Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: Susskind's New Book - 3 Shipov, Puthoff's PV & Chapline's "Dark Star"

Expand Messages
  • Jack Sarfatti
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Begin forwarded message:

      > Comment 3
      > Lenny's book will not be comprehensible to the math-illiterate New
      > Age reader. He opens up with the math of black holes in different
      > coordinate representations nicely presented in a way that
      > implicitly clearly shows why Hal Puthoff's PV alternative to the
      > black hole is not a good theory. But you need to remember (or look
      > up) your high school logarithms and the trigonometry formula for
      > the tangent of the half-angle to show from eqs (1.1.2) to (1.1.4)
      > that a signal from the black hole surface horizon never reaches the
      > distant observers. The Penrose diagram makes that instantly obvious
      > of course. Hal uses isotropic coordinates inside the event horizon
      > where they are not appropriate. He says he can do that because his
      > exponential metric does not have an event horizon. But in that case
      > his solution does not obey Einstein's vacuum GR equation Ruv = 0.
      > Therefore, PV theory conflicts with GR. Indeed, PV theory is not
      > consistent with Diff(4) tensors and therefore, it violates the
      > equivalence principle. In spite of that Hal Puthoff claims he is
      > not offering a theory different from GR but only an "engineer's"
      > way to do it. This, of course, is self-contradictory. Note that in
      > George Chapline's "dark star" theory there is dark energy behind
      > the event horizon, i.e. not Ruv = 0, but the same equation I use
      > Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
      > We do seem to need Gennady Shipov's torsion field beyond 1915 GR to
      > allow
      > /\zpf^,v =/= 0 at the event horizon boundary because the Bianchi
      > identities without torsion demand /\zpf^,v = 0.
      > On Aug 31, 2005, at 10:15 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
      >> Comment 2
      >> Lenny: "Eventually the black hole must completely evaporate.
      >> Hawking then raised the question of what becomes of the quantum
      >> correlations between matter outside the black hole and matter that
      >> disappears behind the horizon. ... Hawking then made arguments
      >> that there is no way, consistent with causality, for the
      >> correlations to be carried by the outgoing evaporation products."
      >> Jack: So much the worse for causality, which here means no space-
      >> like influences outside the local light cones. Bell's theorem
      >> shows that such space-like influences are needed and they are
      >> locally random in micro-quantum theory consistent with the
      >> blackbody radiation.
      >> Lenny: "Thus, according to Hawking, the existence of black holes
      >> inevitably causes a loss of quantum coherence and breakdown of one
      >> of the basic principles of quantum mechanics - the evolution of
      >> pure states into pure states."
      >> Jack: So much the worse for micro-quantum mechanics. It's time to
      >> slaughter that Sacred Cow. Global special relativity of 1905 is
      >> violated by the necessity of gravity and inertia in local general
      >> relativity of 1915 where it is relegated to a purely local tangent
      >> space by the equivalence principle. In the same way micro-quantum
      >> mechanics is not complete, but merely corresponds to nonlocally
      >> entangled small fluctuations about the stiff macro-quantum vacuum
      >> ODLRO coherent order parameter that provides the local fabric of
      >> space-time via
      >> B = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(argVacuum ODLRO).
      >> Lenny: "Hawking further argued that once the loss of quantum
      >> coherence is permitted in black hole evaporation, it becomes
      >> compulsory in all processes involving the Planck scale. The world
      >> would behave as if it were in a noisy environment which
      >> continuously leads to a loss of coherence. The trouble with this
      >> is that there is no known way to destroy coherence without at the
      >> same time violating energy conservation by heating the world."
      >> Jack: I need to see the math of the above argument. Why does not
      >> the expansion of the universe cool down this alleged heating
      >> effect? Also total energy is not necessarily conserved in curved
      >> space-time because of the breakdown of time translation symmetry.
      >> Presumably the book will explain this argument in more detail.
      >> Lenny wants to hold on to micro-quantum unitarity at all costs and
      >> I think this is the basic error in his thesis, but I could be
      >> wrong. The macro-quantum vacuum ODLRO order parameter does not
      >> obey a unitary time evolution. You cannot think of |psi|^2 as a
      >> Born quantum probability density like you can for micro-quantum
      >> wave functions.
      >> Indeed the space integral of |psi(x)|^2 need not be a constant of
      >> the motion at all. For example, you have a pot of superfluid
      >> helium at almost T = 0 at t = 0 and then you slowly heat it. As
      >> you heat the superfluid it turns to normal fluid completely
      >> disappearing at the lambda point. In the case of vacuum ODLRO the
      >> "normal fluid" is the dark energy!
      >> On Aug 31, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
      >>> "Black Holes, Information and the String Theory Revolution: The
      >>> Holographic Universe"
      >>> Comment 1
      >>> Lenny: "The paradox was discovered by Jacob Bekenstein and turned
      >>> into a serious crisis by Stephen Hawking. ... Bekenstein realized
      >>> that if the second law of thermodynamics was not to be violated
      >>> in the presence of a black hole, the black hole must possess an
      >>> intrinsic entropy. ... How and why a classical solution of field
      >>> equations should be endowed with thermodynamical attributes has
      >>> remained obscure."
      >>> Jack: The black hole is a property of Einstein's vacuum equation
      >>> Ruv = 0
      >>> However, this equation is a c-number emergent field theory from
      >>> vacuum ODLRO. George Chapline, Jr and I have both arrived at this
      >>> general idea quite independently. Let the vacuum ODLRO order
      >>> parameter be
      >>> psi = |psi|e^iargpsi
      >>> suppress internal symmetry indices, but think of SU(2)hypercharge
      >>> that has a neutral VEV in the standard model (evidence from NASA
      >>> Pioneer anomaly a_g = -cH(t) as a hedgehog topological defect
      >>> centered at Sun).
      >>> Let the Einstein-Cartan 1-form be
      >>> e = 1 + B
      >>> My ansatz is
      >>> B = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(argtheta)
      >>> with "string" branch cuts in argtheta
      >>> Therefore, there is no gravity and inertia when h -> 0 and c ->
      >>> infinity even when G =/= 0. There is still some residual "normal
      >>> fluid" fluctuations around the stiff vacuum order parameter psi
      >>> that obeys the rules of micro-quantum theory as given by Lenny.
      >>> The ratio of normal to superfluid obviously has a temperature
      >>> parameter T. Therefore, Lenny's question is answered.
      >>> to be continued
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.