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