Text Size

Stardrive

Tag » Leonard Susskind
Yes, and I have solved it
 
See slides 25 & 31 of lecture 8 of mike Towler's Cambridge Bohm lectures
 
Pilot Q BIT field is mental in sense of David Chalmers
 
Feedback back-reaction IT hidden variable matter to Pilot Field excites qualia excitations in Pilot 
 
This back-reaction is missing in orthodox QM and that is why no-cloning et al
 
Back-reaction induces Valentini's signal nonlocality with non-random post quantum strings like what I am writing right now.
 
It's same idea Einstein used to go from special relativity to general relativity.
 
Simple.
 
Post quantum gravity = Conscious Universe
 
Post Quantum Wheeler Dewitt Pilot Wave Function of Universe QBIT with back reaction from 3-geometry IT is Hawking's conscious mind of I.J. Good's GOD(D) retrocausal CTC software running on past and future horizon hologram plates (screens) in sense of dS/CFT RG flow from future post selection dS Omega UV fixed point to past Alpha IR fixed point at inflation phase transition. See Strominger's Harvard paper. CFT dilation on the horizon hologram screens maps to time evolution in bulk 3 geometry hologram image. Small entropy at IR Alpha Creation is explained as is Arrow of Time without fine tuning. Pretty picture.

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Menas Kafatos <mkafatos@gmail.com> wrote:

Or to put it another way, to by-pass the fundamental issue of conscious experience. To claim that the multiverse "solves" this problem is to go outside of science. Sure, the multiverse may indeed be a reality. But that should come out of fundamental physics AND be a falsifiable assertion, not to solve qualia, the hard problem or whether consciousness is the fundamental reality in the universe or not.
 
On Jun 30, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:

"In any case, the SEP is really just a conjecture. Also there is something fundamentally wrong with a theory in which the existence of radiation is frame dependent. Surely it should at least be possible to settle this question empirically?"

No, look at the Unruh effect.
Virtual photons in inertial frames are real photons in coincident non-inertial frames. This is the origin of the firewall debate on black holes.There is a creative tension between equivalence principle and charges emitting photons
If a charge sits at surface of Earth it has a constant proper acceleration in a static LNIF. Feynman would say no problem - constant acceleration does not cause real photon emission - to who? others ask.
 
If you accumulate a lot of unbalanced electric charge and just let it sit on a lab table do you expect it to radiate real photons? Where is the energy coming from?
 
In Wheeler-Feynman-Cramer - the emission of real photons is a transaction between emitter and absorber with advanced confirmation. So now there are four cases emitter rest frame in LIF or LNIF, absorber rest frame in LIF' or LNIF'
 
We do not expect any real photon emission in the geodesic LIF <—> geodesic LIF' case. What about the other three?
 
 

 

On 6/29/2014 9:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Still up in the air

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 29, 2014, at 7:00 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:

Here is a more in depth discussion of the problem by R. Scalise, which raises doubts about
Feynman's answer based on more recent work:

http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/P7312fa12/ChoiceCutsCh52.pdf

On 6/29/2014 6:47 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Informative discussion on this topic by Kevin Brown available here:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath528/kmath528.htm

On 6/29/2014 6:37 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
1) an electric charge on a time like geodesic should not radiate transverse photons.

2) Feynman showed that a charge in uniform acceleration does not radiate.

This is obvious since radiation reaction depends on the jerk covariant derivative of

D^2V^u/ds^2

Note that this is complicated in LNIFs.

Sent from my iPad

I disagree

When the events are complex and significant they are not statistical 
New rules apply Vallee's high strangeness 
When an alleged computer from the future tells me in 1953 of what will happen to me in 1973,which happens in fact and which is the cosmic trigger for the narrative in david kaisers MIT book etc that's a real time loop in a block universe in my opinion.
Remember CIA tape recording of my 1953 memory made in 1973 during SRI visit ties in with uri Geller narrative. 
The rules of the game are more like a homicide police investigation rather than statistical analysis of unitary S matrix measurements.
More is different
Emergence of new rules with increasing complexity uniqueness of historical events.

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events. 


From: beowulfr@interlog.com
To: iksnileiz@gmail.com

Subject: RE: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:35:31 -0400

Yes Z, but Ruth doesn’t seem to have a problem with discussing the implications of precognition as a possibly real phenomenon.  Like me she seems to be willing to discuss it, but not to go out on a limb and wholeheartedly agree with Jack.  So, we were discussing whether precognition would definitely favor Jack’s theory, or whether it could be explained in her theory as well.  She and I both seemed to make the point that viewing of future events doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is viewing the only possible future – there could be a number of possible futures.

 

Actually, on this point I remember reading some books by Lyall Watson back in the 1980s or early 1990s.  Watson had various of these sorts of psychic precognition examples listed.  I remember that he specifically claimed that aircraft, trains or other vehicles that are going to crash statistically have fewer people on them – that there is a rash of last-minute cancellations before the trip.  I don’t know how rigorous his statistics were and whether this is really true.  However, just assuming for a moment that it is, and that people do have an innate precognitive sense, what does Watson’s argument imply about the future?

 

As I remember Watson’s argument, he is not saying that people have a specific vision of dying in a fiery crash (although IIRC he claims that sometimes that does happen) but just that people get a bad feeling about the trip and come up with some excuse to cancel and do something else.  The precognition in his argument therefore happens at a sort of half-conscious level.

