Text Size


We see in Tamara Davis's Fig 5.1 that the 2D horizon entropy of our observer universe is bounded asymptotically by a constant value ~ 10^123 BITs.

This is actually the upper bound of the thermodynamic entropy of all quantum fields in the interior 3D bulk that are merely retro-causal hologram image projections in this crazy theory that 't Hooft invented in 1993, perhaps not realizing how crazy it really is - is it crazy enough to be true?
Therefore, as clock time progresses for the ideal immortal observer (central world line in Fig 1.1) there is an effective cold death of sorts since the entropy cannot increase indefinitely. Or, alternatively, if intelligence requires negative entropy, then everything must become reversible in the far future so that every act of consciousness there is balanced by an equal increase in entropy without any irreversibility. This seems odd.
Of course matter flows beyond the event horizon, which would normally increase the area of it like matter in-falling into a black hole. Actually to us inside the horizon the in-falling matter is nonlocally smeared all over the horizon. The only way this can happen consistently is for compensating negative entropy in the bulk - looks like perhaps the creation of Tielhard de Chardin's cosmic VALIS cosmic conscious intelligence?
Remember, I said the theory is crazy. I am just beginning to see how crazy it really is. ;-)


On Mar 28, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Paul Murad wrote:

This is a useful function you are performing.  However, I have some problems with the approach used by physicists in general.
This is like going to church, temple or a synogogue. That is you really do not understand except if you have an annointed individual there to lead you through the steps.  What this does here is it puts blinders on the use of these equations and the broader implication of what these equations really mean is sacrificed because of misunderstandings. If I look at a modification of the conventional wisdom and use it as such but it falls outside of the guidelines suggested by the annointed one, then I must be incorrect.  If there is no experimental data available, who is to say who is correct and who is incorrect? If that happens then the possibility of my seriously reexamining the use of these equations would be greatly hindered.
This is serious "don't touch, don't tell." 
Now obviously if there is an error in the intrepretation, it is useful to point it out.  However, the main objective is to widen the use and applicability of these equations such that its use spreads not only to the physicists but to the engineer as well.  Physicists in general do not build things whereas engineers do.  We have a choice to either contemplate our navel or get serious and share the knowledge base to build something that could be real serious.  In other words, one group has to mentor the other group and remember that these are not equations that cover a very narrow perspective but a far broader view of the physical phenomenon that may reveal the secrets of mother nature... and maybe even God.


Read more carefully what 't Hooft says. He clearly addresses your methodological qualms expressed below.

Anything that contradicts battle-tested mainstream physics must be rejected - certainly when it comes to funding decisions by USG - and rightly so.
Sure, anomalous data is always of extreme importance - we all agree on that. All physics theories are incomplete in principle subject to extension, but the extension must always contain the previous theory as a limiting case. The objection to string theory was that there was no way to test it experimentally - that situation seems to be changing.

Where Brian Josephson and I may disagree with 't Hooft is on the truth of anomalous data in the paranormal and UFO areas - but we do not disagree with his theoretical opinions on quantum theory and relativity in essentials. I think Brian will agree with that? As we saw in the JASON meeting evaluating the HFGW data is tricky and I could not even get them to look at Ray Chiao's work on electro-gravitic superconductor transduction. I think Ron was out of the room when I brought that up, but you and Mark Pesses were there as I recall.

"As for my "stupidity", my own knowledge of the theory does not come from blindly accepting wisdom from text books; text books do contain mistakes, so I only accept scientific facts when I fully understand the arguments on which they are based. I feel no need whatsoever to defend standard scientific wisdom; I only defend the findings of which I have irrefutable evidence, and it so happens that most of these are indeed agreed upon by practically all experts in the field."

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, March 28, 2010 5:07:15 PM
Subject: My comments on Gerard 't Hooft on misconceptions of Einstein's theory of Gravity

Read the complete article by 't Hooft at http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gravitating_misconceptions.html

excerpts - my comments in [ ... ] unless I say to the contrary, I agree with the quoted excerpts. I want it to be clear that I am a "radical conservative" in John Archibald Wheeler's sense. I think mainstream quantum theory and relativity are correct. All physical theories have limited domains of validity in David Bohm's sense, but all extensions of mainstream physics theories must limit to them, e.g. Antony Valentini's post-quantum theory with "signal nonlocality" violating "no-cloning" "passion at a distance" (A. Shimony) in sub-quantal non-equilibrium of the particle trajectories and classical field configuration "hidden variables" http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/va/Valentini

As should be clear from my past discussions with Z, I definitely agree with 't Hooft's:

"These self proclaimed scientists in turn blame me of "not understanding functional analysis". Indeed, L maintains that there is a difference between a  mathematical calculation and its physical interpretation, which I do not understand. He makes a big point about Einstein's "equivalence principle" being different from the "correspondence principle", and everyone, like me, who says that they in essence amount to being the same thing, if you want physical reality to be described by mathematical models, doesn't understand a thing or two. True. Nonsensical statements I often do not understand. What I do understand is that both ways of phrasing this principle require that one focuses on infinitesimally tiny space-time volume elements."


