Re: Hawking and Penrose at GR 17 Dublin 2004
From: |-|erc (gotch_at_beauty.com)
Date: 08/01/04
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Self-teaching of integration methods"
- Previous message: Curioser: "Re: Hamiltonian path"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 09:34:16 GMT
just collating to sent items to later review Penrose ideology.
Herc
"Jack Sarfatti" <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in
> Correction change "Fiction" to "Fantasy" in original. I make some typo
> corrections and added comments below.
> I am back in Bloomsbury by British Museum until San Francisco soon.
> James Joyce Exhibition at Irish National Library in Dublin worth seeing.
>
> Roger Penrose's book "The Road to Reality" is a must read. So is "The
> Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology" (Cambridge) ed. Gibbons
> et-al as well as Wheeler "Science & Ultimate Reality". Little online
> time till I return to San Francisco next week.
>
> On Jul 24, 2004, at 1:44 PM, Colin Bennett wrote:
>
> Hello all Savants,
> Hal Puthoff wrote:
>
> "I suspect that long after all of Jack's missives are rotting away in
> old computer disks, people will be reading your book and using it as
> text in major universities. Go, go, go!!!"
>
> I protest, sir! Jack Sarfatti's books are authentic modern “texts” in
> the sense that few scientific documents, shorn of all imagery, are. Part
> autobiographical in nature, they contain adventure and excitements that
> stretch over some forty years, and apart from their scientific and
> historical value alone, they will be remembered as important
> mythological texts of our time . What makes them quite unique is that
> the included theoretical mathematical physics function as an holistic
> part of Jack Sarfatti’s experience. Nothing cancels anything else out.
> The equations reflect certainly the rest of the dramatic synthesis. By
> analogy, the problems involved in their resolution reflect a broad range
> of the social, and psychological problems of our time. This is the
> proper socialisation of science that is badly needed in popular education.
>
> Sarfatti is a scholar, a gentleman, and a great communicator with a
> universal view of things. Most scientists are not accessible to the
> general public in this sense. As shadowy figures working at gadgets,
> they lack all that wide reading and broad education that enables them to
> see their role in the broadest possible context.
> In this sense, most corporate scientists with their singular separations
> of the mechanical view are like bulldozers through rainforests. They
> destroy creativity, paradox, anomaly in their doomed attempt to
> understand the universe “objectively” by piling sand grain upon sand
> grain. This is 19th century dictionary–file clerk work that will rot in
> those files you talk about, sir! Only art form can penetrate these
> interstices as knowledge systems, and Jack Sarfatti's books fall into
> the category of an Inferno in this respect being based on image, symbol,
> and metaphor, with the added bonus of Jack being a leading theoretical
> physicist.
>
> The construction of image, symbol and metaphor is something scientists
> have very little understanding, or knowledge of, witness for example,
> Stanton Friedman’s engineering approach to MJ12 documentation. These
> documents, which after all are literature of a kind, cannot be analysed
> adequately by someone with the skills of a mechanical engineer. Stanton
> has a lot of homework to do if he is to understand the metaphysical
> roots of language as complex expression. It is no use dealing with MJ12
> or indeed the books of Jack Sarfatti as they were an objective problem
> in engineering physics. Scientists should read more Barthes and Borges
> than Agatha Christie.
> I have complained many times (I am here again, Bruce!) that debates in
> this area lack all modern intellectual sophistication, and this is why
> ufology for example is still in a dog kennel surrounded by mountain of
> desperately primitive case-history books and not recognised by the outer
> world, whose postmodern techniques in aesthetics from to architecture
> and literary criticism have bypassed such simple “compilation”
> techniques half a century ago.
>
> This whole business is about the development and fruition of images
> within cultural advertising levels struggling for prime time and in
> respect Jack Sarfatti does better than most.
>
> For a postmodern approach to technology, see my essay The Dream Life of
> Prototypes Part 1, on site at http://www.combat-diaries.co.uk Part 2
> follows next month.
>
> Colin Bennett
> **
> Politics of the Imagination Introduction by John Keel. Awarded Best
> Biography, 2002.
> http://www.combat-diaries.co.uk
>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2004, at 8:24 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
> Writing from Dingle Bay, Ireland:
>
> Penrose has a new book "The Road to Reality" that looks really good. It
> was too heavy for me to carry in luggage with my two other Wheeler 90th
> and Hawking 60th books, I shall order Penrose's book ASAP. All three
> will shape my own "Hidden Variable."
>
> Fiction: String Theory.
> I agree with Penrose, String Theory is really interesting pure math, but
> so far no evidence for it. No evidence for real on
> mass-shell-supersymmetry partners. Since supersymmetry is badly broken
> it probably won't make an infinity-free quantum field theory anyway.