 

Either the people who last minute cancel are never going to die/are not “supposed” to die (whatever that means; maybe Jack’s future cosmological horizon quantum computer is post-determining that they live longer), and the precognition happens in order to actualize the future that is there all along.  Or, the cancellations are simply weird effects at a classical level, kind of like a Novikov self-consistency principle that would cause odd coincidences to happen to prevent you from changing history if you travelled to the past through a wormhole.

 

Alternatively, a future existed in which those people did die, and they precognitively sensed it, and so actualized a different future where they avoided death.  This would mean that the future is changeable through precognition, so multiple possible futures must exist.

 

From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com
Sent: April-07-14 9:08 PM
To: Robert Addinall

Subject: Re: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM

 

Except that we were also talking about Ruth Kastner's alternative model for "retro-causality". Which
doesn't agree with Jack's.

Remember?

On 4/7/2014 5:39 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:

 

Anyway, this is exactly what I was saying the other day – for the purposes of this conversation accepting Jack’s concept of precognition as a proven reality is fine.

 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Ruth Kastner wrote:
 
Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having
well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events.
_____________________________________________________________
 
 
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:
Every really wealthy person I know well personally has an uncanny talent to make good decisions financially.
I am not talking only about stock market.
For example, the Marshall Naify had extraordinary powers akin to Uri Geller’s and Ingo Swann. I personally experienced “mental time travel” with him (shared telepathic experience) to past events (Ancient Egypt, Middle Ages). He saw the potential of cable TV early and was one of the creators of what led to Comcast.
I have also noticed other evidence in them of paranormal talent.
I am not saying this as a scientific fact - only a subjective observation - folklore.
I am not saying that 100% of the 1% are precognitive but that a significant fraction are.
Even successful criminals and evil leaders are.
 
On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:59 PM, CloudRider@aol.com wrote:
 
Question, for Jack, et al...
Is it possible... or have you considered (seriously, with respect)... that what's in play here is a form of human perception perhaps located somewhere on the autism spectrum, even higher-functioning than Asperger's?
 
I am not a brain neuroscientist. I do not know.
 
If such a condition were to allow "tuning" to different signals from what "typical" receivers (people, brains) are capable of picking up. Not to imply "disability" or abnormality, per se, but a "stretch" in what most people are able to perceive... or perceive and retain in consciousness. Also, Jack's signal had to have a 'sender,' who quite likely would know about the "tuning" aspect of human perception, in the 1950s quite new to us.
 
Exactly my point! HIGH STRANGENESS - REALITY OF THE UNCANNY THAT MANY STRAIGHT SCIENTISTS OUT OF FEAR SUPPRESS.
 
Vallee and Davis Physics of High Strangeness ... - skinwalker ranch
www.skinwalkerranch.org/images/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf‎
by JF Vallee - ‎Cited by 6 - ‎Related articles
Oct 24, 2003 - clarify the issues surrounding “high strangeness” observations by ... Jacques Vallée has a Ph.D. in computer science; Eric Davis holds a Ph.D.
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 3/1/14
High Strangeness by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Arkadiusz Jadczyk
www.cassiopaea.org/cass/high_strangeness.htm‎
The term "high strangeness" is attributed to Dr. J. Allen Hynek who addressed the ... French scientist, Jacques Vallee writes in a paper about High Strangeness:.
High strangeness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_strangeness‎
Wikipedia
Within the domain of Ufology, high-strangeness is a term used to denote a ... It is perhaps of interest that Jacques Vallee, a close colleague of Hynek, has in a ...
 
 
This doesn't explain "contacts" by some kind of external source using conventional physical means (i.e., the telephone); could these have been an effort to "simulate extraordinary stimulation" by scientists studying such phenomena. I.e., if selected for programming, how to reach Jack (others?) without alarming them?
 
Well, the phone calls were real. Who made them is still a mystery.
 
Conversely, "extraordinary" ET or UT entities intending to contact and influence (this young scientist, retrocausally identified from the future) could have used the telephone because "supernatural" modalities of such "contact" might have triggered a psychotic break or other rejection reaction, by Jack's mother or any subsequently engaged psychiatrists brought in to "help" normalize their target, getting him locked away or chemically restrained, as quite obviously has happened to many other such "revelatees" over millennia?
 
That did not happen to me. But remember I was part of the USG superkids project out of Columbia University AFTER the phone calls throughout high-school with early admission into Ivy League Cornell with full scholarship for four years.
 
This project (also associated with Ayn Rand) was funded by born in Brooklyn (where I lived):
 
The Eugene McDermott Scholars Program - The University of Texas ...
www.utdallas.edu/mcdermott/‎
University of Texas at Dallas
Feb 25, 2014 - Established by Mrs. Eugene McDermott in support of her husband's dream, the McDermott Scholars program provides select UT Dallas ...
‎Application Information - ‎The McDermott Award - ‎Meet the Scholars - ‎Contact Us
Eugene McDermott Library - The University of Texas at Dallas
www.utdallas.edu/library/‎
University of Texas at Dallas
Online catalog, list of newly acquired titles, and general information for the lecture series and the McDermott and Callier Libraries.
‎Databases - ‎Library Hours - ‎Journals - ‎eBooks Collections
Eugene McDermott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McDermott‎
Wikipedia
Eugene McDermott (1899-1973) was a geophysicist and co-founder first of Geophysical Service and later of Texas Instruments. Born in Brooklyn, New York, on ...
‎Early career - ‎Geophysical Service - ‎Texas Instruments - ‎Philanthropy
You've visited this page 4 times. Last visit: 11/25/13
 
"IT" used the phone because that approach would not necessarily provoke a panicked response the way a "Biblical" manifestion of revelatory experience likely would have, i.e., "messianic" distortion or psychic break.
 
