Text Size


Tag » Dark Energy

On May 3, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Paul Zelinsky <yksnilez@gmail.com> wrote:

Z: "What observational confirmations are available for plain vanilla Hawking radiation, as predicted by Hawking? Or is that too only a "matter of principle" at this stage?"

JS: None in practise for direct detection on Earth, but it's Popper falsifiable in principle.

f = c/A^1/2 

Flux = hc^2/A^2

In contrast we predict a second signal

f' = c/(A^1/2L)^1/2

Flux' = hc^2/L^2A

A = area of horizon where 

g00 = 0 in static LNIF exterior coordinates for Schwarzschild black hole

Z "According to my information there is as yet no generally accepted empirical confirmation of the existence of any form of BH radiation, let alone data that would allow us to discriminate between Hawking's predictions and yours."

JS: Our prediction is much higher frequency and flux.

Z: "The theoretical framework for the prediction of Hawking-type radiation is only semi-classical (QFT in curved spacetime). How much confidence should we invest in such predictions?"

JS: The whole point is that our model may be falsifiable practically speaking with current technology Indeed it provides a model for dark energy if one throws off the heavy yoke of t Hooft's S Matrix unitarity that Seth Lloyd et al jump through hoops to preserve in a zero sum game in Matt Visser's "boring universe" grim scenario of magic without magick. The miracle of unitarity requires unnatural fine tuning in Seth Lloyd's recent attempt to eliminate firewalled horizons.

Z: "And how do we measure BH lifetimes? I can see that accelerated BH evaporation would be much more significant for small BHs, but the 
existence of small black holes in nature is little more than speculation at this point. Maybe the next generation of particle colliders will enable their production in the lab? Even so, I think the suggestion that your additional "A coefficient" contribution to such radiation for a cosmological horizon tracks the currently postulated dark energy contribution to / is interesting."

On 5/3/2014 2:05 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
only a matter of technology

e.g. detection of low flux of 10^21 Hz GRAVITONS from black hole at center of our galaxy for example.

So far Kip Thorne et-al have not succeeded in low freq range.

obviously what we predict is Popper falsifiable IN PRINCIPLE - we predict frequencies and fluxes and type of quanta, gravitons, photons - Sinziana is making detailed tables. If you want to do something useful play with graphic plots of our new prediction for black hole evaporation lifetimes for actual numerical values of the parameters a, b, M, L below where

L = 10^-33 cm gravitons from virtual Planck mass blackhole “quantum foam", 10 ^- 11 cm photons from virtual electron-positron pairs, perhaps 10^-16 cm etc.

On May 2, 2014, at 11:34 PM, Paul Zelinsky <yksnilez@gmail.com> wrote:

Why wouldn't it be detectable? Is this a falsifiable prediction, or not?

On 5/2/2014 1:39 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
obviously if black holes evaporate much faster than everyone thinks and emit high energy quanta in doing so, it’s obviously important and may be directly detectable

I compute that black holes have much shorter evaporation times than Hawking et-al first computed. They computed surface vibrations and neglected thickness vibrations due to geometrodynamical field zero point vacuum fluctuations.

On Apr 9, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/9/2014 4:42 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
According to Einstein’s classical geometrodynamics, our future dark energy generated cosmological horizon is as real, as actualized as the cosmic blackbody radiation we measure in WMAP, Planck etc.

But doesn't its location depend on the position of the observer? How "real" is that?
Irrelevant, red herring.
Alice has to be very far away from Bob for their respective de Sitter horizons not to have enormous overlap.
We all have same future horizon here on Earth to incredible accuracy.

I assume by "dark energy generated" you simply mean that the FRWL metric expansion is due to /, and
/ registers the presence of dark energy.
What else? Obviously.

We have actually measured advanced back-from-the-future Hawking radiation from our future horizon. It’s the anti-gravitating dark energy Einstein cosmological “constant” / accelerating the expansion of space.

