On Jul 22, 2004, at 7:45 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


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. Therefore, 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 non-simple multiply connected 3D metrics 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 soft 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 the 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. Trying to measure dark matter real particles is like trying to measure the motion of the Earth through the Galilean-Newtonian mechanical aether. A null effect in both cases (subtracting out the Hubble flow GR effect of course).

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 - not need to take my word for it. 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. 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 before TV cameras broadcast to the entire planet. 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 non-trivial black hole topology does exponentially decay in a non-unitary way along that "path", but that the future observers 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, nevertheless 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 BOTH 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. Hawking's point is similar to Linus Pauling's introduction of "resonance" in chemical bonding in the early days of quantum chemistry! 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 LARGE 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 in the context of partial coherence of the physical vacuum that solves the cosmological constant paradox and 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).

---------------------------------------------------------------


On Jul 22, 2004, at 5:14 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jul 21, 2004, at 1:32 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:


Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Look it's fine for Hal to make a new kind of measurement theory, but he should not then say he is doing a simpler version of GR - he is not.

I totally agree that he is not doing this. But I think Hal also agrees with this. You have to look at the fine print.

That's not the way I read what Hal writes. However, he writes at both sides of this issue at different times. It is a fact that Cliff Will, Matt Visser and Professor X all see Hal doing what I see him doing.


He is doing Puthoff Relativity, which is fine if it works, but it doesn't compared to Einstein GR.

He says that it is a heuristic tool to be used heuristically *with reference* to the exact GR solutions.

He may say that, but that does not make it true. Matt Visser was quite clear on this point that so far Hal's published PV work can never in principle deal with anything like a Kerr solution for rotating sources. That's why Hal has never been able to do it! In no way is Hal's published stuff useful to the top people in the field who have taken the trouble to look at it. They ALL react the way I did and on these same points including the physical meaning of equivalence principle as a local principle and the physical meaning of covariance of the local laws of classical physics using tensors and spinors for some relevant symmetry group of observer frame transformations. Tensors and covariance are not simply a mathematical convenience as you and Hal appear to think? They are essential to the conceptual foundations of classical theory as objective science. Note Hal's PV model has no quantum theory in it, but similar deep considerations apply to quantum field theory as operator local field equations on a nonlocal Hilbert qubit space as well as explained by Wigner!


He is suggesting that IF a theory like Yilmaz's is eventually vindicated -- and I repeat IF -- that theory MIGHT
explain and support, in a fundamental quantitative manner, the pragmatic utility of models incorporating the
exponential metric, including PV.

Too many IF's. Who do you think you are? Ed Witten? John Baez? Brian Greene? :-) Then don't waste my time on this dead horse that has lost the race years ago and is lying rotting off the track. I am here at GROUND ZERO GR 17 Dublin and the large amounts of experimental data confirming the essential correctness of Einstein's

Guv + /\guv = 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv

In the FRW regime of cosmology with inflation and in large black holes with in-falling matter (Martin Rees) is OVERWHELMING. If you are content to be irrelevant dwelling on trashed models in the dustbin of history you are welcome to do it. But as Bunthorne says in "Patience" that does certainly not suit me! Don't think anyone who really matters in this very vibrant fertile field will ever read anything you or Hal will write about it. Some scholars of the bizarre interested in the deranged thoughts of the brilliant and not-so-brilliant will perhaps of course and lecture on it to medical students. "It's alive Igor, It's alive." (Mel Brooks, "Young Frankenstein") :-) In any case I have reality-checked my own opinions on Hal's PV model with top guns like Cliff Will, Matt Visser and Professor X and they all agree with my assessment - indeed Visser took the words right out of my mouth on the "r" issue for example and on why Hal cannot solve the rotating source problem. Visser said explicitly that the mark of amateurish work like Hal's PV model is that the amateurs do not understand differential geometry and the analytic extensions of coordinate patches to cover a whole manifold of non-trivial topology. Of course Hal eschews all that with a Yilmazian globally flat non-dynamical background which flouts "Einstein's Vision" of no action without reaction and "background independence," i.e. a dynamical curved background on an equal footing with other matter fields. This needs tensors, spinors, twistors and all that. The final blow to Hal's media hype about his theory is that when it is tested it gives wrong answers for problems that Einstein's GR gives correct answers to. Serious physicists in the field are busy with all the exciting observations that FIT the existing theory based on Einstein's tensor equations quite well and do not want to be distracted with Hal's PV - except if they think USG DOD will fund it or some aerospace interests will because of the Aviation Week article "To the Stars" then they get concerned. That is my experience here at GR 17 Dublin.

I think you should be very careful not to misrepresent his position (even if inadvertently) without giving him the opportunity for a direct rebuttal.

Red Herring. When have I EVER done that? Never! Never! Never! And I'm never, never sick in Dirac's Sea. I always give Hal his soap box for his Hobby Horse.


Hal's theory in some ways is much better than Loop QM Gravity and M Theory which are not even wrong.

Hal's model can be very useful for engineering purposes, just as "floating models" of atomic and molecular
structure effectively guide theoretical chemists.