Either way, the net effect was to recontextualize Jack's personality and "genius," providing direction (both overt and subliminally, likely) and opening his mind to a stream of ongoing but more subtle signals later on.
 
Credulity, post-exposure, would be interesting to some scientists contemporaneous to the experience?
 
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cacheof-summary-paper-the-invasion-from-mars-readings-in-social-psychology-1947-hadley-cantril.pdf
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Cantril
 
 
On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:
 
So Jack is not going to be satisfied with retro-causal connections between mere possibilities.
 
For him the future is fully actualized and physically influences the present through CTCs in an
eternal block universe.
 
For him, that is what "precognition" means.
 
On 4/9/2014 11:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I disagree
When the events are complex and significant they are not statistical
New rules apply Vallee's high strangeness
When an alleged computer from the future tells me in 1953 of what will happen to me in 1973,which happens in fact and which is the cosmic trigger for the narrative in david kaisers MIT book etc that's a real time loop in a block universe in my opinion.
Remember CIA tape recording of my 1953 memory made in 1973 during SRI visit ties in with uri Geller narrative.
The rules of the game are more like a homicide police investigation rather than statistical analysis of unitary S matrix measurements.
More is different
Emergence of new rules with increasing complexity uniqueness of historical events.
 
Sent from my iPad
 
On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events.
 
From: beowulfr@interlog.com
To: iksnileiz@gmail.com
 
Subject: RE: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:35:31 -0400
 
Yes Z, but Ruth doesn’t seem to have a problem with discussing the implications of precognition as a possibly real phenomenon. Like me she seems to be willing to discuss it, but not to go out on a limb and wholeheartedly agree with Jack. So, we were discussing whether precognition would definitely favor Jack’s theory, or whether it could be explained in her theory as well. She and I both seemed to make the point that viewing of future events doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is viewing the only possible future – there could be a number of possible futures.
 
 
Actually, on this point I remember reading some books by Lyall Watson back in the 1980s or early 1990s. Watson had various of these sorts of psychic precognition examples listed. I remember that he specifically claimed that aircraft, trains or other vehicles that are going to crash statistically have fewer people on them – that there is a rash of last-minute cancellations before the trip. I don’t know how rigorous his statistics were and whether this is really true. However, just assuming for a moment that it is, and that people do have an innate precognitive sense, what does Watson’s argument imply about the future?
 
 
As I remember Watson’s argument, he is not saying that people have a specific vision of dying in a fiery crash (although IIRC he claims that sometimes that does happen) but just that people get a bad feeling about the trip and come up with some excuse to cancel and do something else. The precognition in his argument therefore happens at a sort of half-conscious level.
 
 
Either the people who last minute cancel are never going to die/are not “supposed” to die (whatever that means; maybe Jack’s future cosmological horizon quantum computer is post-determining that they live longer), and the precognition happens in order to actualize the future that is there all along. Or, the cancellations are simply weird effects at a classical level, kind of like a Novikov self-consistency principle that would cause odd coincidences to happen to prevent you from changing history if you travelled to the past through a wormhole.
 
 
Alternatively, a future existed in which those people did die, and they precognitively sensed it, and so actualized a different future where they avoided death. This would mean that the future is changeable through precognition, so multiple possible futures must exist.
 
 
From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com]
Sent: April-07-14 9:08 PM
To: Robert Addinall
 
Subject: Re: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM
 
 
Except that we were also talking about Ruth Kastner's alternative model for "retro-causality". Which
doesn't agree with Jack's.
 
Remember?
 
On 4/7/2014 5:39 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:
 
 
Anyway, this is exactly what I was saying the other day – for the purposes of this conversation accepting Jack’s concept of precognition as a proven reality is fine.
 
 
 

 

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

Lenny Susskind hopes to save both unitarity and the equivalence principle. He writes: "
In this paper I’ve made no attempt to prove that firewalls are absent in all circumstances. Indeed ER=EPR raises the possibility that an angry Alice can hit Bob with a nasty shockwave as he crosses the horizon [10]. What I have assumed is that firewalls are not inevitable— particularly so if the black hole begins with a smooth horizon—and then asked what new concepts are required to resolve the various paradoxes. In a sense I am trying to turn the firewall inevitability arguments into arguments for new physical concepts needed to reconcile unitarity and complementarity."
 
Lenny makes a mistake here in my opinion: "This is a twist on two commonly held incorrect sci-fi ideas; the first being that super-luminal signals can be sent through wormholes; and the second that superluminal signals can be sent using entanglement. ER=EPR does not allow superluminal signals, but it gets very close, in the sense that there is no limit on how soon after horizon crossing Bob can receive Alice’s message."
 
Yes, what he says is true for orthodox quantum theory, but not for its extension that corresponds to traversable wormholes held open with either exotic matter, or couplings to a scalar field as described in current literature cited by Enrico Rodrigo in his Stargate book.
 
I prefer to keep the equivalence principle and junk unitarity because then we have entanglement signal nonlocality - that's a game changer - Brave New World, Men like Gods and we then understand the physical mechanism for consciousness leading to naturally conscious artificial intelligent androids.
 
