This will be an on-going thread. George raises interesting issues and already as a teenager saw the conflict of the local equivalence principle with quantum nonlocality and global time. Indeed Feynman invited George to Cal Tech where he got his Ph.D. Ray Chiao has more recently written about the same problem. I will take the opposite position to George that quantum theory must break down because in a superfluid and other cases of spontaneous breakdown of ground state symmetries, the condensate order parameter Landau-Ginzburg equation is local and nonunitary as well as non-linear in contrast to the Schrodinger equation that is nonlocal with entanglements, unitary and linear in the sense of operators on qubit Hilbert space. George does not want to allow time travel to the past, I do. Without it, we have no chance to escape destruction of Earth by say a close supernova explosion or any number of other end of world scenarios. I do agree however with George's dark star idea because I independently thought of it myself. I also suggest its tiny brother the dark matter stabilized shell of repulsive electric charge as Bohm hidden variables for leptons and quarks. Just as repulsive vacuum fluctuation dark energy of negative pressure stops gravity collapse, so its opposite attractive vacuum fluctuation dark matter of positive pressure prevents the shell of charge from exploding. How would George's quantum critical surface replacing the black hole event horizon apply to our observer-dependent future de Sitter cosmological horizon?
George has a Cosmological Constant > 0 de Sitter interior solution even for rotating black holes that are less singular than the Kerr solution but still have CTCs that he does not want, but I do want them. I am willing to renounce linear unitary nonlocal quantum mechanics as the complete final solution for physical reality rather than an approximation when certain control parameters vanish. Presumably, a Cosmological Constant < 0 AdS version of George's idea would be a model for a Bohm hidden variable preventing the explosion of thin shells of electric charge (i.e., solution of the Poincare stress quandary of 100 + years ago.)
So I think George is inconsistent here since his own equations (1) to (4) below are LOCAL, NONLINEAR & NONUNITARY for the vacuum condensate order parameter that he correctly puts in Bohm form with the quantum potential in curved rotating spacetime. Try as he may he can't eliminate CTCs completely even in his new dark star solutions. His alternative to the Kerr solution is interesting of course.The NONLOCAL, LINEAR, UNITARY rules only apply to the elementary excitations into and out of the vacuum condensate not to the condensate itself. The equations of course are coupled. The coherent vacuum condensate is a local nonlinear nonunitary c-number "signal" coupled to incoherent nonlocal linear unitary q-number "noise". Two sets of rules here, different strokes for different folks.Superfluid Picture for Rotating Space-TimesGeorge Chapline1? and Pawel O. Mazur2??1 Physics and Advanced Technologies Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550? E-mail: email@example.com Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208?? E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org(Dated: May 5, 2005"The various developments of quantum field theory in curved space-time have left the false impression that general relativity and quantum mechanics are compatible. Actually though certain predictions of classical general relativity such as closed time-like curves and event horizons are in conflict with a quantum mechanical description of space-time itself. In particular, a quantum mechanical description of any system requires a universal time. In practice, universal time is defined by means of synchronization of atomic clocks, but such synchronization is not possible in space-times with event horizons or closed time-like curves. It has been suggested  that the way a global time is established in Nature is via the occurrence of off-diagonal long-range quantum coherence in the vacuum state."Note I have derived the elastic LIF gravity field tetrad Cartan 1-forms from off-diagonal long-range quantum coherence in the vacuum state analogous to the irrotational superflow (see below). However, I don't need a physically real global time. Also it would not be possible to have global time in our accelerating universe over long distances because of the cosmological redshift for LIF co-moving transceivers and because it would simply take too long and everyone would be dead by the time the reflected radar signals came back to us even if they could find us. Radar is only useful in real time when the range is small enough so quick decisions can be made. For example ICBMs coming in a nuclear attack against an ABM system. Synchronizing atomic clocks over really large distances is not a useful concept. We do not have world enough and time. Dame Nature is a Coy Mistress. http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/marvell/coy.htm"Radar is an object-detection system which uses electromagnetic waves — specifically radio waves — to determine the range, altitude, direction, or speed of both moving and fixed objects such as aircraft, ships, spacecraft, guided missiles, motor vehicles, weather formations, and terrain. The radar dish, or antenna, transmits pulses of radio waves or microwaves which bounce off any object in their path. The object returns a tiny part of the wave's energy to a dish or antenna which is usually located at the same site as the transmitter."Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_synchronization"It has been recognized for a long time that general relativity fails to describe accurately the physical situation in the regions of extremely high tidal forces (curvature singularities) of the type of a Big Bang or the interior of a black hole. Generally, this failure of general relativity was considered inconsequential because it was supposed to occur on Planckian length scales. In this case a rather soothing philosophy was adopted to the effect that some mysterious and still unknown quantum theory of gravitation will take care of the difficulty by ‘smoothing out’ the curvature singularities. It was recognized only recently that the physics of event horizons is a second example of the failure of general relativity but this time on the macroscopic length scales [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. In the following we consider a third kind of the failure of general relativity on the macroscopic length scales, associated with the occurrence of closed time-like curves (CTC). CTCs occur frequently in analytically extended space-times described by general relativity once there is rotation present in a physical system under consideration, which is quite common in nature."George's "failure" is my "triumph" of general relativity. CTC's are not poison, but meat. ;-)"As shown in , the hydrodynamic equations for a superfluid that one derives directly from the nonlinear Schrodinger equation are not exactly the classical Euler equations, but there are quantum corrections to these equations which become important when a certain quantum coherence length becomes comparable to length scale over which the superfluid density varies. ..."But, I object, the nonlinear Schrodinger equation is not unitary and it is local. We have new rules. We have new bottles for new wine.
Just in: PRL 106, 080401 (2011) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending 25 FEBRUARY 2011 Experimental Test of the Quantum No-Hiding Theorem Jharana Rani Samal,1,* Arun K. Pati,2 and Anil Kumar1 1Department of Physics and NMR Research Centre, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India 2Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Chhatnag Road, Jhunsi, Allahabad 211 019, India (Received 9 September 2010; published 22 February 2011) "The no-hiding theorem says that if any physical process leads to bleaching of quantum information from the original system, then it must reside in the rest of the Universe with no information being hidden in the correlation between these two subsystems. Here, we report an experimental test of the no-hiding theorem with the technique of nuclear magnetic resonance. We use the quantum state randomization of a qubit as one example of the bleaching process and show that the missing information can be fully recovered up to local unitary transformations in the ancilla qubits. ... Linearity and unitarity are two fundamental tenets of quantum theory. Any consequence that follows from these must be respected in the quantum world. The no-cloning  and the no-deleting theorems  are the consequences of the linearity and the unitarity. Together with the stronger no-cloning theorem they provide permanence to quantum information , thus suggesting that in the quantum world information can be neither created nor destroyed. This is also connected to conservation of quantum information . In this sense quantum information is robust, but at the same time it is also fragile because any interaction with the environment may lead to loss of information. The no-hiding theorem  addresses precisely the issue of information loss... If the original information about the system has disappeared, then one may wonder where it has gone. The no-hiding theorem proves that if the information is missing from one system then it simply goes and remains in the rest of the Universe. The missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between the system and the environment  ... To conclude, we have performed a proof-of-principle demonstration of the no-hiding theorem and addressed the question of missing information on a 3-qubit NMR quantum information processor. Using the state randomization as a prime example of the bleaching process, we have found that the original quantum information which is missing from the first qubit indeed can be recovered from the ancilla qubits. No information is found to be hidden in the bipartite correlations between the original qubit and the ancilla qubits. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first experimental verification of a fundamental theorem of quantum mechanics."
I find this simple model amazing and it must be a profound clue that will completely change our conception of the cosmos.
It can't be just a coincidence.
If we use for our future horizon hologram screen cosmic computer
g(r) = (surface gravity on the horizon)g00(r)^-1/2
for the de Sitter static LNIF metric
g00 = 1 - /
surface gravity = c^2/^1/2
r = /^-1/2 - d
d << /^-1/2
1 - /
^2 = 1 - /(/^-1 - 2/^-1/2d + d^2) = 1 - 1 + 2/^1/2d
g00(r)^-1/2 ~ /^1/4/d^1/2 = 1/(RHd)^1/2
since we are at r = 0 we see c^2/^1/2 ~ 1 nanometer/sec^2
However, the dark energy density is directly from our future horizon T^4 (Planck) ---> hc/(RHLp)^2
Conclusion: dark energy is advanced Wheeler-Feynman-Hawking-Unruh black body radiation on our future hologram screen "computer "(Seth Lloyd) and we are the computations.
