMD3BLTiHdwVa1LKRaJsMA
    (iii) is essentially the Einstein Equivalence Principle
    (iii) however need not be true for the LIF geodesic in-falling observer to an objective black hole horizon.
    I think (ii) must be true in both cases.