“For years it was thought that the Schwarzschild spacetime did in fact exhibit some sort of radial singularity at r = 2GM/c2. Eventually physicists came to realize that it was not Schwarzschild spacetime that was behaving badly. It was his choice of coordinate system. … the true singularity at r = 0.” P. 126, Enrico Rodrigo, “The Physics of Stargates” (Eridanus Press, New York, 2010). This is true, yet it also does not address an important question. While it is true that a freely falling observer Alice can pass through the event horizon of a large non-rotating black hole without feeling lethal tidal stretch-squeeze Weyl curvature tensor forces, nevertheless the universe will start to look weird to her. More importantly, if Bob is in a spaceship hovering at a fixed distance outside the event horizon with rockets firing radially inward, he will quickly find that there is a minimum distance he can get to without being sucked into the black hole. Indeed, if Bob does not want to exceed a 1g weight that minimum distance is even larger. This is because, the real proper acceleration of hovering, also called the “static LNIF” shoots up to a classical infinity at the event horizon because of the square root of the time-time component g00 that approaches zero at the event horizon in the denominator of the relevant equation in Einstein’s General Relativity. One over zero is infinity. Of course quantum gravity will prevent an actual infinity, but practically speaking that does not change the basic situation. Not only that, but Bob will see a very hot thermal blackbody bath of real photons proportional to his actual tensor proper acceleration that will burn him to a cinder. This will be very peculiar and tragic to Alice who passes close by him in her radial free fall into the black hole. Alice will not feel the heat unless she catches fire etc. from Bob’s burning ship that explodes and flings debris hitting her. This is related to recent speculations by Leonard Susskind et-al on black hole firewalls. 
There is a creative tension conflict between Gerard ‘t Hooft’s pontifical proclamation that the S-Matrix must be unitary even in cosmology and Einstein’s equivalence principle that nothing happens to a freely falling observer passing through a horizon g00 = 0 whether that of a black hole whose horizon is observer independent, or whether through our future dark energy de Sitter cosmological horizon, which is observer-dependent. Roughly, unitarity of the S-Matrix of the universe says that there is nothing new under the Sun that quantum information cannot be created or destroyed. This seems to fly in the face of human creativity. Does it really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics) 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=black-hole-firewall-paradox&print=true 
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/spotlight-live-falling-into-black-holes 
http://physics.aps.org/articles/print/v6/115
Firewall (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
A firewall is a hypothetical phenomenon where an observer that falls into an old black hole encounters high-energy quanta at (or near) the event horizon. The "firewall" phenomenon was proposed in 2012 by Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski, and Sully[1] as a possible solution to an apparent inconsistency i...

Jack Sarfatti Subject: ER = EPR

Susskind & Maldecena here show that traversable wormholes and entanglement signal nonlocality are two sides of the same coin. I anticipated all this in 1973-4.
"Spacetime locality is one of the cornerstones in our present understandi
ng of physics. By locality we mean the impossibility of sending signals faster than the speed of light. Locality appears to be challenged both by quantum mechanics and by general relativity. Quantum mechanics gives rise to Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) correlations [1], while general relativity allows solutions to the equations of motion that connect far away regions through relatively short “wormholes” or Einstein Rosen bridges [2]. It has long been understood that these two effects do not give rise to real violations of locality. One cannot use EPR correlations to send information faster than the speed of light. Similarly, Einstein Rosen bridges do not allow us to send a signal from one asymptotic region to the other, at least when suitable positive energy conditions are obeyed [3, 4, 5]. This is sometimes stated as saying that Lorentzian wormholes are not traversable1.

Here we will note that these two effects are actually connected. We argue that the Einstein Rosen bridge between two black holes is created by EPR-like correlations between the microstates of the two black holes. This is based on previous observations in [6, 10]. We call this the ER = EPR relation. In other words, the ER bridge is a special kind of EPR correlation in which the EPR correlated quantum systems have a weakly coupled Einstein gravity description. It is also special because the combined state is just one particular entangled state out of many possibilities. We note that black hole pair creation in a magnetic field “naturally” produces a pair of black holes in this state. It is very tempting to think that any EPR correlated system is connected by some sort of ER bridge, although in general the bridge may be a highly quantum object that is yet to be independently defined. Indeed, we speculate that even the simple singlet state of two spins is connected by a (very quantum) bridge of this type.

In this article we explain the reasons for expecting such a connection. We also explore some of the implications of this point of view for the black hole information problem, in its AMPS(S)[11, 12] form. See [13, 14, 15] for some earlier work and [12] for a more complete set of references. See [16] for a proposal to describe interiors that is similar to what we are saying here2."

Cool horizons for entangled black holes 

Juan Maldacena1 and Leonard Susskind2

1 Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
2 Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics and Department of Physics,

Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4060, USA 

1)   . I intuited the connection between the Einstein-Rosen (ER) wormhole and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) quantum entanglement back in 1973 when I was with Abdus Salam at the International Centre of Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy. This idea was published in the wacky book “Space-Time and Beyond” (Dutton, 1975) described by MIT physics historian David Kaiser in his book “How the Hippies Saved Physics.” Lenny Susskind, who I worked with at Cornell 1963-4, rediscovered this ER = EPR connection in the black hole “firewall” paradox. Lenny envisions a multi-mouthed wormhole network connecting the Hawking radiation particles their entangled twins behind the evaporating event horizon. “each escaping particle remains connected to the black hole through a wormhole” Dennis Overbye, Einstein and the Black Hole, New York Times August 13, 2013.  The no-signaling theorem corresponds to the wormhole pinching off before a light speed limited signal can pass through one mouth to the other. Now we know that traversable wormhole stargates are possible using amplified anti-gravity dark energy. This corresponds to signal-nonlocality in post-quantum theory violating orthodox quantum theory. 

