You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog Blog (Full Text Display)

Added June 18, 2010

"The system will collapse or fail substantially before we reach the finish line ahead of the well and the worst is yet to come. Sorry to bring you that news, I know it is grim, but that is the way I see it....I sincerely hope I am wrong. We need to prepare for the possibility of this blow out sending more oil into the gulf per week then what we already have now, because that is what a collapse of the system will cause. All the collection efforts that have captured oil will be erased in short order. The magnitude of this disaster will increase exponentially by the time we can do anything to halt it and our odds of actually even being able to halt it will go down. The magnitude and impact of this disaster will eclipse anything we have known in our life times if the worst or even near worst happens..."

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967

Hi L

Now, why didn't I think of that? Too freaked out by the whole thing. Very elegant, obvious in hindsight, but I suppose the issue is how many barrels escape before mechanical quasi-hydrostatic equilibrium sets in? What about chemical potential gradient - diffusion of oil molecules into the lower concentration of the outside water - what is characteristic time for that? In other words, the boundary between the oil and the water is porous

On Jun 17, 2010, at 10:09 PM, L S PhD wrote:

"The reservoir only has so much oil. I mean even if they can't stop the flow mechanically it will stop pretty soon on its own ... as the pressure in the reservoir equalizes with the external

I meant "stop eventually" ... I understand why there is a moratorium on the drilling now but ..actually if there was more drilling out there now the spill would come to a natural stop sooner because the combined production would lower the reservoir pressure faster."

Jun
13

Tagged in:

Did a 'sleeper' field awake to expand the universe?

• 11 June 2010 by Anil Ananthaswamy

To overcome this daunting discrepancy, physicists have resorted to other explanations for the recent cosmic acceleration. One explanation is the idea that space-time is suffused with a field called quintessence. This field is scalar, meaning that at any given point in space-time it has a value, but no direction. Einstein's equations show that in the presence of a scalar field that changes very slowly, space-time will expand at an ever-increasing rate...

Thank ye,

Th' Admiralty

Cap'n Jack Sarfatti http://stardrive.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1378:physics-vs-metaphysics-knowledge-vs-wisdom&catid=43:science&Itemid=82

Physics vs. metaphysics, knowledge vs. wisdom

One sunrise ago at 6:41 in the evenin' · Weigh in · · Gareth Lee Meredith an Denise Dallas find this pleasin' to the eye.

Sam Arnold

Answer: VALIS ;)

One sunrise ago at 7:04 in the evenin' ·
Jeff Adams

Good post, Jack. I think we all want the answer to Hawking's question. I am not personally worried about it because I know the answer for me and I am very content with it.

One sunrise ago at 7:30 in the evenin' ·
Jack Sarfatti

VALIS is our future event horizon hologram screen that computes us as images back from the future in my crazy theory. Is it crazy enough to be true or just crazy? This nutty notion started with Gerardus 't Hooft and Lenny Susskind. I grabbed their ball and am running with it to score a basket. ;-)

One sunrise ago at 7:31 in the evenin' ·
Sam Arnold

Well it can't be any crazier than "the universe exists, why there is something greater than nothing"- hold off on putting Sarfatti in that strait jacket gentlemen...perhaps the world would do well to listen to him ;)

One sunrise ago at 7:37 in the evenin' ·
Gareth Lee Meredith

I applaud you Jack for taking on Gerard, t'Hoofts holographic principle, and soon that ball will become large enough so that perhaps its not too crazy after all.

'bout one turn o' yer hourglass ago ·
Jack Sarfatti

The surface of the ball is our future event horizon hologram screen and we are always inside it at its exact center according to Einstein's gravity field equations when combined with dark energy data. This has been proved in Tamara Davis's 2004 Ph.D. dissertation on-line in her Fig 1.1 computer simulation.

'bout one turn o' yer hourglass ago ·
Jack Sarfatti

See the picture here.

