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

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.

From my Stargate book (still not finished)

1974: Hawking shows that all black-holes radiate black body radiation[i] whose peak wavelength l_max is roughly the square root of the area-entropy of the black-hole’s horizon, i.e., l_max ~ A1/2 where the entropy S ~ k_BA/4.

Kip Thorne’s book “Black Holes and Time Warps” (1994) gives the best popular explanation of Hawking’s horizon evaporation radiation and the history of its discovery including the role of Zeldovitch in the Soviet Union some forty years ago. Zeldovitch arguing by analogy to the electrodynamics of a rotating neutral conducting sphere said that the virtual photons of the zero point vacuum fluctuations would “tickle” the metal like spontaneous emission of light triggered by virtual photons interacting with real electrons in excited atoms, the rotational energy of the sphere then converting to real photons. Hawking was with Zeldovitch at Les Houches in France. Some time later Hawking, using Bekenstein’s thermodynamics of horizons where the temperature is proportional to the inverse square root of the horizon’s area-entropy A. That is T_cold ~ A^-1/2. I realized in 2013 that this is only half the story, and that there is a second higher temperature T_hot ~ (LA^1/2)^-1/2, which is the proper quantum thickness of the horizon. For example, when L = Planck length we have gravity wave Hawking horizon thickness radiation, when L = Compton wavelength we have electromagnetic radiation from properly accelerating real electrons and positrons. There will also be a sharp gamma ray signal from electron-positron annihilations outside the black-hole horizon. Indeed, the horizon, in the stretched membrane description, is a heat engine of high maximal efficiency ~ 1 – (L/A^1/2)^1/2. Returning to Kip Thorne’s narrative, Zeldovich was convinced the mostly gravity wave rotation radiation would stop when the black-hole stopped rotating from Kerr metric to Schwarzschild metric. However, Hawking did rough calculations suggesting that even stationary black-holes would evaporate mostly by gravity wave emission, although all kinds of thermal emission of every type would also occur. Kip Thorne wrote:

There are several different ways to picture black-hole evaporation … However, all the ways acknowledge vacuum fluctuations as the ultimate source of the outflowing radiation … The waves fluctuate randomly and unpredictably, with positive energy momentarily here, negative energy momentarily there, and zero energy on average. The particle aspect is embodied in the concept of virtual particles, that is particles that flash into existence in pairs (two particles at a time) …

And they are quantum entangled as in the EPR effect.[ii]

… living momentarily on fluctuational energy borrowed from neighboring regions of space, and that then annihilate and disappear, giving their energy back to the neighboring regions. For electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations, the virtual particles are virtual photons; for gravitational vacuum fluctuations, they are virtual gravitons.  … a virtual electron and a virtual positron are likely to flash into existence as an [entangled] pair … the photon is its own antiparticle, so virtual photons flash in and out of existence in [entangled] pairs, and similarly for gravitons. …

The way the phenomenon appears depends on the local frame of the observer. First for the LIF non-rotating timelike geodesic observer in weightless free float:

A black-hole’s tidal gravity pulls an [entangled] pair of virtual photons apart, thereby feeding energy into them … The virtual photons can separate from each other easily, so long as they both remain in a region where the electromagnetic field has momentarily acquired positive energy … the region’s size will always be about the same as the wavelength of the fluctuating electromagnetic field … If the wavelength happens to be about the same as the hole’s circumference [~ A1/2], then the virtual photons can easily separate from eac

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.

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. • Status
   • Photo
   • Place
   • Life Event

   What's on your mind?
2. 

   Jack Sarfatti

   a few seconds ago near San Francisco

   Life time of a solar mass black hole if the new higher temperature quantum thickness Hawking radiation really exists

   Like · · Share

   • 

     Jack Sarfatti(A^1/2/L)^1/2 ~ 10^8
     
     so for photons 10^24 times faster - that's still 10^-24x 10^67 = 10^43 years if the horizon is h/mc = 10^-11 cm thick
     
     for gravity waves
     
     (10^19)^3 = 10^57 times faster
     
     lifetime is 10^67 years - so that's only 10^10 years = life time of universe
     
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

     

     Hawking radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

     en.wikipedia.org

     Hawking radiation is black body radiation that is predicted to be emitted by bla...See More

