Saturday, November 22, 2014

[Sarfatti Commentary #5: The dilemma of the horizons, observer-independent "event" or observer-dependent "apparent"? Stephen Hawking has not only changed his mind about information loss down a black hole now caving in to Lenny Susskind opting for unitarity’s conservation of quantum information, but he has also rejected the existence of event horizons because they are teleological nonlocal in time needing the Wheeler-Feynman-Aharonov back-from-the-future destiny influence. Hawking replaces the event horizon with an apparent horizon-   delicate distinction since they merge into each other eventually and evaporate by Hawking-Unruh radiation. Unitarity requires small non-random deviations from the white noise random thermal equilibrium black hole radiation from the horizons. There is also the firewall problem, which is another conflict between Einstein’s “happiest thought” (the equivalence principle and again that bugaboo unitarity, which is a dragon I am quite willing to slay. The idea of the firewall is that the surface of the black hole is a hot surface that will burn the freely falling observer. Some physicists have gone further to say it’s not a firewall, but fireworks, that because of back-reaction of the inflating negative energy Hawking radiation that neither horizon ever forms. This flies in the face of everything Kip Thorne says in his book and the movie. It is an issue to be debated. Hawking wrote:
Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes∗
S. W. Hawking1
1DAMTP, University of Cambridge, UK
“It has been suggested [1] that the resolution of the information paradox for evaporating black holes is that the holes are surrounded by firewalls, bolts of outgoing radiation that would destroy any infalling observer. Such firewalls would break the CPT invariance of quantum gravity and seem to be ruled out on other grounds. A different resolution of the paradox is proposed, namely that gravitational collapse produces apparent horizons but no event horizons behind which information is lost. This proposal is supported by ADS-CFT and is the only resolution of the paradox compatible with CPT. The collapse to form a black hole will in general be chaotic and the dual CFT on the boundary of ADS will be turbulent. Thus, like weather forecasting on Earth, information will effectively be lost, although there would be no loss of unitarity.”

Backreaction of Hawking Radiation on a Gravitationally Collapsing Star I: Black Holes?
Laura Mersini-Houghton
(Submitted on 5 Jun 2014)
Particle creation leading to Hawking radiation is produced by the changing gravitational field of the collapsing star. The two main initial conditions in the far past placed on the quantum field from which particles arise, are the Hartle-Hawking vacuum and the Unruh vacuum. The former leads to a time symmetric thermal bath of radiation, while the latter to a flux of radiation coming out of the collapsing star. The energy of Hawking radiation in the interior of the collapsing star is negative and equal in magnitude to its value at future infinity. This work investigates the backreaction of Hawking radiation on the interior of a gravitationally collapsing star, in a Hartle-Hawking initial vacuum. It shows that due to the negative energy Hawking radiation in the interior, the collapse of the star stops at a finite radius, before the singularity and the event horizon of a black hole have a chance to form. That is, the star bounces instead of collapsing to a black hole. A trapped surface near the last stage of the star's collapse to its minimum size may still exist temporarily. Its formation depends on the details of collapse. Results for the case of Hawking flux of radiation with the Unruh initial state, will be given in a companion paper II.
Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II: Fireworks instead of firewalls
Laura Mersini-Houghton, Harald P. Pfeiffer
(Submitted on 5 Sep 2014)
“A star collapsing gravitationally into a black hole emits a flux of radiation, knowns as Hawking radiation. When the initial state of a quantum field on the background of the star, is placed in the Unruh vacuum in the far past, then Hawking radiation corresponds to a flux of positive energy radiation travelling outwards to future infinity. The evaporation of the collapsing star can be equivalently described as a negative energy flux of radiation travelling radially inwards towards the center of the star. Here, we are interested in the evolution of the star during its collapse. Thus we include the backreaction of the negative energy Hawking flux in the interior geometry of the collapsing star and solve the full 4-dimensional Einstein and hydrodynamical equations numerically. We find that Hawking radiation emitted just before the star passes through its Schwarzschild radius slows down the collapse of the star and substantially reduces its mass thus the star bounces before reaching the horizon. The area radius starts increasing after the bounce. Beyond this point our program breaks down due to shell crossing. We find that the star stops collapsing at a finite radius larger than its horizon, turns around and its core explodes. This study provides a more realistic investigation of the backreaction of Hawking radiation on the collapsing star, that was first presented in [1].]”

Black hole fireworks: quantum-gravity effects outside the horizon spark black to white hole tunneling
Hal M. Haggard∗ and Carlo Rovelli†
Aix-Marseille Universit ́e and Universit ́e de Toulon, CPT-CNRS, Luminy, F-13288 Marseille (Dated: Fourth of July, 2014)
“We show that there is a classical metric satisfying the Einstein equations outside a finite spacetime region where matter collapses into a black hole and then emerges from a white hole. We compute this metric explicitly. We show how quantum theory determines the (long) time for the process to happen. A black hole can thus quantum-tunnel into a white hole. For this to happen, quantum gravity should affect the metric also in a small region outside the horizon: we show that contrary to what is commonly assumed, this is not forbidden by causality or by the semiclassical approximation, because quantum effects can pile up over a long time. This scenario alters radically the discussion on the black hole information puzzle.”
However, this controversy firewalls, or fireworks, event horizon or apparent horizon has no bearing whatsoever on the traversable wormhole stargate which has no horizons and which is not manufactured by collapsing matter. Since the wormhole has no horizons it does not have Hawking radiation. We do have the issue of chronology protection. More on that later.]