It's a metaphoric representation of the hologram universe - we are always at the center of the holographic universe, i.e. observer-dependent future de Sitter cosmological horizon. This turns Copernicus on his head and is a return to the Medieval View in a way. Actually it's more complex than that and we need to invoke Bohr's Principle of Complementarity.

'bout one turn o' yer hourglass ago ·
Donald McLean

Gareth Lee Meredith

So, i've learned a little of the Holographic Principle, but what do you mean ''we are always inside it at its exact center'' - is it something obvious? :)

12 shots o' rum ago ·
Jack Sarfatti

Yes, most theorists do not have a good idea in their heads. They are good math technicians who cannot think well physically. They come up with silly Rube Goldberg mechanisms that are more complicated than the actual facts demand. There is a very simple explanation for both the dark energy and the dark matter using only basic quantum theory and Einstein's general relativity that I have been professing since 2002 or so. My theory makes predictions and is Popper falsifiable. So far, so good - all the observations to date are in my favor. Let's see what the LHC gives.

On the exact center - Google "observer-dependent horizons" "de Sitter space". What we measure depends on light signals. Gravity bends light. Dark energy bends light in a peculiar way.

Actually dark energy defocuses light like passing a collimated beam through a concave lens. In contrast, dark matter like, ordinary matter, focuses light like a convex lens. The dark energy accelerating the rate of expansion of space defocuses light into a future horizon that is literally a spherical shell of "null geodesics" - possible paths of actual light rays we emit here and now. Our future horizon is always a finite distance from us. We keep getting closer to it, but it would take an infinite amount of clock time to reach it at the Omega Point (not in Frank Tipler's sense of the word). Similarly, we keep getting further away from our past particle horizon that is the shell of light expanding away from the Alpha Point of inflation creating our observable piece of the multiverse.

The Local Inertial Frame orthogonal transformation from rectangular Cartesian triads to spherical polar triads.

Using the equivalence principle the domain of validity of the LIF is a 4D spacetime volume small compared to the locally variable curvature radii.

The origin of the spherical polar triads is the idealized point emission event origin of the local light cones. So this is a fiber bundle of triads.

Let @ stand for the polar angle "theta" i.e. latitude on the (anti) celestial sphere aka (future) past light cone spacelike slices. Let & stand for the longitudinal azimuthal angle.

For the orthonormal base triads of Cartan's mobile frames.

eR = isin@cos& + jsin@sin& + kcos@

~ (1/2)^1/2[sin@cos& (|A+>|A'-> + |A->|A'+>) + sin@sin&(|A+>|A'-> - |A->|A'+>) + cos@(|A+>|A'+> - |A->|A'->)]

e@ = icos@cos& + jcos@sin& - ksin@

~ (1/2)^1/2[cos@cos& (|A+>|A'-> + |A->|A'+>) + cos@sin&(|A+>|A'-> - |A->|A'+>) + sin@(|A+>|A'+> - |A->|A'->)]

e& = -isin& + jcos&

~ (1/2)^1/2[-sin& (|A+>|A'-> + |A->|A'+>) + cos&(|A+>|A'-> - |A->|A'+>)
These are spacelike vectors outside the light cone.

et is a timelike vector inside the light cone.
~ (1/2)^1/2(|A+>|A'+> + |A->|A'->)]

The real Wheeler-Feynman null tetrads are

lwf = (1/2)^1/2(et + eR) the advanced destiny real null tetrad

nwf = (1/2)^1/2(et - eR) the retarded history real null tetrad

mwf = (1/2)^1/2(e@ - ie&)
Limiting cases, along the arbitrary Cartesian z-axis, @ = 0
et is a timelike vector inside the light cone.
~ (1/2)^1/2(|A+>|A'+> + |A->|A'->) independent of @ and &

eR ---> k

~ (1/2)^1/2(|A+>|A'+> - |A->|A'->)

lwf = (1/2)^1/2(et + eR) the advanced destiny real null tetrad ---> |A+>|A'+>

Therefore, "+" means "advanced" or "destiny" or retro-causal back-from-the-future pointing rather than an abstract "up" spin projection state, in this new geometrodynamical context.
Similarly,

nwf = (1/2)^1/2(et - eR) the retarded history real null tetrad ---> |A->|A'->

Therefore, "-" means "retarded" or "history" or causal past-to-future pointing rather than an abstract "down" spin projection state, in this new geometrodynamical context.
These geometrodynamical light cone spinors are different from, independent of the ordinary magnetic moment lepton-quark spinor degrees of freedom.