      

Jack Sarfatti

2 hours ago

James F. Woodward's book "Making Starships and Stargates" Ch 1

• Ronon Rex likes this.
• 

  Jack Sarfatti15) Woodward’s Chapter 1: Newton’s rotating bucket. I agree with Rovelli in his book “Quantum Gravity” Ch. 2 that we do not need Mach’s Principle here. Everything is local field theory. The extended test particle, in this case Newton’s bucket filled with water on a twisted cord will behave in the same way even if the universe is empty. The water surface will go concave independent of the distant matter of the stars and beyond. This is because special relativity’s globally flat Minkowski spacetime is a solution of Einstein’s general relativity field equations – even if unstable that is not relevant here. Therefore, the volume elements of the rotating water are being pushed off the timelike geodesics of Minkowski spacetime with non-zero radially inward centripetal proper acceleration by the real electrical forces of the material. Of course there is no obvious way to Popper falsify this issue. With regard to p. 22 on whether we should use the virtual spacelike spin 2 graviton “force” picture against a non-dynamical background-dependent globally flat Minkowski background. Kaluza and Klein tried to extend the equivalence principle, to geometrize the electromagnetic force by introducing an extra curled up dimension of space. This led to modern day controversial superstring theory, which not only introduces six extra space-dimensions (seven in M-theory) but makes the space a non-commuting matrix space. Feynman showed in his Cal Tech course on gravity, that one can apply his QED Feynman diagrams to the spin 2 tensor field on Minkowski space, but that we need to sum an infinite number of his tree diagrams to arrive at Einstein’s gravity field equations as a non-perturbative emergent collective effect similar to the “More is different” (P.W. Anderson) emergence of the Higgs-Goldstone spontaneous broken U1 gauge symmetry ground state of the BCS superconductor. There is also the issue of the non-tree diagrams with closed vacuum loops with problems of renormalizability. Similar problems arose with the weak-strong spin 1 Yang-Mills gauge theory. G. ‘tHooft solved that with spontaneous broken symmetry of the vacuum. Why does that not also work for spin 2 gravity? Einstein’s 1916 general relativity corresponds to the local gauging of the globally rigid ten-parameter Poincare Lie symmetry group of his 1905 special relativity. As shown by T.W.B. Kibble at Imperial College, London in 1961, this gives the extended Einstein-Cartan theory with two independent dynamical curvature and torsion fields. Curvature comes from localizing the six-parameter Lorentz space-time rotation subgroup generated by angular momentum and boosts. Curvature corresponds to disclination topological defects on a “world crystal lattice” (Hagen Kleinert, Free University of Berlin). Torsion comes from localizing the four-parameter translation group generated by the 4-momentum. Torsion corresponds to disclination defects in the world crystal lattice. Einstein’s 1916 model is the limiting case of Einstein-Cartan with the adhoc constraint of zero dynamical torsion put in by hand. Indeed, these local translations are precisely the general curvilinear coordinate transformations of Einstein’s 1916 papers that describe the actual relationships between physically coincident timelike massive observers with proper accelerations from real forces pushing them off local timelike geodesics. The presence or absence of local tensor curvature is not directly relevant. The dynamical background independent curvature field of course bends the timelike and lightlike (null) geodesics away from what they would be counterfactually in nondynamical Minkowski spacetime. Globally flat Minkowski spacetime is very special because it allows global frames of reference that extend over the whole universe. This is not possible when there are real tensor curvature gravity fields. Now we can only use local frames of reference, either local inertial LIFs (“frefos” Lenny Susskind) or local non-inertial LNIFs (“fidos” Lenny Susskind). Furthermore, we can only compare local frames that are physically coincident – with proper separations small compared to the locally varying radii of curvature. The components of curvature are the inverse squares of the several tensor radii of curvature. Formally, all the coincident LNIFs lie on the same “gauge orbit” in Lie group theory. They are all different representations of the same geometrodynamic curvature field seen from different perspectives in locally properly accelerating LNIFs. There are also the LIFs in which, Newton’s gravity force, is eliminated to a good approximation. Indeed, the connection between locally coincident LNIFs and LIFs are the sixteen tetrad components. These sixteen components form four first rank tensor fields, one of which describe the tangent 4-vector to the timelike world line of the COM of the LIF. The LIF tetrads themselves are quasi “Yang-Mills” spin 1 gravity fields that combine with in pairs to form the ten spin 2 symmetric tensor fields in accord with Einstein’s Equivalence Principle (EEP). Newton’s gravity force is represented by the Levi-Civita connection that vanishes at the center of mass (COM) of the LIF. However, the Levi-Civita connection components also describe all the fictitious inertial pseudo-forces found in Newton’s particle mechanics. They are explicitly, in the case of rotation, Coriolis, centripetal and Euler. Under conditions of constraint, for example, a moving bead constrained on a circular wire. Electrical contact real forces from the wire on the moving bead provide the real inward centripetal radial acceleration.