> Penrose did not mention loop quantum gravity, but same objections apply
> to it. Penrose did mention that Ed. Witten is now in past 6 months using
> Twistors to get rid of the 11 dimensions and bring it back to 4
> dimensions? Raising the supersymmetry partner mass scale all the time
> makes string theory Popper unfalsifiable said Penrose.
>
>
> Faith: That quantum theory applies at ALL levels like Hawking assumes in
> his "breakthrough" that information is not lost down a blackhole, but
> can be recovered after the black hole evaporates. My theory says linear
> unitary nonlocal micro-quantum theory (Schrodinger-Dirac equations)
> breaks down to nonlinear nonunitary local macro-quantum theory
> (Landau-Ginzburg equation) when the macro-world Einstein curved
> space-time non-perturbative background-independent geometrodynamics
> emerges from it in a spontaneous breakdown of the unstable false
> globally flat vacuum without gravity guv and without inertia rest mass m
> in E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 mass shell to a lower energy density lower
> entropy metastable curved vacuum with exotic dark energy of negative ZPF
> pressure and exotic dark matter of positive ZPF pressure (not to be
> confused with the QED Casimir force).
>
> On Jul 22, 2004, at 3:53 AM, K. Cruft wrote:
>
> >> The latter suggests no
> >> quantum foam corrections to cosmic ray spectrum at ultra-high energies
> >> and no dark matter as real particles whizzing through space to make
> >> detectors click with the right stuff.
>
> "There are two papers up on ArXiv today:
>
> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407416
> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407417
>
> which suggest that high-energy photons detected long after the
> main pulse of gamma ray bursts are evidence for additional
> spacelike dimensions. Note that these two paper are essentially based
> on the observation of a *single photon*."
>
>
> In particular micro-quantum gravity and cosmology is an illusion.
> Macro-quantum gravity and cosmology is not. Penrose does not say this. I
> say it, but it is consistent with Penrose's intuition in his talk at GR
> 17 that a breakdown of micro-quantum theory at the macro-level is
> needed. This is why Hawking's solution at GR 17 is wrong in my opinion.
>
> Fantasy: "Theoretical physics needs some fantasy, otherwise it is
> boring." said Penrose. I have often expressed the same sentiment.
> Penrose considers Andrei Linde's et-al inflation "fantasy" even though
> it may make some correct predictions like the scaling symmetry in the
> primordial fluctuations and spatial flatness, it still does not explain
> the fine tuning needed to set the arrow of time, i.e. the
> irreversibility of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Penrose points out
> that it is the geometry of space that must have low entropy in the Big
> Bang because the matter thermalizes quickly to high entropy. In my
> theory the geometry of space is from the phase ripples in the phase of
> the zero entropy giant quantum vacuum wave so this may solve Penrose's
> problem though I am not yet sure. That is, the phase transition from
> unstable globally flat micro-quantum vacuum to a more stable curved
> macro-quantum vacuum not only lowers the relative ZPF energy density but
> also lowers the relative entropy S ~ kBlog(Volume of Phase Space of the
> Vacuum).
>
> For a universe of size R(t)Lp in the FRW metric, the hologram Hawking
> entropy of the geometry is
>
> S(t) = (kB/4)R(t)^2
>
> S(0) = 0
>
> kB is Boltzmann's constant.
>
> To be continued
>
> On Jul 22, 2004, at 4:35 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
> Part 1 of several
>
> First of all no one really understood what Hawking was saying in detail.
> This included Kip Thorne, John Preskill, Matt Visser and many others.
> The jury is still out. Hawking's paper with the details will be out in a
> month.
>
> There are several levels of objections:
>
> 1. Can one apply micro-quantum theory to the universe at large? The
> "particle" or "hidden variable" in Bohm's ontology is an entire 3D space
> geometry which extends to billions of light years across as universe
> expands. So we run into the Schrodinger Cat problem with a vengeance!
> Hawking basically presented a huge quantum double slit analogy with one
> "slit" being topologically simple 3D metrics and the other "slit" being
> topologically multiply connected with a "fixed point" obstruction in the
> Euclidean signature domain without causal light cones before continuing
> into physical space-time with light cones where we live. Also there is
> the condensed matter approach of Sakharov and me that gravity is a PW
> Anderson "More is different" emergent collective ODLRO phenomenon from a
> pre-inflationary epoch without any gravity and without any inertial rest
> masses! The latter suggests no quantum foam corrections to cosmic ray
> spectrum at ultra-high energies and no dark matter as real particles
> whizzing through space to make detectors click with the right stuff.
