"The views of space and time that held sway during most of the 20th century were based on locality and field theory ... The most fundamental object was the space-time point or better yet, the event. Although quantum mechanics made the event probabilistic and relativity made simultaneity non-absolute, it was assumed that all observers would agree on the usual invariant relationships between events. This view persisted even in classical general relativity. But the paradigm is gradually shifting. It was never adequate to deal with the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. ... In order to reconcile the equivalence principle with the rules of quantum mechanics the rules of locality have to be massively modified ... an unprecedented mix of short distance and long distance physics. Radical changes are called for. The new paradigm ... is based on four closely related concepts ....

The first is Black Hole Complementarity. This principle is a new kind of relativity in which the location of phenomena depends on the resolution time available to the experimenter who probes the system. An ... example .. Alice, falling into an enormous black hole with Schwarzschild radius of a billion years, according to the low frequency observer, namely Alice herself ... nothing special is felt at the horizon. The horizon is harmless ... she or her descendants can live for a billion years before being crushed at the singularity.

In apparent complete contradiction, the high frequency observer who stays outside the black hole finds that his description involves Alice falling into a hellish region of extreme temperature, being thermalized, and even eventually re-emitted as Hawking radiation ... the key to black hole complementarity is the extreme red shift of the quantum fluctuations as seen by the external observer."

Any signal sent from near the event horizon outward to the distant observer is red shifted, but any signal coming inward the opposite way from the distant observer is blue shifted. It's the latter Susskind is talking about. The energy E of a geodesic infalling "FREFO" particle of rest mass m seen by a locally coincident hovering non-geodesic accelerating (rockets firing propellant radially inward toward the event horizon) fiducial observer "FIDO" at FIXED r,theta,phi, using local Schwarzschild coordinates is

E ~ 2mc^2e^ct/2rs 1.7.37 p. 23

"Locally, the relation between the coordinates of(LIF) Frefos and (LNIF HOVERING) Fidos is a time-dependent boost along the radial direction. ... The Fidos see all matter undergoing Lorentz contraction into a system of arbitrarily thin 'pancakes' as it approaches the horizon. According to classical physics, the infalling matter is stored in 'sedimentary' layers of diminishing thickness as it eternally sinks toward the horizon. ... The Frefos of course see the matter behaving in a totally unexceptional way."

There is also the Infrared/Ultravioler duality followed by the holography principle and then the surface entropy principle.

When gravity come into to play, the more energy you pump into a small region decreases the resolution rather than increases it as in the old Heisenberg uncertainty principle because of the formation of an extended event horizon with Hawking radiation that can be strong at tiny scales. Holography is that the non-redundant geometrodynamic degrees of freedom are on the surface boundary of an enclosed 3D volume 1 c-bit per Planck area. The final entropy principle, really conjecture, is that black holes are huge tangled strings.

On Apr 24, 2006, at 8:28 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Memorandum for the Record

Subject: http://www.serpo.org disinformation?

Hal Puthoff's PV model is not consistent with Einstein's principle of equivalence, which is the essential reason I reject it as a viable USG DOD/DOE strategy for the metric engineering of practical warp drive and star gates to SERPO et-al for advanced space vehicles.

"The views of space and time that held sway during most of the 20th century were based on locality and field theory ... The most fundamental object was the space-time point or better yet, the event. Although quantum mechanics made the event probabilistic and relativity made simultaneity non-absolute, it was assumed that all observers would agree on the usual invariant relationships between events. This view persisted even in classical general relativity. But the paradigm is gradually shifting. It was never adequate to deal with the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. ... In order to reconcile the equivalence principle with the rules of quantum mechanics the rules of locality have to be massively modified ... an unprecedented mix of short distance and long distance physics. Radical changes are called for. The new paradigm ... is based on four closely related concepts ....

to be continued.

On Apr 24, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

No Paul you do not understand what they mean by "Black holes have no hair."

Generically the best model we have for astrophysical black holes is the Kerr solution. We can forget net charge. So the only issue is whether we can have a > m where a = J/m

http://home.case.edu/~sjr16/media/stars_blackhole_anatomy.jpg

On Apr 24, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Head in sand.