We can also use the Paul spin matrices (quaternion hyper-complex numbers) where the tetrad basis et,i,j,k set are the 2x2 matrices.

The infinitesimal quaternion (c = 1)

ds = dtet + dxi + dyj + dzk

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

taking the complex conjugate

dsds* = Euclidean metric (Wick rotation to imaginary time of temperature statistical Green's functions).

Note in spherical coordinates where the local light cone origin R = 0 is at each point emission event

ds = dtet + dReR + Rd@e@ + Rsin@d&e&

i.e. a fiber bundle field of light cones, where curvature is the relative tipping of neighboring light cones.

Jun
06

Tagged in:

I was at the AAAS meeting in San Francisco Hilton when Wheeler gave his famous anti-paranormal speech in denial of his own formidable psychic & visionary powers - descendant of Merlin of Camelot no doubt - no possible doubt whatever. Maureen only found out about this after Wheeler's death so that rules out precognitive remote viewing on Wheeler's part. The skeptic will give a local causes explanation that Maureen being a relative of Wheeler's did look like his grandmother - so no need for a paranormal explanation.

Reprinted below with permission.

Maureen A. Rafferty

June 6, 2010 at 7:09pm

Regarding: Photo: 1971--Sarfatti and Wheeler

Dear Jack,

The photo of you (1971) is beautiful--the whole image including the blackboard. I liked your Wheeler comment, too.

I met John A. Wheeler in May 1999 at C.N. Yang's retirement symposium. We met one Friday morning when I climbed into the van at the hotel in Port Jefferson, NY, which took us to SUNY Stony Brook for the conference. All the van seats were taken, so I sat up front near the driver. John A. Wheeler was sitting behind my left shoulder and started chatting with me. The first thing he said to me was, "You look so organized." The best thing about the conversation is that I didn't know who I was talking with at that moment. It was a pure moment. The physicist behind me tapped me on my right shoulder and said, "That's *#^@*$!." I couldn't understand his Chinese accent. When we arrived at the university and got out of the van, I asked the physicist from Taiwan to repeat what he had said. This time I heard, "John A. Wheeler." Oh my, I thought.

On Saturday morning I was first in the van and Wheeler came in and sat next to me. While we were waiting, he said to me, "I remember my grandmother." He had a far-off, otherworldly look in his eyes, as if he was being transported back in time, and I felt that I had evoked this feeling of his grandmother. There was something about our connection that evoked "grandmother." He felt comfortable with me and opened up about personal things. He talked about trains and how much he liked them and how he had traveled across country on them as a boy. He said he needed a ride to the train station on Sunday morning and, since I was one of the only people who had a rent-a-car, I offered to drive him.

After the Saturday evening banquet honoring C. N. Yang and where Freeman Dyson gave a talk, on Sunday morning John A. Wheeler came out of his hotel room--at the spill-over hotel as the Holiday Inn was full--carrying one little black suitcase and climbed into the back seat of my car, along with Professor Joe Sucher (University of Maryland) who, sitting up front, also needed a ride to the train station. At one point as I was driving, it hit me. I had better drive carefully! I had precious cargo on board! I felt the vast responsibility. Wheeler had changed his mind and wanted to be driven to the Holiday Inn in Stony Brook, whereby, his friend (Hal Fitch) drove him back to Princeton. I took Dr. Sucher, whose wife, Dorothy Sucher, wrote the book, The Invisible Garden, on to the train station. The whole drive was 'otherworldly' as we were all in the flow. Definitely, the flow. At the Holiday Inn, I gave Wheeler something to eat for the ride home as well as a physics t-shirt I had designed.