  2 hours ago · Like
• 

  Jack SarfattiWe must be clear, what is meant by a “real force” as distinct from a “fictitious inertial pseudoforce.” This distinction depends on first distinguishing the measured object from the detector measuring its motion. Fictitious inertial pseudo forces do not act on the measured object. That is, an accelerometer clamped to the measured object will not show any local proper tensor acceleration (aka “g-force”). In fact, however, an identical accelerometer clamped to the detector will show a local proper tensor acceleration on the detector from some real force acting on it. Therefore, fictitious inertial pseudoforces are optical illusions, purely kinematical artifacts, that appear to act on the measured object, but are really acting on the measuring apparatus. For example, we standing still on surface of the Earth are static LNIFs with radially outward proper tensor accelerations in topsy turvy curved spacetime. Literally, we properly accelerate towards a freely falling cannon ball on a 4D timelike geodesic that is the parabolic orbit in ordinary 3D space. This is hard for many to wrap and warp their minds around. So here is where we come into conflict with Woodward’s idea. He appears to unconsciously shift meanings of “fictitious force” in his argument leading to false conclusions in my opinion. Therefore, I disagree with Woodward’s too vague ambiguous remark: “ Coriolis forces … do not be fooled, they are not the same as gravity …” p. 26 It depends what you mean by “gravity”. If one means the real gravity tensor curvature – then of course that’s correct. However, the proper context is Newton’s famous inverse square force and that is precisely in the same ontic category as the Coriolis, centrifugal and Euler fictitious pseudoforces. Indeed, C. Lanczos showed this explicitly for the Levi-Civita connection. The non-tensor Levi-Civita connection describes all the fictitious forces – the optical illusions seen by observers with proper local tensor accelerations on off-timelike geodesic world lines. The self-referential covariant curl of the non-tensor Levi-Civita connection with itself is the fourth-rank tensor curvature field of real gravity if it’s non-zero. However, the Levi-Civita connection is useful even in special relativity with zero curvature because it describes accelerating observers there as well.

  about an hour ago · Edited · Like
• 

  Jack SarfattiThe meaning of “constraint” in this specific context is when the measured object and the measuring apparatus are clamped to the same rotating frame, e.g. a rotating disk. In this case, the clamp provides a real electrical contact force on the measured object must provide the inward radial acceleration magnitude square of rotation rate x distance to the axis of rotation. Of course, in accord with Newton’s third law, the measured object exerts and equal and opposite reaction contact force back on the clamp.

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...

• Cesar Estrada likes this.
• 

  Jack Sarfatti Hawking's low freq radiation are analogous to Goldstone modes, my new high freq horizon signal is like a Higgs signal.

  a few seconds ago · Like · 1
• 

  Jack Sarfatti On jet-lag in London from SFO
  
  Hawking radiation peak frequency is c/A^1/2
  
  A = area entropy of 2D horizon gtt = 0.
  
  Think of horizon as spherical membrane of thickness Lp.
  
  So c/A^1/2 are the theta, phi phase waves in an effective order parameter potential V(r, theta, phi).
  
  As A ---> infinity the frequency ---> 0 - massless Goldstone mode.
  
  However, the Higgs mode I predict is in the radial vibrations peak frequency c/Lp gets red shifted by (Lp/A^1/2)^1/2 < 1 at the detector to peak frequency
  
  c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 > c/A^1/2
  
  In limit A ---> infinity both modes are gapless, but as soon as A is finite the Higgsian type mode splits off a higher frequency branch.
  
  Not sure how far this analogy goes, but I want to record it just in case.