1)      Localizing global symmetries requires the addition of compensating gauge connections in a fiber bundle picture of the universe. Indeed, the original global symmetry group is a smaller subgroup of the local symmetry group. The gauge connections define parallel transport of tensor/spinor fields. They correspond to the interactions between the several kinds of charges of the above symmetries. I shall go into more details of this elsewhere. Indeed localizing the above spacetime symmetries corresponds to generalizations of Einstein’s General Relativity as a local gauge theory.[i] For example, localizing the space and time global translational symmetries means that the Lie group transformations at different events (places and times) in the universe are independent of each other. If one believes in the classical special relativity postulate of locality that there are no faster-than-light actions at a distance, then the transformations must certainly be independent of each other between pairs of spacelike separated events that cannot be connected by a light signal. However, the local gauge principle is much stronger, because it applies to pairs of events that can be connected not only by a light signal, but also by slower-than-light timelike signals. This poses a paradox when we add quantum entanglement.  Aspect’s experiment and others since then, show that faster-than-light influences do in fact exist in the conditional probabilities (aka correlations) connecting observed eigenvalues of quantum observable operators independently chosen by Alice and Bob when spacelike separated. I shall return to this in more detail elsewhere. However, the no entanglement-signaling postulate is thought by many mainstream theoretical physicists to define orthodox quantum theory. It’s believed that its violation would also violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Note that the entanglement signal need not be faster-than-light over a spacelike separation between sender and receiver. It could be lightlike or timelike separated as well. Indeed it can even be retrocausal with the message sent back-from-the-future. John Archibald Wheeler’s “delayed choice experiment” is actually consistent with orthodox quantum theory’s no-signaling premise. The point is, that one cannot decode the message encoded in the pattern of entanglement until one has a classical signal key that only propagates forward in time. What one sees before the classical key arrives and a correlation analysis is computed is only local random white noise. However, data on precognitive remote viewing as well as brain presponse data suggests that no-entanglement signaling is only true for dead matter. Nobel Prize physicist, Brian Josephson first published on this. I have also suggested it using Bohm’s ontological interpretation (Lecture 8 of Michael Towler’s Cambridge University Lectures on Bohm’s Pilot Wave). Antony Valentini has further developed this idea in several papers. Post-quantum “signal nonlocality” dispenses with the need to wait for the light-speed limited retarded signal key propagating from past to future. Local non-random noise will be seen in violation of the S-Matrix unitarity “conservation of information” postulate of G. ‘t Hooft, L. Susskind et-al.  Indeed the distinguishable non-orthogonality of entangled Glauber macro-quantum coherent states seems to be the way to get signal nonlocality. This gets us to the “Black Hole War” between Susskind and Hawking about information loss down evaporating black holes. It seems that Hawking caved in too fast to Susskind back in Dublin in 2004. I intuited the connection between the Einstein-Rosen (ER) wormhole and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) quantum entanglement back in 1973 when I was with Abdus Salam at the International Centre of Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy. This idea was published in the wacky book “Space-Time and Beyond” (Dutton, 1975) described by MIT physics historian David Kaiser in his book “How the Hippies Saved Physics.” Lenny Susskind, who I worked with at Cornell 1963-4, rediscovered this ER = EPR connection in the black hole “firewall” paradox.



[i] Localizing the four space and time translations corresponds to Einstein’s general coordinate transformations that are now gauge transformations defining an equivalence class of physically identical representations of the same curvature tensor field. However, the compensating gauge connection there corresponds to torsion fields not curvature fields. The curvature field corresponds to localizing the three space-space rotations and the three space-time Lorentz boost rotations together. Einstein’s General Relativity in final form (1916) has zero torsion with non-zero curvature. However, T.W.B. Kibble from Imperial College, London in 1961 showed how to get the Einstein-Cartan torsion + curvature extension of Einstein’s 1916 curvature-only model by localizing the full 10-parameter Poincare symmetry Lie group of Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity. The natural geometric objects to use are the four Cartan tetrads that correspond to Local Inertial Frame (LIF) detector/observers that are not rotating about their Centers of Mass (COM) that are on weightless zero g-force timelike geodesics.  Zero torsion is then imposed as an ad-hoc constraint to regain Einstein’s 1916 model as a limiting case. The ten parameter Poincare Lie group is subgroup of the fifteen parameter conformal group that adds four constant proper acceleration hyperbolic Wolfgang Rindler horizon boosts and one dilation scale transformation that corresponds to Herman Weyl’s original failed attempt to unify gravity with electromagnetism. The spinor Dirac square roots of the conformal group correspond to Roger Penrose’s “twistors.”

