You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog Discussion with James Woodward

There is another point. Although retarded signals from us r = 0 center vertical world line in above modified Fig 1.1c T.Davis 2004 PhD redshift to essentially zero frequency at our future horizon, static LNIFs near that horizonr ~ /^-1/2 need enormous off-geodesic accelerationg(r) ~ c^2/^1/2(1 - / ^2)^-1/2 ---> infinityfrom rocket engines in order to stay at fixed r, hence they see very hot Unruh radiation, which should not be confused with the very cold black body Hawking radiation of temperature /^1/2 coming from the horizon itself seen by all observers inside the horizon (with suitable Lorentz & GCTs). (h = c = G = kB = 1). This is analogous to the black hole case, but we need to be careful. We are inside our future cosmic horizon and can never get retarded signals from it. We are outside black hole horizons and can get retarded signals from in-falling matter outside it (e.g. accretion disk).On Mar 22, 2010, at 8:20 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:Dear James

Yes, you are raising points that must be addressed.

However, it is clear to me, that the future r = 0 observer-dependent dS horizon is the nearly WF perfect absorber (long wave limit). I suspect Kip Thorne's electrical membrane picture of the horizon as well as the Hawking mechanism need to be invoked to get a more complete conceptual picture of exactly how the total absorber works relative to the r = 0 observers in the static LNIF representation

g00 = - 1/grr = 1 - / ^2

g00 = 0 when / ^2 = 1

Note, this is not the representation where Q(t) = e^t/^1/2.

I hope to clean up these unresolved conceptual issues in the next few weeks.

On Mar 22, 2010, at 7:54 PM, james f woodward wrote:With accelerating expansion it seems that the cosmic horizon becomes the boundary for retarded signals within, so one need not be concerned about horizon crossings and whether events beyond the horizon can affect events within the horizon via advanced signals. From my perspective, that's the neat thing about accelerating expansion, for it cuts off interactionswith a finite upper bound. From the HN and WF point of view, this may be problematic if insufficient absorbers lie along future light cones within the horizon.It might be a good idea to await John Cramer's retrocausal signaling experiment results. Should that produce curious results, the issue of perfect future absorption will become a bit more complicated. :-)

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html

I am not sure if Cramer's experiment can resolve this issue which exists even on the classical level without entanglement? - says JackOn Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:13:58 -0700 JACK SARFATTI <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

writes:

Actually my original thought on all this about two years ago was very simple.1 + z = ke/ka = Q(ta)/Q(te)

a = absorptione = emission

z > 0 redshiftin dS metricQ(t) = e^t/^1/2= e^t(dark energy density)^1/2

in the accelerating expanding universe retarded radiation toward the future is redshifted, advanced radiation toward the past is blue shifted.The redshift at our future dark energy horizon a finite distance from us is infinite - this is effective absorption - vanishing of the real photon to almost zero frequency ( actually 10^10/10^28 ~ 10^-18 Hz).In microscopic terms, the Hawking mechanism - effective geometrodynamical field ionization of virtual electron-positron pairs into real pairs with one particle beyond ther = 0 observer-dependent horizon and other particle inside it - effective plasma charge neutrality on both sides of the horizon - cause the return advanced signals back to the r = 0 emitter inside the cosmic horizon.From the principle of horizon complementarity we don't give a hoot what an LIF at r ~ /^-1/2 crossing the horizon sees. What only matters is what we see at r = 0. We each see a consistent picture, but it is not the same picture.On Mar 21, 2010, at 12:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