Cosmologists have long been puzzled about why the conditions of our universe—for example, its rate of expansion—provide the ideal breeding ground for galaxies, stars, and planets. If you rolled the dice to create a universe, odds are that you would not get one as handily conducive to life as ours is. Even if you could take life for granted, it’s not clear that 14 billion years is enough time for it to evolve by chance. But if the final state of the universe is set and is reaching back in time to influence the early universe, it could amplify the chances of life’s emergence. http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=
Hi Carlos So your approach is different from mine. The Koreans never mention that its a future horizon, I think they imagine it's a past horizon. I don't remember that they mention the hologram idea - maybe they do. They do not do my simple analysis
g00 = 1 - /
we are at r = 0 where a(t) = 1
static LNIF generally covariant tensor proper acceleration at fixed r is
g(r) = 2c^2/
(1 - /
^2)^-1/2 ---> g(d) = c^2/^1/4/d^1/2 = c^2/(geometric mean of horizon scale with shrinking distance from the horizon)
Using RH & LP cutoff, the Unruh temperature is
kBTUnruh = hg(d)/c = hc/^1/4/LP^1/2 = hc/(RHLP)^1/2
Planck's black body law
energy density = sigma T^4 = hc/(RHLP)^2 = observed value of the dark energy density
this is clearly a horizon effect, therefore we are hologram images computed back from our future.
The horizon is not in our past, it must be in our POST-SELECTED (Hoyle-Aharonov) future - see Tamara Davis's PhD.
Every clear concept gets mooshed down here into black, sticky, jargon-encrusted, non-equilibrium, Valentinian, holographic, sub-quantum, post-selected gruel. And worst of all, this undead, mind-dissolving mess is not just some Lovecraftian fiction. It's real. And it walks among us."
"And like heroin, it explains everything.
from "The Case of the Dread Sarfatti Fog Zone"
Nick Herbert's reaction to my explanation of the dark energy accelerating our universe's expansion as a back-from-the-future Destiny Matrix world hologram effect.
Backward causation and a hologram in our future go hand-in-hand. We cannot separate them anymore than King Solomon could cut the baby in the bathwater.
On Feb 10, 2011, at 2:47 AM, Carlos Castro wrote:
Dear Jack :
About maximal proper force/acceleration I was invoking Born's reciprocity principle of relativity and I was working in phase space.
About a new way to look at the Unruth temperature, ...... look at the work in the arXiv by a friend mine : Manuel Calixto
Yes, I recall the Chinese paper where they play with the idea of a future hologram and Hawking radiation to explain dark energy.
Backward causation is another story.
"Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!" Erwin Schrödinger See also John A. Wheeler's description of quantum reality as the the "Great Smoky Dragon" that Nick replaces with the "Dread Sarfatti Fog" Nick Herbert's reaction to my explanation of the dark energy accelerating our universe's expansion as a back-from-the-future Destiny Matrix world hologram effect. On Feb 9, 2011, at 9:46 AM, nick herbert wrote: ==================================================== "I've never seen anything more disgusting, Holmes. I'm afraid I may just drop my lunch. Every clear concept gets mooshed down here into black, sticky, jargon-encrusted, non-equilibrium, Valentinian, holographic, sub-quantum, post-selected gruel. And worst of all, this undead, mind-dissolving mess is not just some Lovecraftian fiction. It's real. And it walks among us." "And like heroin, it explains everything. I'm sorry you had to see this, Watson. I always feel dirty whenever I come down here." from "The Case of the Dread Sarfatti Fog Zone" ====================================================== I'm sure you're sure this time You've surely "got it", Jack. Defend your priority like a dog. A toast to all who would escape the Dread Sarfatti Fog. I'm escapin' Nick Herbert http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote: This was when Bohr was hammering away at Schrödinger at his hospital bed, insisting on the *a priori* impenetrable epistemological opacity of the quantum of action. Is that how you like to see yourself?