This is simply false. Give even one important example. Ibison did do one and it gave the wrong answer! (Pulsars).
Hal's PV is not useful for anything. All the interesting questions now involve rotating sources i.e. gravimagnetism - how useful is Hal's PV for that? Tell me. Show us.

There is no real mystery here. And PV does not even attempt to compete head-to-head either with GR, or
theories of quantum gravity such as your BEC model of the gravitational vacuum, at a fundamental level.

Again you are misrepresenting my theory here Paul. I am in no way COMPETING with Einstein's classical GR field equations. I am EXPLAINING them, I am DERIVING them from a pre-inflationary false vacuum without gravity! There is no competition here at all! What I am competing with is Loop Quantum Gravity and M-theory. Loop quantum gravity cannot even derive Einstein's gravity as a limiting case of spin foams! And even Ed Witten says that M theory is a hope of a solution looking for a problem than can falsify it in in Popper's sense. Both Loops and Strings are mathematical art and that's all. They are Art for Art's sake. There has been a Coup D' Etat of theoretical physicists by mathematicians just like the Trotskyites pretending to be Neo Cons took over the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz Pentagon (OSP) and conned President Bush into handing a good part of Iraq over to Iran, which will probably happen relatively soon. They are not even wrong as theoretical physics!

As far as I know Hal never claimed that it did or could. In fact, he specifically and repeatedly *disclaimed*
this.

BTW Martin Rees said that so far no evidence for Kerr metrics and he quoted Saint Augusting on "faith". Bernard Carr told me he thinks Martin is being too conservative on the Kerr issue. I told Martin, that on basis of what he said there is more evidence for UFOS than for Kerr metrics. :-)

OK.

Hope you recover soon.

Thanks my tooth today Thursday is completely recovered thanks to Dr. Tunney down the Merrion Road from Royal Dublin Society near the American and British Embassies. I was in pretty bad pain from Sunday to Wednesday morning. I see Dr. Tunney on July 28 on way back from Dingle and Country Cork before flying back to London to see Uri Geller at his home on the Thames and flying back to Baghdad-by-the-Bay. I think next time I need a root canal it would be cheaper for me to fly to Dublin! :-)

The Republic of Ireland is very well run and is appreciative of their poets, artists and scientists. Indeed, here everyone is a poet! It must be the water. You have never tasted Guinness until you have had it on tap in Ireland. It is like Finians's Rainbow here. The Irish Language is like Italian in its beauty and one never tires of listening to The Irish speak, and the girls are lovely! The Irish are definitely the Lost Tribe of Israel! :-)


Z.



On Jul 21, 2004, at 2:03 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jul 20, 2004, at 3:53 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:



Jack Sarfatti wrote:

What's not even wrong about what you say here is the following.

1. What do you mean by r?

Dicke means the isotropic radial coordinate that does not cover the entire manifold!



Since there is no curved chronogeometric "manifold", per se, in a PV-type model, as far as I can see
this looks like comparing an apple to an orange and then complaining that it's not an orange.

Is that what you mean by "not even wrong"? :-)



I do not have time for polemics now.


Well, OK. But I was simply responding to *your* polemic.

Look NO ONE AT GR 17 thinks Hal's PV is any good - period.


I take your word for this -- but why? Because it is not nearly as accurate as GR? Which, as far as I
am aware, no one denies?


If he changes measurement ideas then he can no longer claim he is simply doing a simpler version of GR.


That is not what he is claiming, as I understand him.


I did not mean to say Hal's PV is not even wrong only that your comments were not even wrong.


I know you meant that. But you are apparently unable to make some basic distinctions -- such as
that between the exponential *definition* of the metric in terms of an underlying potential, on the one hand,
and the form of the solution of the field equations for a particular problem, on the other.

Hal's theory is a wrong theory based on observations. No one in the elite here gives Hal's theory any serious consideration. It's a long dead horse. I have to go to dentist and do not have time to read this now.



OK. But before you do read what I wrote, please search and replace "Walker" with "Wheeler", and
"Walkerian" with "Wheelerian"...

Z.

Jack, I'm just trying to keep you reasonably honest here. I hate to see you go off half-cocked.

You need more than one coordinate patch to make the atlas.



Yes, that is a typical mathematical headache in standard GR that could be spun as a good argument
for a flat background spacetime -- as per N. Rosen.

In fact, the entire Levi-Civita parallel transport fandango is only made necessary when it is
decided to go to a curved *background* manifold, where you cannot directly compare
vectors at different points.

Of course PV knows nothing about all this. It doesn't *want* to know about it.

Why should it? Because you and others have spent so many years learning about tensors?

Puthoff does not even know what a "coordinate patch" and "atlas" means.



Why should he pound his head against that dense mathematical wall, if he can get along
without it?

I could argue that general covariance is a mere pragmatic convenience which does not reflect
any underlying deep physical principle of relativity; and that it has simply been fetishized by
applied mathematicians who took over spacetime and gravitational physics in the 1920s, and
want to keep it that way.