"I emphasize that any modification of Einstein's equations into something like  R μν  - 1/2 R gμν κ(Tμν + t μν (grav))   where  t μν (grav)   would be something like a "gravitational contribution" to the stress-energy-momentum tensor, is blatantly wrong.   Writing such a proposal betrays a complete misunderstanding of what General Relativity is about. The energy and momentum of the gravitational field is completely taken into account by the non-linear parts of the original equation. This can be understood and proven easily, as I explained in the main text.  Note that a freely falling observer experiences no gravitational field and no energy-momentum transfer; hence there cannot be a covariant tensor such as  t μν (grav) ."



Mar 28

Just woke up with this thought

If dark energy is thermal Hawking radiation (noting that thermal photons for one observer are virtual zero point photons for another - unitarily non-equivalent vacua) then what about the cosmological frequency shifts?
However, the fact is that the observed dark energy density does empirically fit
dark energy density = (entropy/area of future horizon)^-1
(h = G = c = kB = 1)
and this area is asymptotically constant

The derivation from the Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be taken too literally since we cannot focus radiation into a space much smaller than its peak wavelength.

A ~ NLP^2 = area of our future horizon hologram computer spherical shell screen pixelated in Planck area BITs

the Hawking-Unruh horizon temperature is

T ~ hc/kBN^1/2L

T^4 ~ 1/N^2

Stefan-Boltzmann law

Poynting vector (power per unit cross-section area) ~ T^4

P ~ hc^2/NLP^2 ~ 10^-27 10^21 10^66/10^123 ~ 10^60/10^123 ~ 10^-63 ergs/sec

pretty damn small - the peak frequency of this advanced black body radiation is f ~ 1/N^1/2Lp

This power P from the future is focused into a single quantum of volume N^1/2 LP^3 over a cosmological time period of N^1/2LP/c giving the dark energy density

N ~ 10^123

(hc/NLP^2N^1/2LP^3)N^1/2LP/c ~ hc/NLP^4 ~ 10^-7 ergs/cc

Hologram principle is:1) RH^2 ~ NLP^2
2) &V = LP^2RH = 3D quantum of interior bulk volume of the 2D hologram image projection
On my walk to the gym from iphone

On Mar 26, 2010, at 5:50 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

TH ~ N^-1/2LP^-1 ~ 1/RH

EH ~ NkBTH ~ N^1/2kBhc/LP

VH ~ N^3/2LP^3
EH/VH ~ N^1/2hc/N^3/2LP^4 ~ hc/NLP^4
But it comes from the future.


Mar 26

Before I knew of Antony Valentini's work which only seems to date back ten years ago 2000.

Click here.

Mar 24


On Mar 23, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

More precisely, horizons can be *modeled* as electrical membranes.
Yes, and that means it's AS IF electrical charges absorb the photons and trigger advanced waves in a Cramer transaction.
I am working on a more detailed refractive index model based on the H-N papers but modified by the discovery of DE since H-N did their 1995 paper.
Note that the effective number density of real on-mass shell "charges" N is
~ 4 x 10^-2(Einstein cosmological constant)(Gravity radius of the proton)^-1
~ 4 x 10^-2(10^-56)(10^52) ~ 4x10^-6 electron charges per cc using "4%" - mostly hydrogen clouds.