>
> 2. Suppose we accept 1. Then can we use the Feynman path integral method
> to include topologically non-trivial 3D metrics that coherently
> interfere with the topologically simple ones? Matt Visser cited some old
> work by Bryce De Witt that says it is not possible.
>
> 3. Kip Thorne noted that Feynman's path integral is broader than
> conventional quantum theory that requires unitarity in the dynamical
> time evolution. One can have a post-quantum theory using Feynman's path
> integral of alternative histories that has nonunitary time evolution!
> Hawking simply assumes that the time evolution MUST be unitary and goes
> from there. Hawking's argument is probably correct given his initial
> assumptions. It is the initial assumptions that I think are wrong as a
> matter of fact as I explain in my book SUPER COSMOS and will explain
> even more clearly in my new book HIDDEN VARIABLE that I am writing based
> on this GR 17 Dublin Conference.
>
> 4. Hawking's argument in a nut shell is pretty simple:
>
> I. Imagine light impinging on a double slit with a screen behind it.
> According to Feynman's histories rule for micro-quantum theory if you
> cannot tell which slit the light passes you must coherently add the
> complex qubit pilot waves before taking their squared modulus to see
> what happens at the screen. So then you interference fringes at the screen.
>
> Hawking then makes a huge quantum leap of faith that this rule seen in
> particle scattering experiments applies to the entire multiverse!
>
> The "light" impinging on the two slits is compared to the "information"
> falling down the black hole through the classical one-way membrane event
> horizon that Hal Puthoff in his PV theory says does not exist. No one
> here at GR 17 who has heard of Hal's idea takes it seriously. They
> consider Hal's particular positions on both PV and zero point energy
> metric engineering to be what Feynman called "Cargo Cult pseudo-science"
> ask Cliff Will, William Unruh and Matt Visser for example. They all
> volunteered their opinions to me in direct conversation that Marc
> Millis's NASA BPP project should never have been funded because the
> quality of its theoretical physics was too low. Indeed, this is what I
> say in my book SUPER COSMOS. They were all concerned that Hal's
> theoretical ideas on metric engineering would be bought by USG DOD and
> large aerospace companies. So was Professor X who is quite familiar with
> Hal's theories. Allegations of "tens of millions of dollars a year" into
> Hal's black budget have been sent to me from several sources. I have no
> way to evaluate the accuracy of the sources other than to say that they
> appear reliable. Hal, however, denies these allegations. Again this is
> not a personal attack on Hal Puthoff or even on some of his past work in
> physics. This is their honest judgment and they are just as hard on
> themselves and on their closest colleagues as on Hal. Indeed, Kip Thorne
> did not immediately embrace Hawking's argument here at GR 17 and neither
> did Preskill and they said so on stage. Preskill a particle physicist
> said on TV he could not follow Hawking's argument in detail.
>
> II. Hawking then says that the only observables allowed in this
> extrapolation of micro-quantum theory to gravity are S-matrix
> observables connecting the information falling down the black hole to
> what a future observer at infinity will see. Well this is clearly no
> good at all for us physicists living now. It is one more argument why
> the whole micro-quantum gravity idea is a wrong idea from asking the
> wrong questions! Hawking then says that indeed the information in the
> topologically non-trivial black hole topology does exponentially decay
> in a non-unitary way along that "path" but that the future observer at
> the "screen" at future timelike/lightlike infinities, in the sense of
> the unitary analytic micro-quantum S-matrix of Geoff Chew and now Lenny
> Susskind, neverless sees BOTH Feynman path micro-quantum amplitudes add
> coherently at a point on the screen! This does make perfect sense
> logically ONLY in Bohm's ontology where EMPTY qubit waves have physical
> effects! The initial information I passing BOOTH slits is therefore
> recovered completely ONLY AFTER the black hole completely evaporates
> because I is REDUNDANTLY ENCODED in BOTH the topologically trivial
> "path" and the topologically non-trivial "path" where in fact it does
> get lost, but you only need it in one path. This is why Hawking says the
> black hole event horizon is "fuzzy" because he assumes quantum wave
> interference between macro trivial and non-trivial 3S SPACE topologies.
> Given all these dubious assumptions I suppose Hawking's argument will be
> correct as a matter of logic, though probably not as a matter of fact.
> So far of course what Hawking is saying is in W. Pauli's words "not even
> wrong" because there is as yet no way to falsify the idea in Karl
> Popper's sense. The same of course is true for John Baez's and
> Ashtekar's et-al "loop quantum gravity" and for Ed Witten's, Lenny
> Susskind's et-al "M theory" with superstrings - however the colliding
> "branes" may be testable along with idea of extra space dimensions
> making strong short-range gravity which is an idea I also arrive at
> independently from different simpler considerations using only
> Einstein's GR and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle with notions of
> macro-quantum ODLRO.