OK so the recession of our future horizon produces Hawking-like radiation due to the acceleration of our frame of reference
wrt the horizon?
No, static LNIF hovering observers have huge proper accelerations at Lp from the horizon with redshifted Unruh temperature T at us
kBT ~ hc/(A^1/2Lp^1/2)^1/2
use black body law
energy density ~ T^4
to get hc/ALp^2
The static future metric is to good approximation
g00 = (1 - r^2/A)
we are at r = 0
future horizon is g00 = 0
imagine a static LNIF hovering observer at r = A^1/2 - Lp
his proper radial acceleration hovering within a Planck scale of the horizon is
g(r) ~ c^2(1 - r^2/A)^-1/2 (A^1/2 - Lp)/A
= c^2(1 - (A^1/2 - Lp)^2/A)^-1/2(A^1/2 - Lp)/A
= c^2(1 - (1 - 2 Lp/A^1/2 + Lp^2/A )^-1/2(A^-1/2 - Lp/A)
= c^2(2Lp/A^1/2 - Lp^2/A )^-1/2(A^-1/2 - Lp/A)
~ c^2(2Lp^-1/2/A^-1/4 )A^-1/2(1 - Lp/A^1/2)
~ c^2(A^1/4/Lp^1/2)A^-1/2 ~ c^2/(Lp^1/2A^1/4)
f(emit) = c/(Lp^1/2A^1/4)
1 + z = (1 - (A^1’2 - Lp)^2/A)^-1/2 = (A^1/4/Lp^1/2) 
f(obs) = f(emit)/(1 + z) = Lp^1/2/A^1/4c/(Lp^1/2A^1/4) = c/A^1/2
OK this is the standard low energy Hawking radiation formula from surface horizon modes
However, there is a second high energy quantum thickness radial mode
f'(emit) ~ c/Lp
f’(obs) = (Lp^1/2/A^1/4)c/Lp = c/(Lp^1/2A^1/4)
This advanced Wheeler-Feynman de Sitter blackbody radiation is probably gravity waves not electromagnetic waves.

You seem to be drawing a direct physical analogy between cosmological horizons and black hole horizons.
Hawking Gibbins did so in 1977 i sent his paper several times.
This requires the anti-Feynman contour for advanced radiation in quantum field theory.
i.e. mirror image of this
so that w = + 1/3 blackbody advanced radiation anti-gravitates
It’s energy density is ~ hc/Lp^2A
A = area of future horizon where the future light cone of the detector intersects it.




Like ·  · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti On Oct 30, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Kim Burrafato <lensman137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


    LUX has a peak sensitivity at a WIMP mass of 33 GeV/c2 (see below), with a sensitivity limit three times better than any previous experiment. LUX also has a sensitivity that is more than 20 times better than previous experiments for low-mass WIMPs, whose possible detection has been suggested by other experiments. Three candidate low-mass WIMP events recently reported in ultra-cold silicon detectors would have produced more than 1,600 events in LUX’s much larger detector, or one every 80 minutes in the recent run. No such signals were seen. 

    I claim that dark matter is a virtual particle quantum vacuum effect.
    When the density of virtual fermion-antifermion pairs exceeds that of virtual bosons, we have gravitating vacuum.
    The opposite is antigravitating dark energy.
    This comes from GR in weak field limit

    Grad^2phi ~ G(energy density)(1 + 3w)

    w = -1 for all virtual particles from local Lorentz invariance + equivalence principle

    (energy density of virtual fermion-antifermion pairs) is negative from the Pauli exclusion principle’s antisymmetric entangled states of identical fermions)

    (energy density of virtual bosons) is positive from Einstein-Bose statistics symmetric entangled states of identical bosons.

    Therefore, looking for real dark matter particles whizzing through space (on-mass-shell) is like looking for the motion of Earth through the mechanical Maxwell ether of Victorian physics with a Michelson-Morley interferometer - quaint.
    World's most sensitive dark matter detector operating at the Sanford Underground...See More

Jack Sarfatti Horizons, ‘t Hooft - Susskind Holographic Conjecture & Cosmic 10Hz EM Signal

We are outside observer-independent black hole horizons so that the inverse square law applies to them. In contrast, we are inside our observer-dependent cosmological horizon
s at the exact center where the Hawking radiation from it converges. Curiously, using the asymptotic area ~ 1052 meter2 of our future dark energy de Sitter horizon, and L ~ 10-35 meters for indirect Hawking-Unruh horizon thickness gravity wave emission corresponds very roughly (back-of-the-envelope) to a peak blackbody wavelength ~ 1013-17.5 ~ (1/3) x 10-4 meters ~ (3 x 1012 Hz)-1 with Stefan-Boltzmann HFGW energy density ~ hc/LP2A ~ 10-34 108 107010-52 ~ 10-8 Joules/meter3 ~ 10-28 gm/cc ~ critical density for k = 0 flat universe ~ dark energy density. Remember, these are black body gravity waves not electromagnetic waves. However, dark energy comes from virtual bosons with w = -1 negative quantum pressure causing the expansion of 3D space to accelerate rather than slow down. Blackbody radiation, in contrast, has w = +1/3 positive quantum pressure causing gravity universal attraction rather than anti-gravity universal repulsion. However, the Unruh effect’s Bogoliubov transformation says that the LIF observer sees virtual bosons with w = -1 whilst the physically coincident LNIF observer sees real blackbody bosons with w = +1/3. We are only concerned with the distant observer far away from the horizon, which limits to a LIF for both the Schwarzschild black hole and the de Sitter cosmological toy model metrics. So this is a clue as to what may really be going on. It is not a rigorous argument.

