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

Tag »

Aug
27

Tagged in: Unitarity, Stephen Hawking, S-Matrix, Richard P. Feynman, P. A. M. Dirac, Lenny Susskind, Gerard 't Hooft, firewall paradox, Black Hole

- Not all three statements are consistent it is claimed.
- 1) Hawking radiation is in a pure state.
- 2) The information carried by the radiation is emitted from the region near the horizon, with low energy effective field theory valid beyond some microscopic distance from the horizon.
- 3) The infalling observer encounters nothing unusual at the horizon.

Well 1) cannot be true since if Hawking radiation is black body it is not in a pure state it is a mixed state with a reduced density matrix that is not an idempotent projection operator.

- (1963). "Quantum-Mechanical Correlation Theory of Electromagnetic Fields",
*Il Nuovo Cimento*journal of the Italian Physical Society, Vol. 27, No. 5.

So what is all the fuss about? ;-)

Throw away 1) and keep 2) and 3)?

Furthermore, there is no reason to go hog wild that the universe obeys unitarity at all levels of organization. Why should probability be conserved in the first place? Life does not seem to conserve probabilities. When Feynman gave an early lecture on his Lagrangian formulation of quantum theory Dirac was there with Einstein and Dirac asked Feynman if his theory was “unitary.” Feynman said he had no idea of what Dirac even meant at that time. Valentini has an extended quantum theory that is definitely not unitary for example. Feynman also asked why observables have to be Hermitian operators. Hermitian operators generate unitary transformations.

Unitarity is in Hilbert qubit pilot wave space what orthogonality is in the spacetime continuum. There is nothing sacred and absolute in either. There is no compelling reason to say that inner products of quantum states are invariant under time evolution. It works in a limited range of experiments - scattering experiments - very primitive smashing of things together - brute force not very subtle.

Jun
23

Tagged in: time travel, S-Matrix, hologram universe, Gerard 't Hooft, Destiny Matrix

The thin sheet of reality of the hologram universe is the brane of Hawking's Mind of God. ;-)

Destiny

1) S-Matrix?

S-Matrix is an input-output black box model for scattering of simple beams of non-interacting particles (ensembles) on similar ensembles of targets (true each target can be a complex system like a crystal or fluid with quasiparticles and collective mode excited states of the ground state).

The inputs and outputs are external lines corresponding to poles of the Feynman propagators in the complex energy plane. In other words they are real particles on-mass-shell. If massless bosons in the classical limit they are radiative far fields of only two transverse polarization if spin 1 (EM) or spin 2 (gravity).

Virtual particles are inside the black box (internal lines of the Feynman diagrams).

However, for cosmology and the hologram universe - for horizons the S-Matrix is incomplete. Sure you can use it for collapsing matter increasing the area-entropy of the horizon (black hole) or matter flowing out of the causal diamond in the case of our observer-dependent future cosmological event horizon.

However, the stable state is completely off-mass-shell, i.e. coherent Glauber states of off-mass-shell virtual bosons like the EM near fields of electrical power engineering of our grid and our every day electrical machines and home appliances. PG & E mainly deals with near fields. High energy physicists seem to draw a blank on near fields. The most important parts of the universe are near fields.

Thus the two most important toy model SSS metrics in Einstein's GR are

g00 = 1 - rs/r etc. black hole

g0'0' = 1 - r'^2/A

with horizons g00 = 0 and g0'0' = 0

Quantum mechanically speaking these metrics are made out of Glauber coherent states of off-mass-shell gravitons of zero frequency and a continuous spectrum of wave vectors.

GRAVITY WAVES PLAY NO ROLE in this static limit.

Yes, they do when excited states of the pixeled stretched membrane (Kip Thorne) with scrambled BITs for distant observers is included, i.e. Hawking radiation. But that is treated in perturbation theory around the above static solutions.

Now I do remember that the S-Matrix can be extended to treat bound states so maybe that is the way out of the dilemma?

2) 't Hooft's naive rejection of Aharonov's destiny post-selection &Wheeler-Feynman Cramer's transactions, CTCs in quantum computing, and invoking the Red Herring of the Grandfather paradox - see the World Science Festival 2011 video with 't Hooft, Susskind, Verlinde, Buosso - moderated by Hockenberry of PBS.