James

You are raising valid points to be squarely addressed I will study in coming weeks.However, the key point to remember in all this is that the fact that we only see retarded EM waves and not advanced waves implies that we have a future perfect absorber and an imperfect past absorber in the context of the Wheeler Feynman QED. Therefore, our future dark energy de Sitter horizon must be in effect a kind of lumped parameter perfect future horizon since we cannot ever get any retarded signals from it - unlike the black hole case. Only advanced signals from beyond our future horizon can get to us as you point out correctly - and they come from future absorbers in other regions of the (Max Tegmark) Level 1 inflation bubble perhaps.The fine points of Hoyle-Narlikar - e.g. the high k cutoff related to /, vacuum polarization are not easy to follow in detail. H-N assert they can do all zero point energy vacuum QED & radiative corrections from the FUTURE absorber influence functional in which the de Sitter horizon plays the key role. The light cone structure at the observer-dependent null-geodesic horizon is invariant for all observers LIF & LNIF at r = 0 in the static LNIF representationg00 = - 1/grr = 1 - / ^2where we are at r = 0 - note r = 0 is degenerate LIF = LNIF like static LNIF --> LIF at r ---> infinity in the Schwarzschild case.Clearly quantum gravity Hawking mechanism needs to be included, i.e. all r = 0 observers see the horizon temperature /^1/2. Kip Thorne's electrical membrane picture of horizons clearly is needed as some kind of lumped parameter model - the horizon being an effective barrier (hence its entropy) except for advanced signals.On accelerating expansion - had they realized de Sitter is essentially same as Steady State in terms of future absorber they might have predicted dark energy. However, my main point is that since dark energy has w = -1 it is zero point vacuum virtual bosons therefore FROM THE FUTURE in the Wheeler-Feynman ---> H-N ---> Cramer type paradigm - no question of that, and the fact of only retarded EM means our dark energy de Sitter future event horizon is an AS IF effective perfect future absorber and our past particle horizon is imperfect.More anon - have out of town guest for next few days.On Mar 21, 2010, at 2:31 AM, james f woodward wrote:Well, going through HN's paper, the issue of how far EM waves (or photons) propagate seems only incidental to most of their calculationsthat center on processes. This does come up on a couple of occasionsthough. For example, on page 126 at the end of the first full paragraphthey talk of "a future absorber of constant density and infinite extent"being needed to get perfect absorption and fully retarded interactions.And in their discussion of a "cutoff at the absorber", at the bottom ofthe first column on page 140, they allow that "l" has to go to infinityto provide perfect absorption.

In any event, it is clear that in the action at a distance picture EMwaves propagate through horizons if the absorption events that providethe advanced component needed to produce a fully retarded interactionlies beyond the horizon.

I see nothing in HN's paper that suggests that they were on the verge ofasserting accelerating expansion. It seems not to have been an issue forthem at all. I suppose that it may have occurred to them -- and Narlikarmight be able to shed some light on this. But their chief concern seemsto have been to show that the action at a distance picture could accountfor EM processes encompassed by classical and quantum EM -- with theadded bonus of a cutoff due to a future horizon that obviates the needfor the renormalization program of QED.

As for the membrane picture, as I have understood it from my late friend,Ron Crowley (who was a coauthor with Thorne on one of the chapters in thebook), the membrane was never intended to be taken as physically real.It was merely a way of sidestepping complicated internal processes thatmade the math intractable. As such, it is an explicitly fictitiousdevice to simplify calculations.

The reason why I have asserted that those taking the WF (or TI picture ofJohn Cramer) seriously should have predicted accelerating expansion stemsfrom a different consideration than those issues addressed in the

HN

paper. It is a consequence of the fact that horizons for normal

retarded

interactions do not act as cutoffs for retarded-advanced (RA)

interactions. The problem with this is particularly easy to see

in the

context of gravity and inertial (as opposed to EM) -- especially

in

Dennis Sciama's vector approximation to GR where he shows the

condition

that obtains for inertial reaction forces to be produced by the

gravitational action of chiefly distant matter. That depends on

the

gravitoelectric field having, in analogy with EM, two terms. One

is the

usual gradient of the scalar potential. The other is the time

derivative

of the vector potential (with suitable coefficient). The vector

potential is the integral of the matter current density,

presumably out

to the particle horizon. Sciama used a trick to avoid a messy

calculation involving retarded Green's functions, and got that

the vector

potential is just the scalar potential times the velocity of an

accelerating test particle where the inertial reaction force is

to be

evaluated. And since the vector potential thus goes as 1/r,

Sciama

identified this as a radiational process.

If the process is radiational, and if inerital reaction forces

are

instantaneous (as they are), then clearly a WF process must be

involved.

But WF processes do not respect horizons (particle, event, or

otherwise).

So cutting off the interaction at the particle (or other) horizon

is

something you have to do to get a reasonable result, even if you

haven't

got a compelling physical reason for doing so (other than it

works).

This is what I was getting at in Killing Time.

As an experimentalist chiefly interested in building stuff and

trying to

get it to work, I assumed that there must be a plausible

explanation for

this problem and went on with my experimental program. Only when

reading

Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos (in which Mach's principle

features

prominently) did I happen upon the explanation of the cutoff I

had

assumed must exist: accelerating expansion -- as explained in a

footnote

by Greene here attached.