Even more problematical is that we, most likely, must use classical causality in the sense of where the past and future light cones intersect both the past particle and future event cosmological horizons of the detector. One can see that the area of our past particle horizon is smaller than the area of our future event horizon at the corresponding light cone intersections. The ball park numerical agreement with the actually observed dark energy density from Type 1a supernovae anomalous redshift data in our past light cones will only work if the gravity waves are advanced Wheeler-Feynman waves propagating back to us along our future light cone. This is reminiscent of Yakir Aharonov’s “destiny” post-selected quantum waves that interfere with pre-selected “history waves to form the “weak measurements” in the intermediate time. John Cramer’s “transactional interpretation” also uses advanced quantum waves. Of course, quantum waves for subluminal massive particles travel outside the classical light cones. Furthermore, the hologram conjecture is that a conformal 2D + 1 anyonic fractional quantum statistical heat resistant topological computer quantum field theory on both our past and future cosmological horizons provide a 3D + 1 quantum gravity geometrodynamics in the interior bulk of this causal diamond observable piece of a “Level 1” multiverse in the sense of Max Tegmark’s classification.[i] Thus, it is plausible that the dark energy density is an advanced Wheeler-Feynman hologram influence and that we live in a kind of virtual “weak measurement” computed reality. Fred Hoyle anticipated this picture back in 1983 in his book “The Intelligent Universe.” On the other hand, the hologram conjecture predicts that the Planck area pixels on our past and future cosmological quantum computing horizon screens have Fermi-scale voxels. This would mean a strong short-range Abdus Salam f-gravity “quantum foam” which may be disproved by the high-energy gamma ray experiments looking for violations of Lorentz invariance in deviations from the special relativity mass shell constraint. If so, that would disprove the hologram conjecture.

The above is for advanced black body gravity waves from our future cosmological horizon. What about advanced black body electromagnetic waves from the electron-positron plasma confined within a Compton wavelength of our future cosmological horizon? Now the peak wavelength is ~ 10-12/2 1013 ~ 107 meters ~ (10Hz)-1 in the same range as our EEG human brain waves relevant to our waking consciousness and other vital brain activity.

[i] Strictly speaking, the AdS/CFT conjecture has only been “proved” for negative cosmological constant in 4D+1, not for our actual positive cosmological constant in 3D+1. However, the general idea is intuitively appealing and we shall simply assume it is correct as a working hypothesis and wait for the mathematical types to catch up with us.

Jack Sarfatti On the other hand, in Feynman’s propagator diagram theory particles moving backward in time have negative energy. Wheeler and Ciufolini wrote: 

“In the Hawking process, two newly created particles exchange energy, one acquiring negative energy –E and the other positive energy E. Slightly outside the horizon of the black hole, the negative energy photon has enough time to cross the horizon. Therefore, the negative energy particle flies inward from the horizon; the positive energy particle flies off to a distance. The energy it carries with it comes in the last analysis from the black hole itself. The massive object is no longer quite so massive because it has had to pay the debt of energy brought in by the negative energy member of the newly created pair of particles.” P. 68

Again we are outside black hole horizons, but are inside our observer-dependent cosmological horizons both past and future. Therefore, the advanced w = + 1/3 Wheeler-Feynman Hawking black body radiation from our cosmological future de Sitter event horizon will be exotic, i.e. negative energy density, causing universal anti-gravity repulsion.

