On Mar 23, 2010, at 12:46 AM, james f woodward wrote:
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?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.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! ;-)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.
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:01:39 -0700 JACK SARFATTI <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
writes:
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."