 

My review of Jim Woodward's Making Starships book - V1 under construction
  • Jack Sarfatti Sarfatti’s Commentaries on James F. Woodward’s book 
    Making Starships and Star Gates 
    The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes

    The book has many good insights except for some ambiguous statements regarding:

    1) The equivalence principle that is the foundation of Einstein’s theory of the gravitational field. This seems to be due to the author’s not clearly distinguishing between local frame invariant proper acceleration and frame dependent coordinate acceleration. Thus, the author says that Newton’s gravity force is eliminated in an “accelerating frame.” In fact, it is eliminated in a Local Inertial Frame (LIF) that has zero proper acceleration, though it has coordinate acceleration relative to the surface of Earth for example. All points of the rigid spherical surface of Earth have non-zero proper accelerations pointing radially outward. This violates common sense and confuses even some physicists as well as engineers not to mention laymen. It is a fact of the Alice in Wonderland topsy-turvy surreal world of the post-modern physics of Einstein’s relativity especially when combined with the faster-than-light and back from the future entanglement of particles and fields in quantum theory and beyond. 
    2) I find the author’s discussion of fictitious inertial pseudo forces puzzling. I include the centripetal force as a fictitious force in the limit of Newton’s particle mechanics sans Einstein’s local inertial frame dragging from rotating sources. That is, every local frame artifact that is inside the Levi-Civita connection is a fictitious inertial pseudo force. This includes, Coriolis, centrifugal, Euler, and most importantly Newton’s gravity force that is not a real force. The terms inside the Levi-Civita connection are not felt by the test particle under observation. Instead, they describe real forces acting on the observer’s local rest frame. A real force acts locally on a test particle’s accelerometer. It causes an accelerometer’s pointer to move showing a g-force. In contrast, Baron Munchausen sitting on a cannonball in free fall is weightless. This was essentially Einstein’s “happiest thought” leading him to the equivalence principle the cornerstone of his 1916 General Relativity of the Gravitational Field. 
    3) A really serious flaw in the book is the author’s dependence on Dennis Sciama’s electromagnetic equations for gravity. In fact, these equations only apply approximately in the weak field limit of Einstein’s field equations in the background-dependent case using the absolute non-dynamical globally-flat Minkowski space-time with gravity as a tiny perturbation. The author uses these equations way out of their limited domain of validity. In particular, the Sciama equations cannot describe the two cosmological horizons past and future of our dark energy accelerating expanding observable universe. What we can see with our telescopes is only a small patch (aka “causal diamond”) of a much larger “inflation bubble” corresponding to Max Tegmark’s “Level 1” in his four level classification of the use of “multiverse” and “parallel universes.” Our two cosmological horizons, past and future, that are thin spherical shells of light with us inside them at their exact centers may in fact be hologram computer screens projecting us as 3D images in a virtual reality quantum computer simulation. This is really a crazy idea emerging from Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Seth Lloyd and others. Is it crazy enough to be true? 
  • Jack Sarfatti 4) John Cramer’s Foreword: I agree with Cramer that it’s too risky in the long run for us to be confined to the Earth and even to this solar system. British Astronomer Royal, Lord Martin Rees in his book “Our Final Hour” gives detailed reasons. Of course if a vacuum strangelet develops like Kurt Vonnegut’s “Ice-9”, then our entire observable universe can be wiped out, our causal diamond and beyond shattered, and there is no hope. That is essentially the apocalyptic worst-case scenario of the Bible’s “Revelations” and we will not dwell on it any further. Let’s hope it’s not a precognitive remote viewing like what the CIA observed in the Stanford Research Institute studies in the 1970’s.  Cramer cites the NASA-DARPA 100 Year Star Ship Project that I was involved with in the first two meetings. Cramer’s text is in quotes and italics. There is “little hope of reaching the nearby stars in a human lifetime using any conventional propulsion techniques … the universe is simply too big, and the stars are too far away. … What is needed is either trans-spatial shortcuts such as wormholes to avoid the need to traverse the enormous distances or a propulsion technique that somehow circumvents Newton’s third law and does not require the storage, transport and expulsion of large volumes of reaction mass.”
    Yes, indeed. I conjecture as a working hypothesis based on the UFO evidence that traversable wormhole stargate time travel machines are the only way to go with warp drive used only as a secondary mechanism at low speeds mainly for silent hovering near the surfaces of planets and for dogfights with conventional aerospace craft. The stargates do not have the blue shift problem that the Alcubierre warp drive has although the Natario warp drive does not have the blue shift problem (high-energy collisions with particles and radiation in the path of the starship). Newton’s third law that every force acting on a material object has an equal and opposite inertial reaction force on the source of that force is a conservation law that follows from symmetry Lie groups of transformations in parameters of the dynamical action of the entire closed system of source and material object. This is a very general organizing principle of theoretical physics known as Noether’s theorem for global symmetries in which the transformations are the same everywhere for all times in the universe. For example:
    Space Translation Symmetry Linear Momentum Conservation
    Time Translation Symmetry Energy Conservation
    Space-Space Rotation Symmetry Angular Momentum Conservation
    Space-Time Rotation Symmetry
    Internal U1 EM Force Symmetry Conserve 1 Electric Charge
    Internal SU2 Weak Force Symmetry Conserve 3 Weak Flavor Charges
    Internal SU3 Strong Force Symmetry Conserve 8 Strong Color Charges
  • Jack Sarfatti In a propellantless propulsion system without the rocket ejection of real particles and/or radiation one must include the gravity curvature field (dynamical space-time itself) as a source and sink of linear momentum. Furthermore, if we include quantum corrections to the classical fields there is the remote possibility of using virtual particle zero point fluctuations inside the vacuum as a source and sink of linear momentum. However, the conventional wisdom is that this kind of controllable small-scale metastable vacuum phase transition is impossible in principle and to do so would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (extracting work from an absolute zero temperature heat reservoir). Even if we could do the seemingly impossible, propellantless propulsion while necessary is not sufficient for a true warp drive. A true warp drive must be weightless (zero g-force) timelike geodesic and without time dilation for the crew relative to the external observer outside the warp bubble that they were initially clock synchronized with. Localizing global symmetries requires the addition of compensating gauge connections in a fiber bundle picture of the universe. Indeed, the original global symmetry group is a smaller subgroup of the local symmetry group. The gauge connections define parallel transport of tensor/spinor fields. They correspond to the interactions between the several kinds of charges of the above symmetries. I shall go into more details of this elsewhere. Indeed localizing the above spacetime symmetries corresponds to generalizations of Einstein’s General Relativity as a local gauge theory. For example, localizing the space and time global translational symmetries means that the Lie group transformations at different events (places and times) in the universe are independent of each other. If one believes in the classical special relativity postulate of locality that there are no faster-than-light actions at a distance, then the transformations must certainly be independent of each other between pairs of spacelike events that cannot be connected by a light signal. However, the local gauge principle is much stronger, because it applies to pairs of spacelike events that can be connected not only by a light signal, but also by slower-than-light timelike signals. This poses a paradox when we add quantum entanglement. Aspect’s experiment and others since then, show that faster-than-light influences do in fact exist in the conditional probabilities (aka correlations) connecting observed eigenvalues of quantum observable operators independently chosen by Alice and Bob when spacelike separated. I shall return to this in more detail elsewhere. Finally, we have the P.W. Anderson’s anti-reductionist “More is different” emergence of complex systems of real particles in their quantum ground states with quasi-particles and collective mode excitations in soft condensed matter in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This corresponds to spontaneous symmetry breaking of the quantum vacuum’s virtual particles, in its high energy standard model analog, to the Higgs-Goldstone “God Particle” now found at ~ 125 Gev in CERN’s LHC that gives rest masses to leptons and quarks as well as to the three weak radioactivity force spin 1 gauge W-bosons though not to the single spin 1 photon gauge boson and the eight spin strong force gluon gauge bosons. In this quantum field theory picture, the near field non-radiating interactions among the leptons and quarks are caused by the exchange of virtual spacelike (tachyonic faster-than-light off-mass-shell) gauge bosons continuously randomly emitted and absorbed by the leptons and quarks. To make matters more complicated unlike the single rest massless U1 photon, the three weak rest massive SU2 W bosons and the eight strong rest massless SU3 gluons carry their respective Lie algebra charges, therefore, they self-interact. A single virtual gluon can split into two gluons for example. The SU3 quark-quark-gluon interaction gets stronger at low energy longer separations. This is called quantum chromodynamic confinement and it explains why we do not see free quarks in the present epoch of our causal diamond observable universe patch of the multiverse. Free quarks were there in a different quantum vacuum thermodynamic phase shortly after the Alpha Point chaotic inflation creation of our observable universe that we see with telescopes etc. Indeed, most of the rest mass of protons and neutrons comes from the confined Heisenberg uncertainty principle kinetic energy of the three real confined up and down quarks and their plasma cloud of virtual zero point gluons and virtual quark-antiquark pairs. The Higgs Yukawa interaction rest masses of three bound real quarks is about 1/20 or less than the total hadronic rest masses.