I just now discovered that back from the future advanced Wheeler-Feynman black body photons have peak frequency ~ 10 Hertz resonant with our mental EEG brain waves!
Like ·  · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti 1) Cramer continued: “hypothesizing a configuration of mass and then calculating the ‘metric’ or distortion of spacetime that it produced … But there is another way … that has been labeled ‘metric engineering.’ One specifies a spacetime metric that will produce some desired result, for example a wormhole or warp drive, and then calculates the distribution of masses that would be required to produce such a metric … General relativity … suggested … wormholes, time machines, and warp drives that could transport a local mass at speeds far faster than the speed of light.” Cramer then discusses objections based on classical energy conditions, Hawking’s chronology protection conjecture and quantum inequalities for anti-gravity repulsive negative energy compensated later by gravity attractive positive energy etc. None of them are fatal as shown in Enrico Rodrigo’s new Star Ship book. Rodrigo was a physics undergrad at Cal Tech with John Archibald Wheeler’s student Kip Thorne. Rodrigo then got his Ph.D. with Wheeler at the University of Texas. Cramer also discusses the dark energy problem. The observed dark energy density accelerating the expansion of 3D space in our universe is deduced from the surprising anomalous redshifts of Type 1a supernovae etc. It is ~ 6.7 x 10^-10 Joules per cubic meter. This is at odds with the quantum field theory prediction which is, depending what matter fields one plugs in, is at least ~ 10^40 to as much as ~ 10^113 Joules per cubic meter. I now make some comments that are not in Cramer’s Foreword. General relativity in the weak field limit changes the source term in Poisson’s gravity equation from (mass density) to (mass density)(1 + 3w). The parameter w is the ratio of pressure to energy density of the source of the gravity curvature field. Real particles with speeds small compared to the speed of light are called “cold matter” and they have w ~ 0. Real transverse polarized photons in macro-quantum coherent Glauber states are far-field radiation and they have w = +1/3. In contrast, virtual photons have longitudinal polarization as well as the two transverse polarizations corresponding to their quantum spin 1. Their macro-quantum coherent Glauber states correspond to non-radiating near electromagnetic fields outside the AC power lines of our vulnerable to cyber attack US electrical grid, the near fields inside our automobiles, computers etc. The virtual photons inside the quantum vacuum forming random zero point fluctuations have w = -1. This follows from the symmetric Bose-Einstein quantum statistics; the Lorentz group symmetry of Einstein’s 1905 special relativity together with Einstein’s Equivalence Principle (EEP) that special relativity works in Local Inertial Frames (LIFs). When you plug in w = -1 into the dominant gravity source term you get -2(mass density). Therefore, the random zero point virtual photon generates universal repulsive anti-gravity that appears as dark energy. But what about the virtual photons not in the lowest sharp number incoherent Fock state, but in the coherent Glauber state? If w = -1 for near EM fields then they should also antigravitate. Do they? Since the coupling of EM fields to spacetime warping is G/c^4 is very small, we may not see such a hypothetical effect.
  • Jack Sarfatti 2) There is something quite suggestive about the observed dark energy density. It corresponds to a mean photon wavelength equal to the geometric mean of the quantum gravity Planck length ~ 10^-35 meters with the largest Hubble scale of our observable universe ~ 10^26 meters. The geometric mean is then (10^-35 x 10^26)^1/2 ~ 10^-3 meters or 3 x 10^8/10^-3 ~ 3 x 10^11 Hz. Now, it turns out that this geometric mean is the actual proper thickness of our future de Sitter cosmological horizon of area A. Note, it’s the future not the past particle horizon. Hawking about 1973 predicted gravitationally redshifted black body radiation from evaporating black hole surface horizons with peak wavelength ~ A^1/2 for the distant detectot, where A is the area-entropy of the horizon. However, and this is my original prediction, Hawking neglected a second higher energy black body radiation from the quantum thickness of that same horizon. It turns out that this redshifted component has a peak wavelength equal to the geometric mean of the UV cutoff length L with the IR cutoff length ~ A^1/2. Indeed, the redshifted thickness horizon black body radiation has energy density ~ hc/L^2A. Now if you use L = Planck length Lp and the Hubble area you get precisely the observed value of the dark energy density. However, that should correspond to spin 2 black body gravity waves causing the dark energy if we could show that it has w = -1. The Unruh effect shows that virtual bosons in the quantum vacuum of a LIF looks like real black body bosons in a coincident LNIF with a temperature ~ proper acceleration of the LNIF. Using the de Sitter metric in the static LNIF representation g00 = 1 – r^2/A, the observer-dependent cosmological horizon is at r = A^1/2. The proper accelerations of the static LNIFs are ~ g00^-1/2dg00/dr where we are at r = 0. However, r = 0 is the degenerate point where the coincident static LNIF and LIF merge. So, this may explain why the advanced Wheeler-Feynman future de Sitter horizon thickness radiation has w = -1. Now what about back from our future advanced Wheeler-Feynman thermal photons? We must use the electron-positron Compton wavelength ~ 10^-13 meters for L. The geometric mean is then (10^-13 x 10^26)^1/2 ~ 3 x 10^7 meters, i.e. ~ 10 Hz, which is the EEG brainwave region.