Subject: Re: Nick Herbert joins Erwin SchrodingerAs usual Z you see through the Crazy House Mirror Topsy Turvy Upside Down.In the analogy I am Niels Bohr and Nick is Schrodinger!I am hammering away at Nick who has given up on physics and is ready to escape, to leap on all fours into the Abyss!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMyDtX4hj_gIs not the Dread Sarfatti Fog like Bohr's famous mumbling and oft obscure writings like yours?On the other hand, my argument is really quite clear - simple algebra.However, the Unruh temperature at our future horizon while enough to "explain" the dark energy density is 100 times too small to excite real electron-positron pairs out of the vacuum into a real plasma absorber. However, we can fall back on the Hoyle-Narlikar argument for that.On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:45 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:"Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!"Erwin Schrödinger Thought-Experiments In Honor of John Wheeler :: Paul Davies ... Feb 14, 2002 ... About twenty years ago I ran into John Wheeler at a ... www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/.../Default.aspx - John A. Wheeler, Physicist Who Coined the Term 'Black Hole,' Is ... Apr 14, 2008 ... John A. Wheeler, Physicist Who Coined the Term 'Black Hole,' Is Dead at 96... that Dr. Wheeler sometimes referred to as “a smoky dragon.” ... www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?... - Add to iGoogle John Wheeler (1911-2008) - The International Society on General ... Apr 14, 2008 ... John Wheeler, a visionary physicist and teacher who helped invent the theory of .... that Wheeler sometimes referred to as "a smoky dragon. ... www.isgrg.org/wheeler.php - John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) : The Quantum Pontiff Apr 14, 2008 ... John Archibald Wheeler and the Smoky Dragon by. Jonathan Vos Post ============== ====================================== ... scienceblogs.com/pontiff/.../john_archibald_wheeler_1912200.php - Cached Quantum Mechanics: The Physics of the Microscopic World In this final lecture, you ponder John A. Wheeler's metaphor of the Great Smoky Dragon, a creature whose tail appears at the start of an experiment and ... www.teach12.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1240 - Cached Nick, our legacies are here being imprinted. So you don't like Valentini's theory of signal nonlocality as sub-quantal non-equilibrium of the hidden variables? And you don't like Yakir Aharonov's post-selection back from the future retro-causality? And you don't like 'tHooft-Susskind hologram screen with Seth Lloyd's horizon computer ideas? Really? You mean this? I don't quite understand why Nick Herbert is having so much trouble seeing the amazing result here. I will keep trying to make it clear to his aging mind. On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:28 AM, email@example.com wrote: As I understand Jack's argument, he invokes Susskind's horizon "complementarity" Yes in a more generalized sense than Lenny has used. to claim that, while photons observed near the horizon do indeed appear to local observers to be heavily redshifted NO, they are heavily BLUE SHIFTED for static LNIFS! RED SHIFTED for co-moving LIFS sitting still in the Hubble flow. There is no event horizon in the comoving FRW metric for our early universe in contrast to the static de Sitter metric (our future universe) g00 = 1 - /| ^2 for static LNIF detectors observer is at r = 0 horizon is at r = /|^-1/2
/| = Einstein's cosmological constant ~ 10^-56 cm^-2 = 1/RH^2
static LNIF acceleration is g(r) = 2c^2/ g00^-1/2 = 2c^2/ (1 - /| ^2)^-1/2 ---> infinity classically at the horizon. The corresponding Unruh temperature is kBTUnruh = hg(r)/c ---> infinity classically at the horizon. This is obviously a blue shift. Now let r = /|^-1/2 - d d/|^-1/2 << 1 g(d) ~ c^2/|^1/4/d^1/2 = c^2/(RHd)^1/2 as d ---> 0 i.e. c^2/(geometric mean of horizon scale with d) Use Lp as minimum d Planck's black body law gives energy density ~ sigmaT^4 ---> hc/(RHLP)^2 = observed value from Type 1a supernovae. Now this can hardly be a coincidence. BTW same geometric mean formula obtains even in the Schwarzschild black hole case g00 = 1 - rs/r. Tamara Davis's PhD Fig 1.1c ==========================================================
On Feb 9, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:48 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:No, Z you are confused on the formalities of changing coordinates and the actual physics of the detectors.I think Woodward was talking about the behavior of *photons* at a black hole event horizon, not just the behavior of detectors. I think he was using this as an example of different observers seeing different things. He was arguing against the idea that different observers can see different physical situations *at the same time*. He was arguing that there is no meaningful definition of "at the same time" in the case of the behavior of light at a black hole horizon, when observed locally and by a distant observer.I'm am not sure about what he was and what you are talking about. However, it's not what I am talking about and I have been very precise.I am talking about static LNIFs a small distance from our horizon in the sense of Tamara Davis's Fig 1.1 c on front page.i.e. static LNIF is at a(t) ~ 2 at roughly 8 Gly comoving distance from us NOW,we are at a(t) = 11 + z = femit/fabsorb = 0 i.e. infinite blue shift classically for the static LNIF at our horizon.However, even if we use Lp = 10^-33 cm we do not get enough T to make a real electron-positron plasmaIf we use 2Gm/c^2 = 10^-56 cm we do - but that seems to go against normal ideas of quantum gravityHowever, the Hoyle-Narlikar argument works independent of this and so I think the future horizon is the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber.The dark energy density as advanced Wheeler-Feynman black body Unruh radiation comes out perfectly asT^4 ~ hc/|/Lp^2so something real is in the Dread Sarfatti Fog Zone!
