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
I compute that black holes have much shorter evaporation times than Hawking et-al first computed. They computed surface vibrations and neglected thickness vibrations due to geometrodynamical field zero point vacuum fluctuations.
On 4/9/2014 4:42 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:According to Einstein’s classical geometrodynamics, our future dark energy generated cosmological horizon is as real, as actualized as the cosmic blackbody radiation we measure in WMAP, Planck etc.
But doesn't its location depend on the position of the observer? How "real" is that?
I assume by "dark energy generated" you simply mean that the FRWL metric expansion is due to /, and
/ registers the presence of dark energy.
We have actually measured advanced back-from-the-future Hawking radiation from our future horizon. It’s the anti-gravitating dark energy Einstein cosmological “constant” / accelerating the expansion of space.
OK so the recession of our future horizon produces Hawking-like radiation due to the acceleration of our frame of reference
wrt the horizon?
You seem to be drawing a direct physical analogy between cosmological horizons and black hole horizons.
It’s energy density is ~ hc/Lp^2AA = area of future horizon where the future light cone of the detector intersects it.
Jack Sarfatti Horizons, ‘t Hooft - Susskind Holographic Conjecture & Cosmic 10Hz EM Signal
We are outside observer-independent black hole horizons so that the inverse square law applies to them. In contrast, we are inside our observer-dependent cosmological horizons at the exact center where the Hawking radiation from it converges. Curiously, using the asymptotic area ~ 1052 meter2 of our future dark energy de Sitter horizon, and L ~ 10-35 meters for indirect Hawking-Unruh horizon thickness gravity wave emission corresponds very roughly (back-of-the-envelope) to a peak blackbody wavelength ~ 1013-17.5 ~ (1/3) x 10-4 meters ~ (3 x 1012 Hz)-1 with Stefan-Boltzmann HFGW energy density ~ hc/LP2A ~ 10-34 108 107010-52 ~ 10-8 Joules/meter3 ~ 10-28 gm/cc ~ critical density for k = 0 flat universe ~ dark energy density. Remember, these are black body gravity waves not electromagnetic waves. However, dark energy comes from virtual bosons with w = -1 negative quantum pressure causing the expansion of 3D space to accelerate rather than slow down. Blackbody radiation, in contrast, has w = +1/3 positive quantum pressure causing gravity universal attraction rather than anti-gravity universal repulsion. However, the Unruh effect’s Bogoliubov transformation says that the LIF observer sees virtual bosons with w = -1 whilst the physically coincident LNIF observer sees real blackbody bosons with w = +1/3. We are only concerned with the distant observer far away from the horizon, which limits to a LIF for both the Schwarzschild black hole and the de Sitter cosmological toy model metrics. So this is a clue as to what may really be going on. It is not a rigorous argument.
Even more problematical is that we, most likely, must use classical causality in the sense of where the past and future light cones intersect both the past particle and future event cosmological horizons of the detector. One can see that the area of our past particle horizon is smaller than the area of our future event horizon at the corresponding light cone intersections. The ball park numerical agreement with the actually observed dark energy density from Type 1a supernovae anomalous redshift data in our past light cones will only work if the gravity waves are advanced Wheeler-Feynman waves propagating back to us along our future light cone. This is reminiscent of Yakir Aharonov’s “destiny” post-selected quantum waves that interfere with pre-selected “history waves to form the “weak measurements” in the intermediate time. John Cramer’s “transactional interpretation” also uses advanced quantum waves. Of course, quantum waves for subluminal massive particles travel outside the classical light cones. Furthermore, the hologram conjecture is that a conformal 2D + 1 anyonic fractional quantum statistical heat resistant topological computer quantum field theory on both our past and future cosmological horizons provide a 3D + 1 quantum gravity geometrodynamics in the interior bulk of this causal diamond observable piece of a “Level 1” multiverse in the sense of Max Tegmark’s classification.[i] Thus, it is plausible that the dark energy density is an advanced Wheeler-Feynman hologram influence and that we live in a kind of virtual “weak measurement” computed reality. Fred Hoyle anticipated this picture back in 1983 in his book “The Intelligent Universe.” On the other hand, the hologram conjecture predicts that the Planck area pixels on our past and future cosmological quantum computing horizon screens have Fermi-scale voxels. This would mean a strong short-range Abdus Salam f-gravity “quantum foam” which may be disproved by the high-energy gamma ray experiments looking for violations of Lorentz invariance in deviations from the special relativity mass shell constraint. If so, that would disprove the hologram conjecture.