It may be possible to write down a consistent WF action at a

distance

theory that encompasses classical and quantum EM without

accelerating

expansion. Though, if you are right, then this isn't so. I

expect it is

impossible to get Mach's principle to work, however, without

accelerating

expansion to cut off the gravitational interaction at a finite

upper

bound. While gravity and EM are analogous in many ways, gravity

is not

just EM in disguise.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:24:42 -0700 JACK SARFATTI

<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

writes:

The key mathematically is

exponential scale function

Q(t) = e^/^1/2t

and constant density / = (area of future horizon)^-1

Hawking temperature of horizon = /^1/2

(using h = c = G = kB = 1)

Kip Thorne shows that horizons are electrical membranes -

peculiar

quantum effects at horizons - the Hawking mechanism pulls

virtual

electron positron pairs out of the vacuum - one charge goes

behind

the horizon the other in front of it - these charges both can

absorb

photons.

Horizon complementarity may play a role here - for LIFs falling

through the horizon the explanation you give here may be

appropriate, however for us at r = 0 the electrical membrane

picture

may be the appropriate explanation.

However, this is the key point, it's only because there is such

an

observer-dependent horizon with dark energy density / that we

have

retarded radiation without any net advanced radiation. If / = 0

then we would see advanced signals.

I

On Mar 18, 2010, at 10:37 PM, james f woodward wrote:

Lots of diversions, so I'm still reading, but almost done. It

seems

clear though that HN, while allowing that there is a future

event

horizon, understand that the perfect absorber need not be

located

within

or at the horizon. That is, EM waves, or photons, can

propagate

beyond

that horizon and that their absorption beyond the horizon will

nonetheless produce the requisite advanced disturbance required

for the

action at a distance theory to work.

James what precise text in HN lead you to conclude that?

That is correct. Anywhere an EM

disturbance can get to, no matter what horizons crossed, the

advanced

wave produced by absorption processes make it back to the

origin

of the

disturbance. So, NH's lone photon propagating at/near a

deSitter

horizon

-- which nearby inertial observers (NInOs) see tooling along at

speed c

-- if the principle of mediocrity is correct (and spacetime is

much the

same everywhere allowing for large scale evolution) -- will not

encounter

a material absorber at the horizon and likely pass on through

--

notwithstanding that a distant inertial observer (DInO) near

the

point of

emission will "see" the photon infinitely redshifted at the

horizon.

When it is eventually absorbed, the advanced disturbance

propagates time

reversed down its worldline to the source.

I'm going to finish the paper before commenting on accelerating

expansion. :-)

Q(t) = e^/^1/2t means accelerating expansion - necessary for

net

retarded causality.

Let me clarify - whether or not there is a quantum electrical

total

absorber relative to us at the horizon is not the point - my

only

claim is that it is AS IF there is one there.

The key here is that different observers in GR do not

necessarily

have the same quantum vacuum - unitarily inequivalent vacua.

However, your argument requires the multiverse of Max Tegmark's

levels 1 & 2 in order to work, which is also interesting.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:19:08 -0700 JACK SARFATTI

<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

writes:

The point of the paper is that only the deSitter solution

(equivalent

here to the steady state) can explain retarded radiation.

"Einstein-de Sitter" is not the "de Sitter" solution - look at

the

Q(t) functions in the table as well as the density function

rho(t).

The key formulas are Q(t) = e^Ht & rho(t) = constant = /

(G=h=c=1)