Term "vacuum propeller" invented at fourmilab.ch

Jim Woodward's Mach Effect Star Ship Engine the way I understand it.
I have reformulated it using Feynman's Rule
What I cannot construct independently
I do not understand

Jack SarfattiFrom: Paul Zelinsky [mailto:yksnilez@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 10:55 AM
To: GNPellegrini@aol.com
Cc: jwoodward@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU; adastra1@me.com; Kafatos, Menas
Subject: Re: [PhysicsFellows] Getting back to Jim's MET & DARK ENERGY COSMOLOGICAL CON...

OK here I agree with Menas.

On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:35 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:

"Agree with Paul.

So now let’s move on.

What is next?"

Jack writes: Glad u asked.

My version of Jim's MET CONJECTURE

C = Mach Effect

Just in toy model Newtonian mechanics first for simplicity in an inertial frame

F = Cmd^2r/dt^2 + m(dC/dt)dr/dt + mrd^2C/dt^2

effective "dark energy" potential

V ~ (r/c)^2d^2C/dt^2

/ "cosmological constant" ~ d^2C/dt^2

In Einstein's GR this goes into g00

and a nonunitary dissipative friction term

In Einstein's GR this goes into the gravimagnetic metric gi0

Propellantless propulsion is when F = 0


C = CDestiny + CHistory

The Hungarian claims CHistory = 0.82

therefore back from the future CDestiny = 0.18

In a toy GR model imagine only spherical Earth of mass ME and of radius rE and distant matter given by the Mach Cosmological Screening Coefficient C taken to be a pure dimensionless variable that Jim hopes to manipulate with his gizmo.

g00 = 1 - 2GME/c^2|r + rE| + (|r + rE|/c)^2d^2C/dt^2

gi0 = (dC/dt)(xi/c)

  1. It seems to me that Bohmian beables are obviously required.
    1) fact is that we live in a classical macroscopic world where the fundamental observable is Maxwell's local classical electromagnetic field tensor F
    obeying in Cartan form notation
    F = dA
    dF = 0
    d*F = *J
    * = Hodge dual
    All our information about other fermion matter fields comes indirectly via F and also A if you include the Bohm-Aharonov quantum effect.
    Therefore, the basic classical observable is the F electromagnetic field.
    As Basil Hiley explains this beable F is an infinite-dimensional field configuration on a spacelike or lightlike surface in which each spacetime event is a "dimension". It has a super Q and photons are not localized like massive fermions are. If, instead of the continuum, we use a voxelated 3D + 1 world crystal lattice (Kleinert) then the hologram principle tells us that the lattice spacing is not the Planck length Lp, but rather it is L where
    L^3 = Lp^2A^1/2
    A = area - entropy of the horizon screen Seth pixelated computer
    The number of BITs in J. A. Wheeler's
    is N = A/4Lp^2 = A^3/2/L^3 ~ 10^52/10^-70 ~ 10^122 in our actual causal diamond pictured here
    Showing Apast and A future with 3D volumes of both retarded history and advanced destiny influence on the 3D lightlike slices. I think Susskind's student Raphael Buosso at UC Berkeley has worked this all out mathematically though perhaps not with the advanced Wheeler-Feynman -Cramer-Aharonov effect?
    Note the change in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which according to Susskind et-al is
    &x ~ h/&p + Lp^2&p/h
    However, I think it may really be
    &x ~ h/&p + L^2&p/h
    Note that
    Lp = 10^-35 meters
    A^1/2 = 10^26 meters
    L^3 ~ 10^-7010^26 = 10^-44 meters^3
    L ~ 10^-15 meter ~ 1 fermi ~ 1 Gev
    for the voxel unit cell of the hologram image world crystal lattice
    Hawking's black body radiation is a horizon surface effect
    T ~ A^-1/2
    I predict a second high temperature horizon thickness Hawking radiation of temperature
    T' ~ (LcA^1/2)^-1/2
    (LcA^1/2) is the proper length quantum thickness of the Horizon as a "stretched membrane" (Kip Thorne)
    Therefore, the stretched membrane is a very efficient Carnot limited heat engine with
    (Work outpu/Heat input ) < 1 - (Lc/A^1'2)^1/2 ---> 0 as A^1/2 ---> Lp (Planck black hole)
    Lc is the formal UV cutoff
    Now there may be a spectrum of such cutoff's. Sinziana Paduroiu's astrophysicist colleagues in Paris suggest that Susskind's cut off of Lp corresponds to Hawking gravity wave black body radiation.
    Note that for precision cosmology (LpA^1/2)^1/2 ~ (10^-3510^26)^1/2 ~ (10^-9)^1/2 ~ 10^-3 meters ~ 10^11 Hz corresponding to the observed dark energy density. However, it is easily shown that this must come from our future horizon as a retro-causal back-from-the-future "destiny" (Aharonov) effect.
    Search Results
    Back From the Future | DiscoverMagazine.com
    Aug 26, 2010 – A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has ...
    On Jun 26, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
    Thanks Jack, I'll look at these. But to the extent that you have to adduce a Bohmian picture to support your claim, I can't buy it, because I don't think the 'beable' approach is correct. I don't agree that there are 'beables'. RK
    Back From the Future | DiscoverMagazine.com
    A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?