Years later, I was doing genealogy research. By then I had found out that some of my relatives were from Vermont, which was news to me because I had grown up thinking I was 100% Irish. (William French who was one of the first to spill blood for the American Revolution in the Westminster Massacre, March 13, 1775, was my relative. His father was my g....grandfather, Nathaniel French of Fort Dummer and, later, of Brattleboro, VT.) John A. Wheeler had told me his family was from Vermont so I started researching his lineage. To my utmost surprise I found that John Archibald Wheeler and I shared a common grandmother in Joanna Blessing. (No wonder he mentioned his grandmother when he was near me!) Joanna Blessing Towne is the mother of my g....grandmother, Rebecca Towne Nurse of Salem, MA. One of Rebecca's brothers was John A. Wheeler's g....grandfather. Rebecca was the 71-year old woman who was hung during the Salem Witch Trials and the subject of The Crucible (1953) by Arthur Miller. (See: Rebecca Nurse Homestead, Salem, MA.) In my family lineage, Nathaniel French, Jr. (William French's brother) married Betty Nurse Duncan in Vermont and they are my g....grandparents, eventually leading to the birth of my great grandmother, Lura Lamb, whose family tree origins includes a common grandfather of Dr. Willis Lamb, Jr., Nobel Prize winner; and, also, Demarius Lamb, who was the first wife of John Deere. Upon Demarius's death at 60-years old, John Deere returned to Granville, VT, from Moline, IL, and married Demarius's sister.

Hey, I had better stop here because, like a decision tree, family trees go on and on. I thought you would like to know that John A. Wheeler and I had evoked a 'grandmother vibration' between us and, upon further investigation, it happened to be true! I found this out after Professor Wheeler passed away.

Thanks for the lovely Facebook picture of you from 1971.

With every good wish,

Maureen

Paul Zielinski "It's actually about finding ways to adapt one's own theory to contrary observations, and proving *other* people's theories wrong. Popper's view of this is just not realistic IMO. The real issue is, what kinds of post-hoc modifications are allowed, and which are not? And why? And what exactly makes a scientific theory falsifable? The answers to these questions are not at all obvious."

Jack Sarfatti "In the end it's always a personal judgment call in a complex situation. Basic rules of Popper are good - Feynman told me he accepted falsification rule as essential to good physics. Then we have Einstein's rule that the theory should be as simple as possible without being simpler than is possible. String theory fails on both counts so far. The decisive rule is to predict something important before it's observed. My unique prediction that dark matter particles whizzing through space do not exist in sufficient numbers to explain the data is testable i.e. falsifiable in Popper's sense - and it stands alone against the crowd of Pundits. My theory says dark matter is a virtual particle effect inside the vacuum in which the bosonic positive vacuum zero point pressure exceeds the fermionic negative zero point pressure on shorter scales - opposite on larger scales of course."

Konstantine Klado "Whats the reason to quantize gravity in the first place? Riemann geometry is already complicated. Why can't one just figure out how to do quantum mechanics in curved spaces?"

Jack Sarfatti "How to do the quantum mechanics of non-gravity fields in classical Riemannian curved geometry is well understood - textbooks etc, the problem is how to quantize the curved spacetime itself. An associated problem is whether it should be quantized to begin with if it is an emergent macro-quantum coherent collective effect from the random micro-quantum substrate of all the other quark-lepton spinor-electro-weak-strong boson non-gravity fields in the pre-inflation false vacuum. Gravity would then be similar to the zero resistance electrical currents in a superconductor and to the crystal distortion fields etc.- results of what is called spontaneous broken symmetry in the inflationary phase transition from the false to true vacuum leading to the hot Big Bang.

There are arguments of consistency that classical gravity must be quantized. However, they are not conclusive. Direct quantization of gravity gives an un-renormalizable theory with uncontrollable infinities in the mathematics that basically is inconsistent like dividing by zero.