Mar 24

Conversation with James Woodward 2

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

On Mar 23, 2010, at 12:46 AM, james f woodward wrote:

As an experimentalist I am inclined to say that Partridge's absorber experiment (discussed by HN) suggests that perfect future absorption
happens -- no matter how it takes place in detail.  
Exactly, but the only way it can happen is because of our future horizon. Remember most physicists are blissfully unaware of Tamara Davis's 2004 PhD and do not know there even is a future horizon! They think it's the past particle horizon! I think even Lenny Susskind makes this mistake?
The theoretical task, then, is not to explain whether, but rather how this can be.  Accelerating expansion means that you can't just keep on going forever
(with a finite density of absorbers) as HN suggest since the distance photons can reach is bounded by the horizon.  So the absorbing stuff must lie within the horizon.
But you see it IS the 2D horizon itself because of the hologram principle that the bulk is merely the retrocausal 3D image projection of the horizon! It's the only consistent model. My model is the worst of all models proposed except for every other! ;-)

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:01:39 -0700 JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
They also said that about Feynman's virtual particles as merely terms in a perturbation expansion of the Dyson S-Matrix. However, virtual bosons anti-gravitate (dark energy) and virtual fermion-antifermion pairs gravitate (dark matter). Similarly, the horizon acts as an effective absorber of real photons sending back advanced pilot waves in a "transaction" as if charges were there. In fact, charges may really be there because of the Hawking mechanism, essentially a true quantum gravity effect beyond semi-classical geometrodynamical models. Hawking & Gibbons point out that the very notion of particles is highly observer dependent (e.g. Unruh effect, non-equivalent quantum gravity vacua - one observer's real quanta is another's virtual quanta connected by Bogoliubov transformation ).

"The formal and physical significance of the unitarily inequivalence among representations is that the vacuum state in each of them cannot be expressed in terms of the vacua of other representations. Thus, for example, the vacuum of a metal in the superconductive phase cannot be expressed in terms of the vacuum of the (same) metal in the “normal” phase." 


From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@PacBell.net>
Date: March 24, 2010 8:59:44 AM PDT
To: james f woodward <jfwoodward@juno.com>

Subject: [Starfleet Command] Re: Electrical membrane horizon a mere fiction? Or?

On Mar 24, 2010, at 1:00 AM, james f woodward wrote:

Well, as Edward Harrison makes "clear" in his chapter on horizons (where, I note, the coordinates used by Davis are introduced), this business can get a bit complicated and confusing.  But I suspect that most folks doing cosmology assume the existence of a future deSitter horizon (and perhaps a particle horizon too).  I also expect that almost none of them worry much, if at all, about perfect future absorption as they don't take WF action at a distance theory seriously.  :-)
Yes, you are right they don't. Not doing so is their greatest blunder. The only mainstream cosmologist aware of it seems to be Bernard Carr. Every paper I know of only invokes the past particle horizon as the hologram screen - none of them mention the future horizon as the hologram screen because that demands WF retrocausation without retrocausation (a Wheelerism). Quite obviously, the future dark energy horizon is the Godzilla in the closet! Quite obviously it is effectively the WF future absorber explaining the Partridge experiment. There is no plausible alternative consistent with parsimony. If there is, then show me.
Hologram principle demands
1) future 2D event horizon = pixelated hologram screen - conformal anyon quantum field theory
2) 3D bulk geometrodynamical field as the retrocausal hologram image
3) entropy of 3D observable universe bounded by area of this future horizon hologram computer screen
4) Therefore Arrow of Time is trivial 1 Bit at t = 0 (inflation) asympotic to 10^123 BITs.
Conjecture: All null geodesic future horizons are perfect Wheeler-Feynman retro-causal reflectors (perfect absorbers) generators of Cramer transactions of radiative processes inside them. 
A normal optical reflector converts retarded waves into retarded waves according to Snell's law in space. The future horizon reflects in spacetime.
some background information
"1 The Complementarity Principle
"Recent evidence suggests that we may live in a space-time that will asymptotically tend to de Sitter Space. If this is so, it is important to understand how quantum gravity should be formulated in such a geometry. Since de Sitter Space has an event horizon many of the questions that confused theorists about the quantum theory of black holes become relevant to cosmology. Perhaps the most important lesson we have learned from black hole quantum mechanics concerns the complementary way that different observers describe events in the black hole environment. That together with the Holographic principle, the UV/IR connection and the counting of black hole microstates is providing a new paradigm for the quantum mechanics of horizons. It is therefore natural to try to apply them to de Sitter Space.

According to the Principle of Black Hole Complementarity [1] the horizon of a black hole may be regarded by an external observer as an impenetrable thermal membrane which can absorb, thermalize and reemit all informationThe principle also says that a freely falling observer encounters nothing special at the horizon. The principle has received strong support from the study of gravity in AdS space and its equivalence to the boundary conformal field theory. The horizon of a de Sitter Space is structurally very similar to that of a black hole. ... Does this mean that an exact dS/CFT correspondence can not exist? This is not entirely clear." Susskind et-al http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0202163v4