 if you use static coordinates

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

1 + z = [gtt(receiver)/gtt(source)]^1/2

use  r ~ A^1/2 - Lp  in gtt(source)  and r = 0 for gtt(receiver)

for advanced offer wave in the Cramer transaction

result is (first order Taylor series)

1 + z ~ (1/(Lp/A^1/2)^1/2) = (A^1/2/Lp)^1/2

---> infinity as Lp ---> 0

My argument in co-moving Friedmann coordinates below is consistent with the in static coordinates above.

As above
So below ;-)

Indeed Tamara Davis in her PhD says what I say about the change of distance to our past and future horizons It's obvious from her diagram (Fig 1.1)

We recede from our past particle horizon, we approach our future dark energy de Sitter horizon.

1) In a Cramer transaction a retarded offer wave to us from near our past horizon is redshifted.

An advanced confirmation wave from us to near our past particle horizon is blue shifted.

Our relative space is effectively expanding forward in time in this transaction with our past horizon.

2) In a Cramer transaction an advanced offer wave to use from our future horizon is redshifted.

A retarded confirmation wave from us to it is blue shifted.

Our relative space is effectively contracting forward in time in this transaction with our future horizon.

Therefore, it is effectively expanding backwards in time for a back from the future advanced wave to us.

Advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking black body radiation of peak energy hc/Lp is then redshifted down to hc/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 at our detectors.

From Stefan-Boltzmann T^4 law this gives energy density hc/Lp^2A, which happens to agree with the actual dark energy density accelerating out causal diamond observable patch of the multiverse.

A = area of our future horizon at intersection with our future light cone.

The co-moving distance from us to our future horizon decreases forward in time.

The co-moving distance from us to our past horizon increases forward in time.

Virtual electron-positron pairs "stuck" on our future horizon are properly accelerating unlike real co-moving charges with zero proper acceleration AWAY from us. Therefore, using Doppler analogy radiation from them to us is redshifted. The virtual pairs are elevated to real pairs by the very hot Unruh radiation they feel locally. This is all in relation to us distant observers according to Susskind's "horizon complementarity".

proper acceleration of the virtual electron positron pairs stuck on the horizon is

g(r) = -(c^2/2)gtt^-1/2dgtt/dr

in static LNIF coordinates ONLY

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

dgtt/dr = -2r/A

g(r) = +c^2(1 - r^2/A)^-1/2r/A

note that we are at r = 0.

IN CONTRAST, for comoving sources in usual FRW coordinates  gt't' = 1 so g'(r) = 0.

For details see Wikipedia.

Jack Sarfatti proper acceleration in a static coordinate metric

ds^2 = gttdt^2 - grrdr^2 - r^2(spherical coordinate metric)


g(r) ~ gtt^-1/2d(g00/dr)

the two metrics of interest are

gtt = 1 - A^1/2/r black hole of area entropy A

we at r ---> infinity outside black hole

gtt = 1 - r'^2/A de Sitter horizon

we at r' = 0

inside cosmological horizon


1 + z = femit/fobserve f = frequency

1 + z = [gtt(observe)gtt(emit)]^1/2


Quantum gravity says horizons gtt = 0 are really Lp thick.

so for both metrics above using

r = A^1/2 + Lp for black hole


r' = A^1/2 - Lp

get same factors (Lp/A^1/2)^1/2 redshift of radiation emitted from A

(A^1/2/Lp)^1/2 blue shift of radiation falling into A.

