>

> 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

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>