Text Size

Stardrive

Tag » Horizon
  1. It seems to me that Bohmian beables are obviously required.
    1) fact is that we live in a classical macroscopic world where the fundamental observable is Maxwell's local classical electromagnetic field tensor F
    obeying in Cartan form notation
    F = dA
    dF = 0
    d*F = *J
    * = Hodge dual
    All our information about other fermion matter fields comes indirectly via F and also A if you include the Bohm-Aharonov quantum effect.
    Therefore, the basic classical observable is the F electromagnetic field.
    As Basil Hiley explains this beable F is an infinite-dimensional field configuration on a spacelike or lightlike surface in which each spacetime event is a "dimension". It has a super Q and photons are not localized like massive fermions are. If, instead of the continuum, we use a voxelated 3D + 1 world crystal lattice (Kleinert) then the hologram principle tells us that the lattice spacing is not the Planck length Lp, but rather it is L where
    L^3 = Lp^2A^1/2
    A = area - entropy of the horizon screen Seth pixelated computer
    The number of BITs in J. A. Wheeler's
    IT FROM BIT
    is N = A/4Lp^2 = A^3/2/L^3 ~ 10^52/10^-70 ~ 10^122 in our actual causal diamond pictured here
    Showing Apast and A future with 3D volumes of both retarded history and advanced destiny influence on the 3D lightlike slices. I think Susskind's student Raphael Buosso at UC Berkeley has worked this all out mathematically though perhaps not with the advanced Wheeler-Feynman -Cramer-Aharonov effect?
    Note the change in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which according to Susskind et-al is
    &x ~ h/&p + Lp^2&p/h
    However, I think it may really be
    &x ~ h/&p + L^2&p/h
    Note that
    Lp = 10^-35 meters
    A^1/2 = 10^26 meters
    L^3 ~ 10^-7010^26 = 10^-44 meters^3
    L ~ 10^-15 meter ~ 1 fermi ~ 1 Gev
    for the voxel unit cell of the hologram image world crystal lattice
    Hawking's black body radiation is a horizon surface effect
    T ~ A^-1/2
    I predict a second high temperature horizon thickness Hawking radiation of temperature
    T' ~ (LcA^1/2)^-1/2
    (LcA^1/2) is the proper length quantum thickness of the Horizon as a "stretched membrane" (Kip Thorne)
    Therefore, the stretched membrane is a very efficient Carnot limited heat engine with
    (Work outpu/Heat input ) < 1 - (Lc/A^1'2)^1/2 ---> 0 as A^1/2 ---> Lp (Planck black hole)
    Lc is the formal UV cutoff
    Now there may be a spectrum of such cutoff's. Sinziana Paduroiu's astrophysicist colleagues in Paris suggest that Susskind's cut off of Lp corresponds to Hawking gravity wave black body radiation.
    Note that for precision cosmology (LpA^1/2)^1/2 ~ (10^-3510^26)^1/2 ~ (10^-9)^1/2 ~ 10^-3 meters ~ 10^11 Hz corresponding to the observed dark energy density. However, it is easily shown that this must come from our future horizon as a retro-causal back-from-the-future "destiny" (Aharonov) effect.
    Search Results
    Back From the Future | DiscoverMagazine.com
    discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future
    Aug 26, 2010 – A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has ...
    On Jun 26, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
    Thanks Jack, I'll look at these. But to the extent that you have to adduce a Bohmian picture to support your claim, I can't buy it, because I don't think the 'beable' approach is correct. I don't agree that there are 'beables'. RK
    Back From the Future | DiscoverMagazine.com
    discovermagazine.com
    A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?
    •  
    •  
       