On Feb 9, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:Depending on how this result -- if it holds up -- is rationalized theoretically. How does that help?Think of this more like a murder investigation.We have a very important clue - a natural derivation ofhc/RH^2LP^2as a horizon Unruh effect, but the horizon must be in our future in accord with Yakir Aharonov's QM for example.There is no competing explanation of the fact of dark energy free of excess baggage - none as parsimonious as what I suggest using only elementary battle-tested physics.No question that you are not the only one following this approach. For example you showed us the Gibbons-Hawking paper. So if there is a problem with this it will also be a problem with the reasoning in the Gibbons-Hawking paper. I think you are missing some subtleties here. The mere fact that differently accelerating detectors interact differently with the vacuum does not necessarily mean that they are "seeing" different vacuums. It's still possible to explain this as the result of different objective physical interactions between the detectors and the vacuum.Read the literature. The Rev Mod Phys reference http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5373v1 I gave you shows all the detailed quantum field theory machinery behind what I said. Indeed, no one in the field questions that much.OK, then what exactly is the argument against excitation of on-mass-shell quanta out of the vacuum by objective physical interaction with dynamically accelerating detectors? Should be easy to explain, since you clearly consider the answers here to be obvious.Huh? I showed you the numbers! What don't you get?
To summarize where things stand at the moment in my opinion.Using standard GR starting from the static LNIF representation of the de Sitter metric to which we are evolvingg00 = 1 - /
^2g(r) = c^2VNewton,rg00^-1/2 --> 2c^2/
(1 - /
---> c^2/^1/4(/^-1/2 - r)^-1/2 ---> infinity classically at our future horizon r = /^-1/2The Unruh temperature/energy per degree of freedom iskBTUnruh = hg/c ---> hc/^1/4(/^-1/2 - r)^-1/2
Using the Planck cutoff(/^-1/2 - r) = Lp = 10^-33 cm/ = 1/RH^2 = 10^-56cm^-2kBTUnruh = hg/c ---> hc/^1/4(/^-1/2 - r)^-1/2 = hc(RHLP)^-1/2 ~ 10^-2710^10/(10^2810^-33)^1/2 ~ 10^-1710^3 ~ 10^-14 ergs ~ 10^-2evmuch too small for a real electron-positron plasma to be pulled out of the vacuum, but just right for the dark energy density from Planck's lawenergy density = sigmaT^4 ---> hc/RH^2LP^2this can't be a mere random coincidence in my opinion.However, if we think of the electron as a Bohm hidden variable Kerr-Newman black hole with roughly gravity radius 10^-56 cm and use that as the cut-off we get a large enough Unruh temperature of black body photons to pull virtual electron-positron pairs out of the vacuum - even virtual quark-antiquark pairs i.e. charged mesons.i.e. 10^-17/(10^2810^-56)^1/2 = 10^-3 ergs = 10^9 ev ~ nucleon mass/energy Do some homework at least.I have. I read the Gibbon-Hawking paper and Unruh's stuff. And I don't see any argument against a covariant treatment of the Unruh effect in terms of objective physical interactions of accelerating detectors with the EM vacuum.Who cares? Of course it's covariant. The proper acceleration of the detector is a GCT first-rank tensor! It's obviously covariant.g^u(detector) = d^2x^u(detector)/ds + (LC)^uvw(observer)(dx^v(detector)/ds)(dx^w(detector)/ds)You don't focus on the the PHYSICS points.1) is the future horizon a total Wheeler-Feynman absorber? Hoyle and Narlikar say yes independently of the Unruh effect.2) why is the dark energy density hc/RH^2LP^2 and not hc/LP^4 as naive quantum field theory demands?