    The author, James F. Woodward (JFW), introduces Mach’s Principle though in an ambiguous way to my mind. He says that the computation of the rest mass from local quantum field theory as has been in fact accomplished for hadrons by MIT Nobel Laureate, Frank Wilczek et-al using supercomputers is not sufficient to explain the inertia of Newton’s Second Law of Particle Mechanics. This does sound like Occult Astrology at first glance, but we do have the 1940 Wheeler-Feynman classical electrodynamics in which radiation reaction is explained as a back-from-the-future retro causal advanced influence from the future absorber on the past emitter in a globally self-consistent loop in time. Indeed, Feynman’s path integral quantum theory grew out of this attempt. Hoyle and Narlikar, and John Cramer have extended the original classical Wheeler-Feynman theory to quantum theory. Indeed, the zero point virtual photons causing spontaneous emission decay of excited atomic electron states can be interpreted as a back from the future effect. The electromagnetic field in the classical Wheeler-Feynman model did not have independent dynamical degrees of freedom, but in the Feynman diagram quantum theory they do. However, the retro causal feature survives. Therefore the only way I can make sense of JFWs fringe physics proposal is to make the following conjecture. Let m0 be the renormalized rest mass of a real particle computed in the standard model of local quantum field theory. Then, the observed rest mass m0’ equals a dimensionless nonlocal coefficient C multiplied by the local m0 renormalized rest mass. Mach’s Principle is then C = 0 in an empty universe of only real test particles without any sources causing spacetime to bend. Furthermore, C splits into past history retarded and future destiny advanced pieces. Now is there any Popper falsifiable test of this excess baggage?
  • Jack Sarfatti 1) Springer-Praxis Books in Space Exploration (2013)
    2) Einstein in Zurich over one hundred years ago read of a house painter falling off his ladder saying he felt weightless.
    3) I have since disassociated myself from that project, as have other hard
    ...See More
  • Jack Sarfatti 4) Roughly speaking, for particle mechanics, the dynamical action is the time integral of the kinetic energy minus the potential energy. The classical physics action principle is that the actual path is an extremum in the sense of the calculus of variations relative to all nearby possible paths with the same initial and final conditions. Richard P. Feynman generalized this classical idea to quantum theory where the actual extremum path corresponds to constructive interference of complex number classical action phases one for each possible path. There are more complications for velocity-dependent non-central forces and there is also the issue of initial and final conditions. The action is generalized to classical fields where one must use local kinetic and potential analog densities and integrate the field Lagrangian density over the 4D spacetime region bounded by initial history and final teleological destiny 3D hypersurfaces boundary constraints. Indeed, Yakir Aharonov has generalized this to quantum theory in which there are back-from-the-future retro causal influences on present weak quantum measurements made between the past initial and future final boundary constraints. Indeed, in our observable expanding accelerating universe causal diamond, these boundary constraints, I conjecture, are our past cosmological particle horizon from the moment of chaotic inflation leading to the hot Big Bang, together with our future dark energy de Sitter event horizon. Both of them are BIT pixelated 2D hologram computer screens with us as IT voxelated “weak measurement” 3D hologram images projected from them. The horizon pixel BIT quanta of area are of magnitude (~10^-33 cm or 10^19 Gev)^2. The interior bulk voxel IT quanta of volume are of magnitude (~10^-13 cm or 1 Gev)^3. This ensures that the number N of BIT horizon pixels equals the number of IT interior voxels in a one-to-one correspondence. The actually measured dark energy density is proportional to the inverse fourth power of the geometric mean of the smallest quantum gravity Planck length with the largest Hubble-sized scale of our future de Sitter causal diamond ~ 10^28 cm. This, when combined with the Unruh effect, corresponds to the Stefan-Boltzmann law of black body radiation that started quantum physics back in 1900. However, this redshifted Hawking horizon blackbody radiation must be coming back from our future de Sitter cosmological horizon not from our past particle horizon.
  • Jack Sarfatti 5) Localizing the four space and time translations corresponds to Einstein’s general coordinate transformations that are now gauge transformations defining an equivalence class of physically identical representations of the same curvature tensor field. However, the compensating gauge connection there corresponds to torsion fields not curvature fields. The curvature field corresponds to localizing the three space-space rotations and the three space-time Lorentz boost rotations together. Einstein’s General Relativity in final form (1916) has zero torsion with non-zero curvature. However, T.W.B. Kibble from Imperial College, London in 1961 showed how to get the Einstein-Cartan torsion + curvature extension of Einstein’s 1916 curvature-only model by localizing the full 10-parameter Poincare symmetry Lie group of Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity. The natural geometric objects to use are the four Cartan tetrads that correspond to Local Inertial Frame (LIF) detector/observers that are not rotating about their Centers of Mass (COM) that are on weightless zero g-force timelike geodesics. Zero torsion is then imposed as an ad-hoc constraint to regain Einstein’s 1916 model as a limiting case. The ten parameter Poincare Lie group is subgroup of the fifteen parameter conformal group that adds four constant proper acceleration hyperbolic Wolfgang Rindler horizon boosts and one dilation scale transformation that corresponds to Herman Weyl’s original failed attempt to unify gravity with electromagnetism. The spinor Dirac square roots of the conformal group correspond to Roger Penrose’s “twistors.”
  •  
     