      Fifth FQXi Essay Contest: It From Bit, or Bit From It?
      lnkd.in
      The Fifth essay contest from the Foundational Questions Institute is now underway. The topic is about whether information is more fundamental than material objects. The subject is similar to the co...
    • Jack Sarfatti IT FROM BIT + BIT FROM IT = Conscious Universe as a John Archibald Wheeler Self-Excited Self-Organizing Circuit.
    • Jack Sarfatti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
      en.wikipedia.org
      John Archibald Wheeler (July 9, 1911 – April 13, 2008) was an Americantheoretica...See More
    • Jack Sarfatti Michael Towler wrote about my theory: "Living matter and back-action
      In certain dark corners of the internet, can find speculation of the following nature:
      • Propose the wave function/pilot wave is intrinsically ‘mental’ and capable of qualia.
      • Equate
      the pilot wave with the mental aspect of the universe, generally: the
      particles are ‘matter’, and ‘mind’ the pilot wave.
      OK, who cares, except..
      • ‘Mental’ aspect of universe upgradeable to life/consciousness by self-organization.
      Happens when a physical system uses its own nonlocality in its organization.
      • In this case a feedback loop is created, as follows: system configures itself so as to
      set up its own pilot wave, which in turn directly affects its physical configuration,
      which then affects its non-local pilot wave, which affects the configuration etc..
      • Normally in QM this ‘back-action’ is not taken into account. The wave guides
      the particles but back-action of particle onto wave not systematically calculated.
      Of course, the back-action is physically real since particle movement determines
      initial conditions for next round of calculation. But there is no systematic way to
      characterize such feedback. One reason this works in practice is that for systems
      that are not self-organizing the back-action may not exert any systematic effect.
      Well, it’s not obviously wrong..!
      [see p.346, Bohm and Hiley’s Undivided Universe).]
    • Jack Sarfatti Towler continued: "Two-way traffic
      Important to note that pilot-wave theory does not take into account any effect of
      individual particle on its own quantum field (though Bohm and Hiley briefly sketch
      some ideas about how this might happen, see e.g. Und
      ivided Universe pp. 345-346).
      • Idea that particles collectively affect quantum field of a single particle is contained in the standard
      notion that shape of quantum field of a particle is determined by shape of environment (which
      consists of many particles, and is part of the boundary conditions put into the Schr¨odinger equation
      before solving it, even in conventional QM).
      • Celebrity nutjob Jack Sarfatti (see e.g., er.. www.stardrive.org) in particular has emphasized
      the need for an explanation of how the individual particle influences its own field and has proposed
      mechanisms for such ‘back-action’, also emphasizing its importance in understanding the mindmatter
      relationship and how consciousness arises (see earlier slide).
      • Assuming that notion of such an influence of the particle on its field can be coherently developed,
      we can then have two-way traffic between the mental and the physical levels without reducing one
      to the other. Role of Bohm’s model of the quantum system then would be that it provides a kind of
      prototype that defines a more general class of systems in which a field of information is connected
      with a material body by a two-way relationship.
      • Quantum theory is currently our most fundamental theory of matter and Bohm suggests that, when
      ontologically interpreted, it reveals a proto-mental aspect of matter. This is the quantum field,
      described mathematically by the wave function, which is governed by the Schr¨odinger equation.
      Bohm’s suggestion is known as panprotopsychism.. so at least you learned a new word today..!"
      stardrive.org
      Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
       
      Jack Sarfatti You are 100% correct on this Chris.
      However, I think the FX version will allow comments on their website. If that is really so, then you and others should post your comments on the submissions as well submit an essay. I will try to work on one myself -
      though I will be in London, Paris, South of France etc. during April & May.

      On Mar 27, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Chris Langan <cml325@gmail.com> wrote:

      Of course, everyone is aware that SciAm and Templeton are markedly slanted in their approaches.
      Speaking just for myself, past experience suggests that if one deviates in any way from their preferred viewpoints - respectively, atheistic physicalism and "humility theology", which essentially holds that theological truth is inaccessible and should be abandoned in favor of religious syncretism and mere "reconciliation" between science and religion - then one has approximately a snowball's chance in hell of winning the competition. (If your name has ever been mentioned by anyone at all in the same breath as, say, Intelligent Design, then your chances are somewhat worse.)
      On the other hand, if one's ideas already fall within those guidelines, then one may do just fine.