>
> * In this regard Feynman's path integral formalism is compatible with
> Bohm's ontology and is most general allowing the extension to
> macro-quantum theory with ODLRO. None of the Pundit Top Guns at this
> elite meeting have understood the role of macro-quantum ODLRO that can
> be put into Feynman's path integral formalism. What we need to do next
> is to see how Feynman or his students solve the superfluid helium or the
> BCS superconductor problem using the path integrals. Hawking would then
> need to reconsider since the MACRO-quantum Landau-Ginzburg ODLRO
> equations are already NONUNITARY as well as local and nonlinear unlike
> the micro-quantum Schrodinger, Dirac et-al equations that are nonlocal
> and linear - which is where Hawking & Co are stuck.
>
> "The Question is: What is The Question?" John. A. Wheeler
>
> To be continued:
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2004, at 12:59 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
>
> I was extremely disappointed to read the following,
> excerpted from a N Y Times AP article at
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Ireland-Black-Holes.html?hp
>
> "... By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ... Published: July 21, 2004 ...
> ... Filed at 1:22 p.m. ET ...
>
> DUBLIN, Ireland (AP) -- Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking
> said Wednesday that black holes ... do not destroy everything they consume
> and instead can fire out matter and energy ``in a mangled form.''
>
> Hawking's radical new thinking, presented in a paper
> to the 17th International Conference on General Relativity
> and Gravitation in Dublin, capped his three-decade struggle
> to explain an elemental paradox in scientific thinking:
> ...
> Hawking's answer is that the black holes hold their contents for eons
> but themselves eventually deteriorate and die.
> As the black hole disintegrates,
> they send their transformed contents back out
> into the infinite universal horizons from which they came.
> ...
> Hawking added, ``It is great to solve a problem
> that has been troubling me for nearly 30 years ... ''
> ...
> Hawking settled a 7-year-old bet made with Caltech astrophysicist
> John Preskill, who ... said he looked forward to reading
> the detailed paper that Hawking is expected to publish next month. ...".
> ...
> The final questioner asked him what problem he intended to tackle next,
> now that he had solved the paradox of the black hole.
>
> ``I don't know,'' Hawking quickly replied,
> bringing the house down with laughter. ...".
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Tony Smith then wrote:
>
> "In my opinion it is disgraceful that Hawking claimed full credit
> for solving the "information paradox", completely ignoring
> the work of others who (in my opinion) had already solved the paradox
> over the past years."
>
> Jack adds: Tony you cannot believe what is written in newspapers.
> Hawking was only talking about his independent thinking on the problem.
> I suspect he never read any of the papers you cite below. Also, even if
> he did, his method is I would guess completely independent of theirs?
>
> Tony continued:
>
> "Such earlier solutions include, but are not
> necessarily limited to:
>
>
> 1 - In 1999 Cerf and Adami wrote a paper at
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9904006
> that used quantum information theory to solve it
> by showing that "... Hawking radiation is effectively non-thermal
> (in the sense that quantum correlations between the radiation and
> the state of the black hole exist in principle) ...";.
>
> 2 - In 2000 Carlos Castro and Alex Granik wrote a paper at
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0002019
> that used a Feynman Path Integral Approach to solve it by
> showing that "points" on a black hole event horizon are effectively,
> from a quantum path integral point of view, complicated enough
> to permit information flow.
> This is the first paper for which Carlos Castro was blacklisted
> by Cornell (a partial blacklist then - the paper was removed from
> "hep-th" where it was posted and put into the less-widely read "physics"
> archive).
> It is interesting to me that Hawking's abstract at
> http://www.dcu.ie/~nolanb/gr17_plenary.htm#hawking
> refers to a path integral approach, so perhaps Hawking is
> "rediscovering" (and getting credit for) the Castro/Granik solution
> that was the start of the blacklisting of Carlos Castro.
>
> 3 - In 2000 Chapline wrote a paper at
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0012094
> that solved it by describing an event horizon as a quantum critical-
> opalescent condensate;
>
> 4 - In January 2004 Mathur wrote a paper at
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0401115
> that solved it in terms of string theory by describing a black
> hole as a fuzz-ball with information distributed throughout
> its interior (and not restricted to a so-called "holographic" smooth
> surface ball boundary).
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> PS Since I am now pretty sure Hawking is wrong in his key assumption
> that micro-quantum theory applies to 3-geometries, all of the above
> claims appear to be wrong in the sense of starting from false
> assumptions even though the logic may be correct.
>
> "The Question is: What is The Question?" John A. Wheeler
>
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Self-teaching of integration methods"
- Previous message: Curioser: "Re: Hamiltonian path"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