_

Category: MyBlog

Written by Jack Sarfatti

Published on Monday, 22 March 2010 21:59

't Hooft 100 Year Star Ship Abner Shimony accelerometers action-reaction principle Aephraim Sternberg Alan Turing Albert Einstein Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer American Institute of Physics Andrija Puharich Anthony Valentin Anton Zeilinger Antony Valentini anyon Apple Computer Artificial Intelligence Asher Peres Back From The Future Basil Hiley Bell's theorem Ben Affleck Ben Libet Bernard Carr Bill Clinton black body radiation Black Hole black hole firewall black hole information paradox black holes Bohm brain waves Brian Josephson Broadwell Cambridge University Carnot Heat Engine Central Intelligence Agency CIA Clive Prince closed time like curves coherent quantum state Consciousness conservation laws Cosmic Landscape Cosmological Constant cosmology CTC cyber-bullying Dancing Wu Li Masters Dark Energy Dark Matter DARPA Daryl Bem David Bohm David Deutsch David Gross David Kaiser David Neyland David Tong de Sitter horizon Dean Radin Deepak Chopra delayed choice Demetrios A. Kalamidas Demetrios Kalamidas Dennis Sciama Destiny Matrix Dick Bierman Doppler radars E8 group Einstein's curved spacetime gravity Einstein's happiest thought electromagnetism Eli Cartan EMP Nuclear Attack entanglement signals ER=EPR Eric Davis Ernst Mach ET Eternal Chaotic Inflation evaporating black holes Facebook Faster-Than-Light Signals? fictitious force firewall paradox flying saucers FQXi Frank Tipler Frank Wilczek Fred Alan Wolf Free Will G.'t Hooft Garrett Moddel Gary Zukav gauge theory general relativity Geometrodynamics Gerard 't Hooft Giancarlo Ghirardi God Goldstone theorem gravimagnetism gravity Gravity - the movie gravity gradiometers gravity tetrads Gravity Waves Gregory Corso gyroscopes hacking quantum cryptographs Hagen Kleinert Hal Puthoff Hawking radiation Heisenberg Henry Stapp Herbert Gold Higgs boson Higgs field hologram universe Horizon How the Hippies Saved Physics I.J. Good ICBMs Igor Novikov inertial forces inertial navigation Inquisition Internet Iphone Iran Isaac Newton Israel Jack Sarfatti Jacques Vallee James F. Woodward James Woodward JASON Dept of Defense Jeffrey Bub Jesse Ventura Jim Woodward John Archibald Wheeler John Baez John Cramer John S. Bell Ken Peacock Kip Thorne Kornel Lanczos La Boheme Laputa Large Hadron Collider Lenny Susskind Leonard Susskind Levi-Civita connection LHC CERN libel Louis de Broglie Lubos Motl LUX Lynn Picknett M-Theory Mach's Principle Mae Jemison Making Starships and Star Gates Martin Rees Mathematical Mind MATRIX Matter-AntiMatter Asymmetry Max Tegmark Menas Kafatos Michael Persinger Michael Towler microtubules Milky way MIT MOSSAD multiverse NASA Nick Bostrum Nick Herbert Nobel Prize nonlocality Obama organized-stalking Origin of Inertia P. A. M. Dirac P.K.Dick P.W. Anderson Paranormal parapsychology Paul Werbos Perimeter Institute Petraeus Physical Review Letters Physics Today Post-Quantum Physics pre-Big Bang precognition presponse PSI WARS Psychic Repression qualia Quantum Chromodynamics quantum computers quantum entanglement quantum field theory quantum gravity Quantum Information Theory Quantum Theory RAF Spitfires Ray Chiao Red Chinese Remote Viewing retrocausality Reviews of Modern Physics Richard Feynman Richard P. Feynman Rindler effect Robert Anton Wilson Robert Bigelow Roger Penrose rotating black holes Roy Glauber Rupert Sheldrake Russell Targ Ruth Elinor Kastner S-Matrix Sagnac effect Sam Ting Sanford Underground Research Facility Sarfatti Lectures in Physics Scientific American Second Law of Thermodynamics Seth Lloyd signal nonlocality Skinwalker Ranch social networks space drive space-time crystal SPECTRA - UFO COMPUTER spontaneous broken symmetry SRI Remote Viewing Experiments Stanford Physics Stanford Research Institute Star Gate Star Ship Star Trek Q Stargate Starship Stephen Hawking Steven Weinberg stretched membrane string theory strong force gluons Stuart Hameroff superconducting meta-material supersymmetry symmetries telepathy Templeton The Guardian Thought Police time crystal time travel topological computers Topological Computing torsion UFO Unitarity unitary S-Matrix false? Unruh effect Uri Geller VALIS virtual particle Virtual Reality Warp Drive weak force Wheeler-Feynman WIMP WMAP WMD world crystal lattice wormhole Yakir Aharonov Yuri Milner

- November 2015(1)
- January 2015(1)
- December 2014(1)
- August 2014(2)
- July 2014(2)
- June 2014(2)
- May 2014(1)
- April 2014(6)
- March 2014(6)
- February 2014(1)
- January 2014(3)
- December 2013(5)
- November 2013(8)
- October 2013(13)
- September 2013(8)
- August 2013(12)
- July 2013(3)
- June 2013(32)
- May 2013(3)
- April 2013(6)
- March 2013(6)
- February 2013(15)
- January 2013(5)
- December 2012(15)
- November 2012(15)
- October 2012(18)
- September 2012(12)
- August 2012(15)
- July 2012(30)
- June 2012(13)
- May 2012(18)
- April 2012(12)
- March 2012(28)
- February 2012(15)
- January 2012(25)
- December 2011(29)
- November 2011(30)
- October 2011(39)
- September 2011(22)
- August 2011(41)
- July 2011(42)
- June 2011(24)
- May 2011(13)
- April 2011(13)
- March 2011(15)
- February 2011(17)
- January 2011(31)
- December 2010(19)
- November 2010(22)
- October 2010(31)
- September 2010(41)
- August 2010(30)
- July 2010(27)
- June 2010(12)
- May 2010(20)
- April 2010(19)
- March 2010(27)
- February 2010(34)