Penrose clearly states that it can be objected that the Kerr-Newman solutions with event horizons are "somewhat special".

I sent you the paper. I gave you the quotes.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I don't care what you allege Penrose said in 1969 that I bet you pulled out of context to come to a screwy conclusion.

On Apr 24, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I mean of course NAKED FUTURE SINGULARITIES in gravitationally collapsing matter

i.e. a > M ---> J > M^2 extreme rotation

This allows time travel to past p. 78 Matt Visser "Lorentzian Wormholes"

mod quantum objections of the alleged infinite blue shift explosion at the critical point of time travel to the past (Ground Hog Day photons) - that Gott says can be averted.

On Apr 24, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I have not misunderstood you. Apart from Chapline's model there ARE no alternatives within GR.

I've given you one -- a naked collapsed mass. You haven't shown me anything that rules this out in the case of the "best candidate" offered by Penrose.

Paul if there were any evidence at all of a very fast rotating black hole that blew off its outer event horizon you can be sure it would be front page news!

Then why does Penrose say that the solutions that are known to feature event horizons are "somewhat special in that..."?

You've turned this around so that it is the solutions without event horizons that are "somewhat special". That is not what

Penrose was saying in 1969.

r+- = M +-(M^2 - a^2)^1/2

a = J/M

Note the extremal Kerr black hole is

M = a

i.e. J = M^2

like the universal slope Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances as if

G* ~ 10^40G on scale of 1 fermi.

".. somewhat special ..." - R. Penrose.

Penrose argues against a *material surface*. There is no material *surface* either for a complete black hole or for a naked collapsed source, according to his own argument as actually stated.

It's not clear BTW whether Chapline's quantum critical surface at the event horizon is "material" or not.

Good question.

There will be dark energy in the interior, i.e. /\zpf(dark star) >> /\zpf(cosmological) > 0

That we know.

But I am now thinking he really means that the collapsed mass is swallowed up and removed from the physical universe by the singularity that results from gravitational collapse -- a Rabbit Hole within a Rabbit Hole!

Yes, that's what he means.

As I said, a Rabbit Hole within a Rabbit Hole.

However, from POV of outside observers the in-falling mass piles up near outside the infinite redshift surface g00 = 0 and NEVER gets there in any finite time.

*Appears* never to get there in a finite amount of time, due to the infinite redshift of light transmitted outward from the horizon.

Not *appears* they never get the signals - objectively.

That's not the same as saying certain events don't occur in a finite time.

No, Paul you do not understand Susskind's "black hole complementarity" - later I will quote Susskind.

Does the in-falling matter reach the infinite redshift surface according to any objective measurement of the outside hovering LNIF observer in any finite time? NO!

Does the in-falling matter reach the infinite redshift surface according to any objective measurement of the in- falling geodesic observer in any finite time? YES!

Of course, time observed near the event horizon is not the same as time observed remotely -- due to the traditional Einsteinian conflation of what is immediately observed here with what is actually out there.

Not even wrong. Einstein has a good theory of measurement showing what actual detectors measure.

Of course for in- falling detectors they will see nothing at the event horizon if it was only a thin shell of in-falling matter and they fall in afterward. They will be killed of course if the black hole is small.

I have to say I am having a hard time taking this kind of thing seriously. This is even nuttier than Penrose's literal belief in the non-local character of gravitational vacuum energy, IMHO.

So who are the real "crackpots" here? It's getting hard to tell.

Together with

dT(P*) = [gu'v'(P*)dx^u'dx^v']^1/2 = 0

INVARIANTLY for all choices of local coordinates

If you're right that g_00 (r_s) = 0 in all CSs, then this is a very interesting property of the SSS metric that must reflect some deep aspect of the symmetry of the problem.

No, you miss the point here. It's not true that g_00(r_s) = 0 in all CSs! What's true is that dT(r_s) = 0 in all CSs!

Strange that such an invariant inflection boundary should appear at r = 2M, out in the SSS vacuum.

It doesn't.

The g_00 = 1 - rs/r

is true only in that special class of HOVERING LNIF detectors OUTSIDE the event horizon!

But the invariant proper time differential dT(rs) = 0 is local CS invariant!

## No comments:

Post a Comment