Text Size

Stardrive

Tag » Kip Thorne

Einstein was writing all this before modern quantum theory. Today we know that the Aether is the quantum vacuum filled with virtual particles that are off mass-shell i.e. E^2 =/= (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 Also contact forces are caused by off-mass shell virtual photons in the non-radiative near field including longitudinal polarizations absent in real photons on the mass shell (light cone). Action at a distance is in the Wheeler-Feynman classical sense confined to the photon mass shell (aka light cone) but including advanced back from the future destiny waves generalized to "confirmation" quantum de Broglie waves by John Cramer in his TI. This is in addition to the more familiar retarded history waves. de Broglie waves are faster than light in phase quantum information when m =/= 0 though slower than light in energy transport. nonlocal EPR correlations are explained by retrocausal advanced confirmation destiny waves in the Feynman zig zag (term coined by O Costa de Beauregard). On Jun 22, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote: And he said almost the same things in 1924: http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/aether.htm On 6/22/2014 7:46 PM, art wagner wrote: The Einstein Ether (1920): http://www.bonus.manualsforall.com/Educational/Albert-Einstein/Albert Einstein - Ether And The Theory Of Relativity.PDF

 

"Let us illustrate the problem of signalling with the assistance of the ubiquitous experimenters Alice and Bob. We will place Alice and Bob at some distance apart, and between them there will be a source emitting pairs of entangled particles. To avoid relativistic complications we will assume that Alice, Bob, their detectors, and the particle source are all mutually at rest in an inertial frame (the ‘lab’ frame). Pair after pair of particles are emitted by the source and detected by Alice and Bob's apparatuses, who record their results. Alice and Bob are free to alter the angle of their detectors with each run of the apparatus.

 
What each experimenter will record is an apparently random sequence of ups and downs, like the results of an honest coin repeatedly tossed; and yet, when they compare results afterward, they will note that certain correlations, generally sinusoidal in form, stand between their results. For example, if the particles are spin-1/2 fermions, and if Alice and Bob are measuring spin in a particular direction, then the correlation between their results will be -cos@ where @ is the angle between Alice and Bob's detectors. Sinusoidal correlations like these readily violate mathematical inequalities such as those defined by Bell (1964).  Itamar Pitowsky (1994) showed that the Bell Inequalities are examples of “conditions of possible experience” first written down by George Boole; these are consistency conditions between measurement results on the assumption that the results of one measurement and the way it is carried out does not influence the measurement of the other particle at the time of measurement. This means that the particular sequence of results that Alice and Bob get at their respective detectors could not have been encoded in the particles at the source; for some relative angles their results are too well correlated or anti-correlated for them to be due to local causes built into both particles when they were emitted” Kent Peacock "The No-Signalling Theorems: A Nitpicking Distinction” 
 
Here is the setup
 
Bob is closer to the pair source S than Alice.
 
B — S—————A
 
Bob does not change his settings.
 
Alice at the last moment changes her settings in delayed choice fashion AFTER Bob’s particles in the entangled pairs has already been detected.
 
This is done in pulse fashion so that there is a good statistical sample of particles in each pulse.
 
Each setting (ai,b) b-fixed has random outputs 1,0 for each individual detection.
 
Using the statistical rules of orthodox quantum theory Alice and Bob compare their raw data after the experiment is over and from the fraction of coincidences in each pulse, Bob can infer the sequence of settings a1, a2, …. aN for N pulses, which is the encoded message.
 
It is obvious, since Bob did nothing at all,  that Alice’s free will choices of settings a1, a2, …. aN for N pulses  (which is the message) is the active future cause of the back-from-the-future coincidences, unless you want a paranoid conspiracy theory.
 

 

Now of course this is not Valentini’s “signal nonlocality” that is a larger theory violating orthodox quantum theory the way general relativity violates special relativity globally though not locally. With Valentini’s PQM extension of QM Bob can know in advance what Alice will choose even before she chooses it without doing the hindsight correlation analysis. However, any attempt by Bob to cause a paradox will fail either for reasons given by Thorne and Novikov or by David Deutsch.

From my Stargate book (still not finished)

1974: Hawking shows that all black-holes radiate black body radiation[i] whose peak wavelength lmax is roughly the square root of the area-entropy of the black-hole’s horizon, i.e., lmax ~ A1/2 where the entropy S ~ kBA/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 Tcold ~ A-1/2. I realized in 2013 that this is only half the story, and that there is a second higher temperature Thot ~ (LA1/2)-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/A1/2)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

  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?