It is perfectly legitimate, IMO, to pick a convenient frame of reference and solve the problem
at hand in that.

After all -- why should the *physics* of the solutions depend on the mere choice of spacetime
coordinates?

Isn't that what caused the original event horizon to "evaporate"?

(I note that even Hawking now finally admits there are no Walkerian black holes after all. So
black holes do indeed "evaporate", if you get my drift...)

Or, at least, he ignores it in his published papers just as he ignores dark energy in his published papers dealing with metric engineering up to this point in time and in March 1, 2004 Aviation Week "To The Stars." Hal eschews differential geometry as well as tensors.



Because he is not doing Riemannian geometry in "curved spacetime". He is dealing with a polarizable vacuum --
which is a physical system, as opposed to a Poincarean chronogeometric construct.

After all, even Einstein himself admitted as early as 1921 that the gravitational vacuum is a physical system..

And Einstein's original motivation for the use of tensors -- the extension of the special principle of
relativity to arbitrary motion -- has "evaporated" much like Walker's mythical black holes.

There is NO SUCH THING as "general relativity". General *covariance* is an entirely different
animal.

Also he does not understand the LOCALITY of the equivalence principle, i.e. the distinction between LIFs and LNIFs at SAME EVENT P and the role of tetrads as compensating gauge force fields from the 4-parameter translation group.



Which is all required to make it look as if Einstein's "equivalence principle" is valid -- which it is
not (except in a very weak and limited sense of narrowly circumscribed empirical consistency with
SR inside an infinitesimal lab in free fall -- due to the inertial cancellation of translational g-forces).

Puthoff does a bait and switch totally distorting Dicke's original 1961 PV to a completely different theory using the same words the same labels in a new qualitatively different context! Puthoff's "r" in Dicke's formula is supposed to cover the whole manifold.



Are you claiming that Dicke's theory did not imply a flat background? Dicke assumes a curved
background chronogeometric manifold?

I think this qualifies as not even "not even wrong". :-)

Jack, it looks to me like you are erroneaously projecting GR into PV. The PV and Einstein GR models
(as far as I can determine what the GR model actually is, which isn't easy) are fundamentally different -- as
different as Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity.

2. Is the exponential metric without an event horizon supposed to be a vacuum solution like the black hole solution or not?



I'm not completely sure about PV, but in Yilmaz's theory, the exponential *definition* for the metric is what
connects the underlying physical field to the phenomenological geometrodynamics of moving test particles.

It is NOT tied to any particular problem.

So again, you seem to be mixing apples and oranges here. You might say that this is also "not even wrong" -- yet
another ill-posed question which arises because you are trying to understand PV using a warped GR optic.

If you cannot recognize the distinction between a general definition of a metric field in terms of an underlying potential,
on the one hand, and the form of the metric solution for a particular problem, on the other, then you are not even
getting to first base on this IMHO.

3. Do Einstein's field equations apply to Hal's version of PV or not?



I understand from Hal that a certain class of solutions of the GR field equations can -- to a good approximation --
be modeled in terms of the PV, in a manner that does not require the use of tensors for its application.

That doesn't mean that the theory *cannot* be made general covariant, since as we all know -- or at least should
know -- just about any consistent physical theory can.

4. Hal contradicts himself on the relation of his version of PV to Einstein's GR.



No, Jack. You are just tone-deaf to the subtleties. :-) Or acting like you are. :-)

5. Mike Ibison's test of Hal's version of PV on his own terms, since Mike works for Hal at IAS, shows disagreement with pulsar data where Einstein's GR gives the correct answer.



But PV is not competing head to head with GR for overall empirical accuracy. How many times
does this have to be explained?!

Hal is not insane -- at least as far as I can tell.:-)

Jack, you really do seem to be in a loop on these questions and I am just trying to alert you to some of
the pitfalls.

Z.

So why proceed any further with this? I will see at GR 17 in Dublin if any of the Big Wigs have even read Hal's PV papers taken so seriously by DIA, STAIF, MITRE, NASA BPP, Greenglow, Aviation Week, Janes Defence Weekly ... and see what they think of it.


On Jul 16, 2004, at 5:23 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:



Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jul 16, 2004, at 4:57 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack, remember that Einstein himself published a paper in the 1940s which cast serious doubt on the physical
reality of black holes.

Irrelevant. That was before the evidence, which is now abundant.




It might still be interesting to look at his paper.

Also, Einstein at one point himself proposed an exponential metric.




Again irrelevant because it only holds for the isotropic radial coordinate the way Einstein did it.




Can Einstein's exponential metric be expressed as or made into a tensor quantity with natural
transformation properties?

Also, Dicke was at Princeton with Einstein et al., where there must have been some very

interesting give and take.

Might be interesting to look at some of those papers.

Z.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

For example Hal denies black holes exist! Would Hawking agree to that? That is, Hal says there is no event horizon for a simple black hole at r = 2GM/c^2, therefore no Hawking radiation. Hal denies that what Hawking and everyone else is talking about makes any sense.