Saturday, September 27, 2014

  1. Not all three statements are consistent it is claimed.
  2. 1) Hawking radiation is in a pure state.
  3. 2) The information carried by the radiation is emitted from the region near the horizon, with low energy effective field theory valid beyond some microscopic distance from the horizon.
  4. 3) The infalling observer encounters nothing unusual at the horizon.

Well 1) cannot be true since if Hawking radiation is black body it is not in a pure state it is a mixed state with a reduced density matrix that is not an idempotent projection operator.

So what is all the fuss about? ;-)

Throw away 1) and keep 2) and 3)?

Furthermore, there is no reason to go hog wild that the universe obeys unitarity at all levels of organization. Why should probability be conserved in the first place? Life does not seem to conserve probabilities. When Feynman gave an early lecture on his Lagrangian formulation of quantum theory Dirac was there with Einstein and Dirac asked Feynman if his theory was “unitary.” Feynman said he had no idea of what Dirac even meant at that time. Valentini has an extended quantum theory that is definitely not unitary for example. Feynman also asked why observables have to be Hermitian operators. Hermitian operators generate unitary transformations.

Unitarity is in Hilbert qubit pilot wave space what orthogonality is in the spacetime continuum. There is nothing sacred and absolute in either. There is no compelling reason to say that inner products of quantum states are invariant under time evolution. It works in a limited range of experiments - scattering experiments - very primitive smashing of things together - brute force not very subtle.

The S-MATRIX is a crude tool that has been elevated into The Golden Calf by the Priests of Orthodox Physics.


Saturday, September 13, 2014

Important corrections

V3 important corrections

Sunday, September 7, 2014

On Sep 7, 2014, at 7:48 PM, art wagner <> wrote:

This paper is fine, but it’s the right answer to the wrong question.
They should be looking at pumped open systems, (e.g. living matter ) in stationary states of sub-quantal non-equilibrium in which the Born rule is permanently violated in the lab.

Conversation of Jack Sarfatti with Deepak Chopra Sept 7, 2014 1

Conversation of Jack Sarfatti with Deepak Chopra Sept 7, 2014 1

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Local gauge invariance, action-reaction in electromagnetism, weak, strong & gravity interactions

On Jan 26, 2014, at 9:02 PM, JACK SARFATTI <> wrote:

G is the local transformation of COINCIDENT LNIF <-> LNIF’ at a fixed small region of space-time.

The Levi-Civita Christoffel connection transforms as

{LC} -> {LC}’ = {LC}GG^-1G^-1 - G^-1G^-1dG   (eq. 2.39 in I p.73, )

dV/ds -> dV’/ds  = GdV/ds + dGVV (eq. 2.40 in I p. 74)

V -> V’ = GV

DV/ds -> DV’/ds = dV’/ds + {LC}’V’V’

{LC}’V’V’ = ({LC}GG^-1G^-1 - G^-1G^-1dG)GGVV = G{LC}VV - dGVV

Therefore the acceleration gauge shift terms dGVV cancel out of

DV’/ds = GDV/ds

That is, the T4(x) gravity analog of virtual momentum hdS in U1 EM is the acceleration  c^2dGVV.

Putting in dimensions, V is dimensionless dX/ds

d has dimension 1/Length

G is dimensionless

c^2dGVV is the shift in acceleration g i.e.

g(LNIF) - g’(LNIF’) = c^2dGVV

in time &t

c^2dGVV/&t = exchange of “jerk" between test particle acceleration dV/ds and gravity field {LC} equivalence principle acceleration.

P in U1 EM is replaced by DV/ds

| is “A short course in general relativity” J Forster, J D Nightingale, Springer 1995

On Jan 26, 2014, at 2:23 PM, JACK SARFATTI <> wrote:

I correct a previous error from some days ago

P = mV + @A

A = AaT^a = connection “potential” field

T^a are the elements of the internal symmetry Lie algebra - they are matrices in practical calculations

mV -> mV + hGdG^-1

@A -> @A - hGdG^-1

So P is still gauge invariant even in Yang-Mills.

Note that the Yang-Mills internal fiber curvature is

F -> F’ = GFG^-1

G is a matrix representation of the internal symmetry Lie group

The matrix representation is that for the multiplet structure of the charges

e.g. quarks, leptons, W-bosons, gluons

GdG^-1 is the generalized dS of simple U1 theory.

On Jan 26, 2014, at 1:38 PM, JACK SARFATTI <> wrote:

the pope has spoken 
divine revelation

It’s now clear to me that neither Jim nor Z understand the physical meaning of Einstein’s GR.

Jim has still never defined precisely with the relevant MAINSTREAM literature math what he means by


“inertial force”

“inertial reaction force”



The only role of the gravitational field in Einstein’s GR is to provide the global objective structure of real-force free timelike geodesics for rest massive test particles and the null geodesics for zero rest mass test particles in terms of source fields in Tuv.