Now the Hawking black hole radiation temperature at A is

T ~ h(A^1/2/Lp)c^2/cA^1/2kB ~ hc/kB(LpA^1/2)^1/2

and this redshifts down to hc/A^1/2kB ~ Newtonian horizon surface gravity just as Hawking says.

In contrast, for the new quantum gravity radial oscillations of the thickness of the horizon

T' ~ hc/LpkB

which redshifts down to us to T' ~ hc/kB(LpA^1/2)^1/2

by Stephan Boltzman T^4 law

this gives hc/Lp^2A

both for anomalous w = +1/3 radiation from black holes whose horizon is not observer dependent

& also dark energy density from future horizon which looks like w = -1 virtual photon vacuum energy peaked at c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 frequency whose horizon is observer dependent.

We need to use John Cramer's TI here.

en.wikipedia.orgIn physics (especially astrophysics), redshift happens when light seen coming from an object that is moving away is proportionally increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. More generally, when an observer detects electromagnetic radiation outside the visible spectrum, "red...

  1. I predict a new high energy signal from the event horizons of black holes in addition to the low energy signal predicted by Stephen Hawking.
    Like · · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti Thorizon ~ hc/rskB

      R. Buosso Adventures in de Sitter Space

      The proper acceleration of virtual particles stuck in the horizon of Planck length thickness Lp and area-entropy A is

      g ~ gtt^-1/2dgtt/dr

      However, the retarded radiation gravity redshift factor from a past black hole is calculated from

      Gravitational redshift any stationary spacetime (e.g. the Schwarzschild geometry)
      (for the Schwarzschild geometry,

      The receiver is always at r ---> infinity, therefore, gtt(receiver) = 1


      fobsv/femit = (1 + z)^-1 ---> gtt(source)^1/2 = (1 - 2GM/c^2rsource)^1/2

      Therefore, the gtt^1/2 factors cancel in numerator and denominator and the resulting Hawking-Unruh-Bekenstein (HRB) temperature (peak frequency) of the blackbody signal is simply proportional to the Newtonian event horizon surface gravity acceleration c^2/rs (the IR

      rs ~ GM/c^2

      Computing this in more detail, we must use for the virtual particle radiators stuck to the gtt = 0 horizon source

      rsource ~ rs + Lp

      Lp/rs << 1

      gtt^1/2 ~ [1 -rs/(rs + Lp)]^1/2 ~ [1 - 1/(1 + Lp/rs)]^1/2

      ~ (Lp/rs)^1/2 << 1 = gravity red shift factor

      Now, what Hawking et-al predict are the LOW ENERGY IR surface eigen-modes from ripples in the event horizon area.

      There, should also be HIGH ENERGY UV radial eigen-modes of fundamental frequency c/Lp from the horizon.

      These also get redshifted down to our detectors to peak signal frequency c/(Lprs)^1/2

      i.e. wavelength = geometric mean of Planck scale with horizon scale.

      When we apply this to back from the future advanced radiation from our future de Sitter horizon, we get exactly the observed dark energy density hc/Lp^2A

      However, let's look at retarded radiation from black holes in our past light cone.


      a solar mass black hole is ~ 3km ~ 10^5 cm

      Lprs ~ 10^-33x10^5 ~ 10^-28 cm^2

      The geometric mean wavelength is ~ 10^-14 cm

      i.e. signal frequency ~ 10^24 Hz

      What about a super-massive black hole?
      for 10^10 solar masses


      10^-33 x 10^15 ~ 10^-18 cm^2

      i.e. wavelength ~ 10^-9 cm

      signal frequency ~ 10^19 Hz GAMMA RAY

      see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst

      However, this radiation should not be usually in burst form, but should be a steady signal.

      For the universe as a whole, i.e. our future cosmic event horizon in the causal diamond

      Lprs ~ 10^-33 x 10^29 ~ 10^-4 cm^2

      i.e. advanced Wheeler-Feynman dark energy peak signal frequency ~ 10^14 Hz.

      visible light is 10^15 Hz
      The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object is compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object smalle...