Gravity is a force in Newton's theory. Most high-energy theorists do not take courses in Einstein's gravity so they think of the problem in Newtonian terms and that's where a great confusion sets in. Although Einstein's equations limit to Newton's the conceptual idea of gravity in Einstein's theory is qualitatively different from Newton's.

...

Oh you meant brane theory. I think it's like financial derivatives on Wall Street.;-) Rube Goldberg, little bang for big buck, contrived, excess formal baggage, like Copernican epicycles, too many fudge factors and probably unnecessary. Mathematicians in physicist's clothing gone wild on an acid trip! Pipe dreams - well when they actually predict something subsequently observed in LHC etc then I will eat my beret. Meantime I am not betting on Lisa Randall's "Warped Passages" for example as anything other than science fiction."

May
30

Tagged in:

The whole point of Einstein's equivalence principle (in all its variations) is that gravity is not a force in the same way that the electromagnetism, or the weak and strong interactions give us forces. The fundamental idea is that we are weightless in free fall local inertial frames (on time like geodesics in curved spacetime without rotation about our centers of mass). Therefore, the force of gravity in the sense of Newton's 17th Century theory is locally eliminated. Therefore, whenever we feel weight we are in a locally accelerating non-inertial frame in curved spacetime. We need to objectively accelerate from some non-gravity force in order to stand still in curved spacetime like on the surface of Earth standing "still" on a scale. It's the electrical force that is providing the acceleration that we feel as weight, that moves the pointer on the scale. This is very counter-intuitive and its implication is lost even on PhD high-energy physicists and string theorists.

For example, when in a textbook you see the classical vacuum static spherically symmetric metric tensor field

gtt = (1 - rs/r)

grr = - (1 - rs/r)^-1

etc.

rs ~ total energy causing the 4D spacetime curvature

rs/r < 1

Those tensor components are only a representation relative to a privileged class of locally non-inertial accelerating "static" observers where some non-gravity force is keeping them at fixed r.

By the way r is essentially the square root of the Hawking-Bekenstein-'t Hooft-Susskind maximal thermodynamic hologram entropy/information of the 3D space that a closed 2Dsurface at fixed r surrounds. Any attempt to squeeze more information into that volume will cause a black hole event horizon to develop at that r. Area of the surrounding surface is always the Euclidean 4pir^2.

String theorists like to invoke 6 or seven extra space dimensions, but there is no real evidence for them nor for supersymmetry between fermions and bosons in 3D space. Perhaps the LHC will provide such evidence? The idea is that timelike geodesics in the larger spacetime unify all the forces. This is a formal extension of Einstein's equivalence principle that would provide a consistent conceptual unification in the sense of the old Kaluza-Klein idea.

The physics of the 2D event horizon hologram screens both for black holes and for the observer-dependent dark energy cosmology is anyonic with fractional quantum statistics. Somehow these surface anyons make 3D hologram images that would have supersymmetry that is badly broken in our world. No one has shown how this works in detail as yet.

May
29

Tagged in:

Short excerpts under fair use for non-commercial educational purposes designed to stimulate the serious technology student to study the complete article.

"much of our discussion has been directly relevant to the measurement of mechanical nanoresonators, a topic attracting considerable recent attention. These nanoresonators are typically studied by coupling them either to electrical often superconducting

circuits or to optical cavities. A key goal is to achieve quantum-limited continuous position detection set by the quantum limit is in principle independent from being at low temperatures, it becomes interesting only when the systems are near their ground state; one could then, e.g., monitor the oscillator’s zero-point fluctuations ... Other important

directions in nanomechanics include the possibility of detecting quantum jumps in the state of a mechanical resonator via QND measurement of its energy ... Back-action evasion using a

microwave cavity detector coupled to a nanomechanical resonator was recently reported Hertzberg et al., 2010. Another area distinct from nanomechanics where rapid progress is being made is the readout of solid state qubits using microwave signals sent through cavities

whose transmission properties are controlled by the qubit. At the moment, one is close to achieving good fidelity single-shot QND readout, which is a prerequisite for a large number of applications in quantum information processing. The gradually growing information

about the qubit state is extracted from the measured noisy microwave signal trace, leading to a corresponding collapse of the qubit state. This process can also be described by conditional quantum evolution and quantum trajectories.

