Text Size


Tag » Cosmological Constant

 if you use static coordinates

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

1 + z = [gtt(receiver)/gtt(source)]^1/2

use  r ~ A^1/2 - Lp  in gtt(source)  and r = 0 for gtt(receiver)

for advanced offer wave in the Cramer transaction

result is (first order Taylor series)

1 + z ~ (1/(Lp/A^1/2)^1/2) = (A^1/2/Lp)^1/2

---> infinity as Lp ---> 0

My argument in co-moving Friedmann coordinates below is consistent with the in static coordinates above.

As above
So below ;-)

Indeed Tamara Davis in her PhD says what I say about the change of distance to our past and future horizons It's obvious from her diagram (Fig 1.1)

We recede from our past particle horizon, we approach our future dark energy de Sitter horizon.

1) In a Cramer transaction a retarded offer wave to us from near our past horizon is redshifted.

An advanced confirmation wave from us to near our past particle horizon is blue shifted.

Our relative space is effectively expanding forward in time in this transaction with our past horizon.

2) In a Cramer transaction an advanced offer wave to use from our future horizon is redshifted.

A retarded confirmation wave from us to it is blue shifted.

Our relative space is effectively contracting forward in time in this transaction with our future horizon.

Therefore, it is effectively expanding backwards in time for a back from the future advanced wave to us.

Advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking black body radiation of peak energy hc/Lp is then redshifted down to hc/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 at our detectors.

From Stefan-Boltzmann T^4 law this gives energy density hc/Lp^2A, which happens to agree with the actual dark energy density accelerating out causal diamond observable patch of the multiverse.

A = area of our future horizon at intersection with our future light cone.

The co-moving distance from us to our future horizon decreases forward in time.

The co-moving distance from us to our past horizon increases forward in time.

Virtual electron-positron pairs "stuck" on our future horizon are properly accelerating unlike real co-moving charges with zero proper acceleration AWAY from us. Therefore, using Doppler analogy radiation from them to us is redshifted. The virtual pairs are elevated to real pairs by the very hot Unruh radiation they feel locally. This is all in relation to us distant observers according to Susskind's "horizon complementarity".

proper acceleration of the virtual electron positron pairs stuck on the horizon is

g(r) = -(c^2/2)gtt^-1/2dgtt/dr

in static LNIF coordinates ONLY

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

dgtt/dr = -2r/A

g(r) = +c^2(1 - r^2/A)^-1/2r/A

note that we are at r = 0.

IN CONTRAST, for comoving sources in usual FRW coordinates  gt't' = 1 so g'(r) = 0.

For details see Wikipedia.

  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
    In contrast we are inside our subjective past and future cosmological horizons that form the causal diamond.
    Hawking & Gibbons show that Bekenstein-Unruh thermodynamics applies in both cases. So does Tamara Davis's PhD (2004 Univ New South Wales).
    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)
    (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.

I explain the low value of the cosmological constant without a multiverse, without eternal chaotic inflation, without a landscape, without the need for large numbers like 10^500 and higher etc. The cosmological constant is simply advanced Wheeler-Feynman blackbody radiation from our detector-dependent future horizon that is completely redshifted down to virtual photons when it reaches us - or Type 1a supernovae in our past light cone because the horizons are infinite redshift surfaces in both directions of time. Also it explains the Arrow of Time.

hc/Lp^4 at the future horizon relative to the detector ---> hc/ALp^2 at the past detector is trivial in the retrocausal loop model that also fits Aharonov's destiny state vector.
On Aug 6, 2012, at 11:03 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@mac.com> wrote:

Fractal-Flows and Time's Arrow
Leonard Susskind
(Submitted on 29 Mar 2012 (v1), last revised 7 Apr 2012 (this version, v2))
This is the written version of a lecture at the KITP workshop on Bits, Branes, and Black Holes. In it I describe work with D. Harlow, S. Shenker, D. Stanford which explains how the tree-like structure of eternal inflation, together with the existence of terminal vacua, leads to an arrow-of-time. Conformal symmetry of the dS/CFT type is inconsistent with an arrow-of-time and must be broken. The presence in the landscape of terminal vacua leads to a new kind of attractor called a fractal-flow, which both breaks conformal symmetry, and creates a directional time-asymmetry. This can be seen from both the local or causal-patch viewpoint, and also from the global or multiversal viewpoint. The resulting picture is consistent with the view recently expressed by Bousso.

On Aug 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, art wagner <wagnerart@hotmail.com> wrote:


Yes, this is very relevant to my current conversation with Dan Smith.