  • JackSarfatti's comment on A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox via @nytimes http://t.co/I671P9aoP3 1 of 2
    A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox
    nyti.ms
    A paradox around matter leaking from black holes puts into question various scientific axioms: Either information can be lost; Einstein’s principle of equivalence is wrong; or quantum field theory needs fixing.
  • Jack SarfattiActually I was the first to propose a connection between gravity wormholes and quantum entanglement back in the early 1970's when I was at Abdus Salam's Institute in Trieste, Italy. The idea is explicit in the zany book Space-Time and Beyond (Dutton, 1975) that I co-authored with New Age artist Bob Toben and physicist Fred Alan Wolf. MIT Professor David Kaiser describes this history in his award winning book "How the Hippies Saved Physics." Curious that this article thinks that traversable wormholes are impossible. Many physicists think otherwise. Traversable wormholes held open by gravitationally repulsive exotic dark energy without horizons would of course permit faster-than-light communication via entanglement in violation of orthodox quantum theory. Indeed, Antony Valentini has written papers on such signal nonlocality using David Bohm's interpretation of quantum theory when the "beables" are not in thermal equilibirium.
  • Jack SarfattiThe black hole horizon is already quite physical without violating Einstein's equivalence principle for the hovering observer who must have an increasingly large proper acceleration the closer he gets to the horizon. By the Unruh effect, the hovering observer Bob sees a large temperature of real thermal photons. If Bob burns up from hovering too close to the horizon, and if Alice free falls into the black hole in close contact with Bob, then it seems plausible that Alice will feel Bob's heat and indeed catch fire herself. Furthermore, the virtual electron-positron pairs stuck to the horizon in Hawking's radiation mechanism will also feel the photon heat high temperature and will get enough energy from the gravity field to excite into a real electron positron plasma within a Compton wavelength thickness, so that free-falling Alice should see that as a quantum firewall. The equivalence principle is a classical physics idea prior to quantum corrections. Hence, I see no real paradox if looked at from this perspective.
  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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?edit=vd&v=7V4LVxue0FY