      On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
      I think its same one as fx?

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Mar 27, 2013, at 10:04 AM, David Mathes <davidmathes8@yahoo.com> wrote:

      Jack

      John Templeton Foundation sponsors an interesting essay contest that just opened up...closes in

      http://fqxi.org/community/essay

      Topical: The theme for this Essay Contest is: "It from Bit or Bit from It?"
      The past century in fundamental physics has shown a steady progression away from thinking about physics, at its deepest level, as a description of material objects and their interactions, and towards physics as a description of the evolution of information about and in the physical world. Moreover, recent years have shown an explosion of interest at the nexus of physics and information, driven by the "information age" in which we live, and more importantly by developments in quantum information theory and computer science.

      We must ask the question, though, is information truly fundamental or not?
      Yes.
      Can we realize John Wheeler’s dream,

      Yes.
      or is it unattainable?

      No.
      We ask: ”It From Bit or Bit From It?”

      False dichotomy. It's both forming a creative self-organizing "self-excited circuit" of conscious intent.

      Michael Towler brilliantly describes my proposal on this in his Lecture 8 http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

      Possible topics or sub-questions include, but are not limited to:
      What IS information?
      That's an easy one: the Bohm quantum potential Q in particle mechanics and its generalization to field theory.

      John Leslie reviews 'The Undivided Universe' by David Bohm ...
      www.lrb.co.uk/v16/n09/john-leslie/the-absolute-now
      The Absolute Now. John Leslie. The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory by David Bohm, translated by Basil Hiley Routledge ...
      The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation ... - Amazon.ca
      www.amazon.ca › ... › New & Used Textbooks › Humanities › Philosophy
      In the The Undivided Universe, David Bohn and Basil Hiley present a ... Review. ' This is a brilliant book, of great depth and originality. Every physicist and ...
      One must also look at the pixelated cosmological horizons both past and future in which their area-entropies A may be the projective hologram screens where

      N = A/Lp^2 = A^3/2/L^3 ~ 10^123 asymptotically into the far future

      L = 3D voxel scale (quantum of volume of the hologram image)

      We are inside these past and future cosmological 2D anyonic topological computing horizons at the exact center always at each point along our world line.

      Tamara Davis, Ph.D. Fig 1.1c http://dark.nbi.ku.dk/people/tamara/
      What is its relation to “Reality”?

      Depends what you mean by the word. If one means the totality of possible measurement patterns, then if one believes that the world is a quantum bit hologram image simulation, then matter is the hologram image projected both ways in time from our observer-dependent past particle and future de Sitter dark energy cosmological horizons inside the light speed limited "causal diamond" of our subjective observable universe.

      The hardware hologram screens are the horizons where g00 = 0 in the static LNIF representation of the cosmological metric.

      For example, for static LNIF observers with proper accelerations

      g(r) ~ c^2g00^-1/2dg00/dr

      g00 ~ 1 - r^2/A

      where WE are always at r = 0

      How does nature (the universe and the things therein) “store” and “process” information?
      How does understanding information help us understand physics, and vice-versa?
      (Note: While this topic is broad, successful essays will not use this breadth as an excuse to shoehorn in the author's pet topic, but will rather keep as their central focus the theme of whether information or “material” objects are more fundamental.)

      Additionally, to be consonant with FQXi's scope and goals, essays should be primarily concerned with physics (mainly quantum physics, high energy 'fundamental' physics, and gravity), cosmology (mainly of the early universe), or closely related fields (such as astrophysics, astrobiology, biophysics, mathematics, complexity and emergence, and philosophy of physics), insofar as they bear directly on questions in physics or cosmology.
      Foundational: This Contest is limited to works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.

      Submission: Essays and accompanying material must be submitted online using the webform between the dates of March 25, 2013, and June 28, 2013 (until 11:59PM Eastern Time). Applicants must provide accurate contact information, an abstract of their essay, a brief biographical statement, and their essay.

      D
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.