A promising method for superconducting qubit readout currently employed is a so-called latching measurement, where the hysteretic behavior of a strongly driven

anharmonic system e.g., a Josephson junction is exploited to toggle between two states depending on the qubit state Siddiqi et al., 2004; Lupas¸cu et al., 2006.

Although this is then no longer a linear measurement scheme and is therefore distinct from what was discussed discussed in this review, it can be turned into a linear amplifier

for a sufficiently weak input signal. An interesting and important open question is whether such a setup can reach the quantum limit on linear amplification.

Both qubit detection and mechanical measurements in electrical circuits would benefit from quantum-limited on-chip amplifiers. Such amplifiers are now being developed using the tools of circuit quantum electrodynamics, employing Josephson junctions or SQUIDs coupled to microwave transmission line cavities Bergeal et al., 2008; Castellanos-Beltran et al., 2008. Such an amplifier has already been used to perform continuous position

detection with a measurement imprecision below the SQL level Teufel et al., 2009."

A. A. Clerk*

Department of Physics, McGill University, 3600 rue University Montréal, Quebec, Canada

H3A 2T8

M. H. Devoret

Department of Applied Physics, Yale University, P.O. Box 208284, New Haven,

Connecticut 06520-8284, USA

S. M. Girvin

Department of Physics, Yale University, P.O. Box 208120, New Haven,

Connecticut 06520-8120, USA

Florian Marquardt

Department of Physics, Center for NanoScience, and Arnold Sommerfeld Center for

Theoretical Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Mu?nchen, Theresienstrasse 37,

D-80333 Mu?nchen, Germany

R. J. Schoelkopf

Department of Applied Physics, Yale University, P.O. Box 208284, New Haven,

Connecticut 06520-8284, USA

Published 15 April 2010

"The topic of quantum noise has become extremely timely due to the rise of quantum information physics and the resulting interchange of ideas between the condensed matter and atomic, molecular, optical–quantum optics communities. This review gives a pedagogical introduction to the physics of quantum noise and its connections to quantum measurement and quantum amplification. After introducing quantum noise spectra and methods for their detection, the basics of weak continuous measurements are described. Particular attention is given to the treatment of the standard quantum limit on linear amplifiers and position detectors within a general linear-response framework. This

approach is shown how it relates to the standard Haus-Caves quantum limit for a bosonic amplifier known in quantum optics and its application to the case of electrical circuits is illustrated, including mesoscopic detectors and resonant cavity detectors.

DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.1155 PACS numbers: 72.70.m

CONTENTS

I. Introduction 1156

II. Quantum Noise Spectra 1159

A. Introduction to quantum noise 1159

B. Quantum spectrum analyzers 1161

III. Quantum Measurements 1162

A. Weak continuous measurements 1164

B. Measurement with a parametrically coupled

resonant cavity 1164

1. QND measurement of the state of a qubit

using a resonant cavity 1167

2. Quantum limit relation for QND qubit state

detection 1168

3. Measurement of oscillator position using a

resonant cavity 1169

IV. General Linear-Response Theory 1173

A. Quantum constraints on noise 1173

1. Heuristic weak-measurement noise

constraints 1173

2. Generic linear-response detector 1174

3. Quantum constraint on noise 1175

4. Evading the detector quantum noise

inequality 1176

B. Quantum limit on QND detection of a qubit 1177

V. Quantum Limit on Linear Amplifiers and Position

Detectors 1178

A. Preliminaries on amplification 1178

B. Standard Haus-Caves derivation of the quantum

limit on a bosonic amplifier 1179

C. Nondegenerate parametric amplifier 1181

1. Gain and added noise 1181

2. Bandwidth-gain trade-off 1182

3. Effective temperature 1182

D. Scattering versus op-amp modes of operation 1183

E. Linear-response description of a position detector 1185

1. Detector back-action 1185

2. Total output noise 1186

3. Detector power gain 1186

*clerk@physics.mcgill.ca 4. Simplifications for a quantum-ideal detector 1188

"having a near-quantum-limited detector would allow one to continuously monitor the