The above is for advanced black body gravity waves from our future cosmological horizon. What about advanced black body electromagnetic waves from the electron-positron plasma confined within a Compton wavelength of our future cosmological horizon? Now the peak wavelength is ~ 10-12/2 1013 ~ 107 meters ~ (10Hz)-1 in the same range as our EEG human brain waves relevant to our waking consciousness and other vital brain activity.
[i] Strictly speaking, the AdS/CFT conjecture has only been “proved” for negative cosmological constant in 4D+1, not for our actual positive cosmological constant in 3D+1. However, the general idea is intuitively appealing and we shall simply assume it is correct as a working hypothesis and wait for the mathematical types to catch up with us.
Jack Sarfatti On the other hand, in Feynman’s propagator diagram theory particles moving backward in time have negative energy. Wheeler and Ciufolini wrote:
“In the Hawking process, two newly created particles exchange energy, one acquiring negative energy –E and the other positive energy E. Slightly outside the horizon of the black hole, the negative energy photon has enough time to cross the horizon. Therefore, the negative energy particle flies inward from the horizon; the positive energy particle flies off to a distance. The energy it carries with it comes in the last analysis from the black hole itself. The massive object is no longer quite so massive because it has had to pay the debt of energy brought in by the negative energy member of the newly created pair of particles.” P. 68
Again we are outside black hole horizons, but are inside our observer-dependent cosmological horizons both past and future. Therefore, the advanced w = + 1/3 Wheeler-Feynman Hawking black body radiation from our cosmological future de Sitter event horizon will be exotic, i.e. negative energy density, causing universal anti-gravity repulsion.
Term "vacuum propeller" invented at fourmilab.ch
Jack SarfattiFrom: Paul Zelinsky [mailto:yksnilez@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 10:55 AM
To: GNPellegrini@aol.com
Cc: jwoodward@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU; adastra1@me.com; Kafatos, Menas
Subject: Re: [PhysicsFellows] Getting back to Jim's MET & DARK ENERGY COSMOLOGICAL CON...
OK here I agree with Menas.
On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:35 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:
"Agree with Paul.
So now let’s move on.
What is next?"
Jack writes: Glad u asked.
My version of Jim's MET CONJECTURE
C = Mach Effect
Just in toy model Newtonian mechanics first for simplicity in an inertial frame
F = Cmd^2r/dt^2 + m(dC/dt)dr/dt + mrd^2C/dt^2
effective "dark energy" potential
V ~ (r/c)^2d^2C/dt^2
/ "cosmological constant" ~ d^2C/dt^2
In Einstein's GR this goes into g00
and a nonunitary dissipative friction term
In Einstein's GR this goes into the gravimagnetic metric gi0
Propellantless propulsion is when F = 0
Also
C = CDestiny + CHistory
The Hungarian claims CHistory = 0.82
therefore back from the future CDestiny = 0.18
In a toy GR model imagine only spherical Earth of mass ME and of radius rE and distant matter given by the Mach Cosmological Screening Coefficient C taken to be a pure dimensionless variable that Jim hopes to manipulate with his gizmo.
g00 = 1 - 2GME/c^2|r + rE| + (|r + rE|/c)^2d^2C/dt^2
gi0 = (dC/dt)(xi/c)
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.
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.
om 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...
In physics (especially astrophysics), redshift happens when light seen coming fr