quantum zero-point fluctuations of a mechanical resonator. It is also necessary to have a quantum-limited detector is for such tasks as single-spin NMR detection.... as well as gravitational wave detection ... Particular attention is given to the quantum mechanics of transmission lines and driven electromagnetic cavities, topics that are especially relevant given recent experiments making use of microwave stripline resonators. ...

TABLE II. Contents of online appendix material. Page numbers

refer to the supplementary material.

Section Page

A. Basics of classical and quantum noise 1

B. Quantum spectrum analyzers: further details 4

C. Modes, transmission lines and classical

input-output theory

8

D. Quantum modes and noise of a transmission line 15

E. Back-action and input-output theory for driven

damped cavities

18

F. Information theory and measurement rate 29

G. Number phase uncertainty 30

H. Using feedback to reach the quantum limit 31

I. Additional technical details 34

May
28

Tagged in:

Of course one can learn a lot from Feynman's diagram approach starting with a spin 2 symmetric small tensor field on a non-dynamical global Minkowski background. Like the BCS superconductor Feynman has to sum an infinite series of a restricted class of diagrams to get a QFT non-perturbative version of Einstein's 1916 classical field equations

Guv(curved space-time) + (G-string tension)^-1Tuv(all non-gravity fields) = 0

where now we know from Type 1a supernovae data et-al that the hologram idea of 't Hooft & Susskind seems to work! i.e.,

dark energy density in our past light cone ~ (area of our subjective future event horizon in our future light cone)^-1

in Igor Novikov's globally self-consistent loop in time needing the Wheeler-Feynman principle with our future horizon as the total absorber giving net retarded causation from the John Cramer transactions (see also Mike Ibison's papers).

Instead the spin 1 gravity tetrad fields are emergent macro-quantum coherent order parameters from the post-inflation vacuum superconductor possibly deeply connected to the 8 gluon Goldstone phases conjugate to the 8 color charges of SU3 QCD. The tetrads are EPR entangled states of pairs of Penrose-Rindler qubits in the pre-geometry (J.A. Wheeler)

Einstein's spin 2 gravity field used by Feynman in his QFT approach are composites of pairs of tetrads, but in QM

1 + 1 = 2 + 1 + 0

also like entangled Cooper pairs in a BCS superconductor there are states beyond the S-wave relative orbital state.

From: cadmo...

Date: May 27, 2010 5:46:54 PM PDT

To: adastra1@me.com

Subject: Fwd: [Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars] Are string theorists confused about gravity as a force to be unified with the others?

"Dr. Sarfatti,

Muito obrigado! Great abstract. I lol'd when I read your Subject heading."

Jonah L...

May
26

Tagged in:

Curvature, Torsion and the Qubit Spinor Pre-Geometry

Commentary on the Penrose-Rindler Formalism

Jack Sarfatti

Abstract

The physics of spacetime and matter fields is unified by the principle of local gauge invariance applied to symmetry groups of different kinds of frame transformations that leave the global dynamical classical actions invariant. Indeed, the geometrodynamic field embodied in the spin 1 gravity tetrads can be looked at as simply another dynamical field on a formal global Minkowski spacetime that is not generally directly observable since the behavior of clocks and measuring rods is controlled by the geometrodynamical field in a universal way consistent with the strongest form of Einstein’s equivalence principle. The most fundamental quantity here is the connection field that is always a non-tensor field relative to the global symmetry group it localizes. Einstein’s 1916 General Relativity (GR) is, from this point of view, simply the localization of the universal globally rigid abelian 4-parameter translation Lie group T4 whose Lie Algebra is the total energy-momentum 4-vector of the matter fields on the globally flat Minkowski spacetime of Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity (GR). The electromagnetic-weak and strong sub-nuclear forces are essentially the connections for parallel transport of tensors and spinors in the internal fiber spaces of the U1, SU2, & SU3 groups with projections onto world lines (in the point particle low energy limit) in 4D spacetime. Unlike T4, U1, SU2, SU3 are not universal. The connections for the internal symmetry groups are essentially the gauge potentials with their covariant “curvature” curls as the “forces”. The situation is qualitatively different in the case of Einstein’s 1916 GR where the T4-based torsionless Levi-Civita Christoffel Symbol connection is Newton’s “gravity force” that is locally equivalent to the inertial g-force of an accelerating detector (aka LNIF). For example, we standing still on the surface of the Earth, must accelerate in order not to move in curved spacetime. The inability of even some PhD physicists to really understand this has led to a lot of confusion especially among naïve high-energy particle physicists attempting to unify the “four forces” as well as some relativists and philosophers of physics who try to argue that Einstein was wrong in the way he formulated the equivalence principle.

"The holographic principle—dating back to ’t Hooft

1985 and Susskind 1995—goes even further, and suggests

that generally all information that is contained in a

volume of space can be represented by information that

resides on the boundary of that region. For an extensive

review, see Bousso 2002.the holographic principle Bousso, 2002

—the conjecture that

the information contained in a volume of space can

be represented by a theory which lives in the boundary

of that region—could be related to the area law

behavior of the entanglement entropy in microscopic

theories. ...

Area laws also say something on

how quantum correlations are distributed in ground

states of local quantum many-body systems. Interactions

in quantum many-body systems are typically

local, which means that systems interact only over a

short distance with a finite number of neighbors. The

emergence of an area law then provides support for

the intuition that short ranged interactions require

that quantum correlations between a distinguished

region and its exterior are established via its boundary

surface. That a strict area law emerges is by no

means obvious from the decay of two-point correlators,

as we will see. Quantum phase transitions are

governed by quantum fluctuations at zero temperature,

so it is more than plausible to observe signatures

of criticality on the level of entanglement and

quantum correlations. This situation is now particularly

clear in one-dimensional 1D systems ...

It is hence not the decay behavior

of correlation functions as such that matters here,

but in fact the scaling of entanglement.

• Topological entanglement entropy: The topological

entanglement entropy is an indicator of topological

order a new kind of order in quantum many-body

systems that cannot be described by local order parameters

... Here a global feature is detected by

means of the scaling of geometric entropies.

...

In critical models the correlation length diverges and

the models become scale invariant and allow for a description

in terms of conformal field theories. According

to the universality hypothesis, the microscopic details

become irrelevant for a number of key properties. These

universal quantities then depend only on basic properties

such as the symmetry of the system, or the spatial

dimension. Models from the same universality class are

characterized by the same fixed-point Hamiltonian under

renormalization transformations, which is invariant

under general rotations. Conformal field theory then describes

such continuum models, which have the symmetry

of the conformal group including translations, rotations,

and scalings. The universality class is

characterized by the central charge c, a quantity that

roughly quantifies the “degrees of freedom of the

theory.” For free bosons c=1, whereas the Ising universality

class has c=1/2.

Once a model is known to be described by a conformal

field theory, powerful methods are available to compute

universal properties, and entanglement entropies

or even the full reduced spectra of subsystems. ...

On both sides of a

critical point in a system undergoing a quantum phase

transition, the quantum many-body system may have a

different kind of quantum order; but this order is not

necessarily one that is characterized by a local order parameter:

In systems of, say, two spatial dimensions, topological

order may occur. Topological order manifests

itself in a degeneracy of the ground-state manifold that

depends on the topology of the entire system and the

quasiparticle excitations then show an exotic type of

anyonic quasiparticle statistics. These are features that

make topologically ordered systems interesting for

quantum computation, when exactly this degeneracy can

be exploited in order to achieve a quantum memory robust

against local fluctuations. They even allow in theory

for robust instances of quantum computation, then referred

to as topological quantum computation"