Real forces push rest-massive test charges off timelike geodesics.

m the rest mass of a test particle cancels out of the geodesic equation completely ( dm/ds = 0).

We are only sure of three real forces


Weak SU2

Strong SU3

Real forces come from internal symmetry fiber spaces beyond base spacetime (fiber bundle)

Fictitious forces come from spacetime symmetries.

Gravity is a local gauge field from spacetime symmetries.

Real forces and fictitious forces intersect in the local gauge theory minimal coupling.

For U1 simplest case 3-vector

P =  mV + (e/c)A    at a point event

The U1 gauge transformations are

mV -> mV’ = mV + hdS

S = classical gauge function = quantum phase of test particle

h = Planck’s quantum of action

(e/c)A -> (e/c)A’ = (e/c)A - hdS


P -> P’ = P is a U1 gauge invariant local observable canonical momentum of charge + field.

hdS is the momentum exchange of a virtual longitudinal polarized photon between the coincident charge and EM field where A is the Glauber macro-quantum coherent order parameter that is the classical EM field.

Newton’s 3rd law of action-reaction comes from momentum conservation which, in turn, comes from translational symmetry


the exchange of hdS guarantees local momentum conservation

force = hdS/&t


&E&t < h (virtual particle)

therefore, Newton’s 3rd law is obeyed LOCALLY using gauge invariance


> is the test charge (e,m)

— is the virtual momentum exchange hdS

| is the Glauber coherent state order parameter A representing the classical EM field.

Similar arguments for SU2 and SU3

also for gravity, which is a T4(x) local gauge theory

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Jim Woodward's theory of Mach Principle applied to Starship Propulsion

On Jan 14, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Jack <> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 13, 2014, at 4:17 PM, "Robert Addinall" <> wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, it seems to me that what Jack is saying is:
If the Mach effect is there, the "force" from all the sources in the universe works on the base fibre bundle spacetime itself – ie. spacetime is the gravitational field, so it both “feels” the mass energy sources (is curved by them near a source), and also  propagates the force from these sources to other parts of itself.  However, this “force” doesn’t work directly on objects with mass – ie. test particles.  Jack says that the test particles only “feel” the other three fundamental forces – electrical forces.

I think I now understand why Jim agrees with Paul’s modeling of a local gravity field around a test particle which cancels the gravity field from the source for a particle in a LIF in curved spacetime:
1.       Jim thinks that the gravity “force” carried by spacetime which has an effect on the geodesic curvature of spacetime itself ALSO exerts a force directly on a test particle.

If he thinks that he is nuts
It's not Popper falsifiable

2.       If this were so we would expect it to mean that a larger or denser object would fall faster than a smaller or less dense object, since there would be more mass for the gravitational force to work on; however this violates experimental observations (slight ambiguity around the Nordtvedt effect aside).  At first glance a local field should not only curve the spacetime geodesics radially inward toward itself but also accelerate an object on those geodesics.

Clever clever ;-)

3.       However, Jim’s gravity main force is from all the sources within the causally connected universe, pulling on the test particle with equal force in all directions simultaneously (since we model the causally connected universe as having even distribution of matter at a large scale and being a horizon sphere with the test particle in its center).  As we know, Jim’s argument is that this is a very immense gravitational scalar potential field, arising from billions of sources – in other words far stronger than the field arising from one single source (ie. the Earth).  Jim argues that this huge potential, pulling on an object from all directions, holds it on an inertial trajectory and makes it resist being pushed off such a trajectory.

Excess baggage
Ugly ugly ugly
Rube Goldberg
Bunch of hot air
Yes that seems to be Jim's silly story

What i say needs none of that excess $

4.       Therefore, as I understand Jim’s reasoning, the comparatively small local mass currents generated by a single source are strong enough to curve spacetime locally, even while they contribute to pulling it flat over large distances.  However, the local gravitational field is so small compared to the larger gravitational scalar potential that the scalar potential field all but cancels the effect of the local field on a test particle.  As a result, the test particle remains stationary with respect to the geodesics in curved spacetime and only “falls” in the sense that it kinematically accelerates towards the COM of the source of the field.  However, when it is pushed off geodesic by, say, landing on the surface of the Earth and is forced to hover, the large gravitational scalar potential from the whole universe which is trying to hold it stationary wrt the geodesic curvature now manifests as an inertial reaction force against the electrical contact force upwards from the ground.

My eyes glaze over
I get add ptsd
Occam's razor cruel cut

5.       I suspect that Jim agrees with Paul that the action-reaction is mediated by electrical contact forces on both the part of the ground and the part of the test particle, but that the inertial reaction force which has its origin in the very large gravitational scalar potential is “pushing” the test particle “down,” thereby causing the electrical contact forces to do their thing.  I think that Jim would also say that the symmetries ensure that the electrical contact forces mediate the action-reaction in an equal and opposite manner at this point.
Jim, is this a correct interpretation of what you are saying?

You're a better man then I am
Gunga Din (Rudyard Kipling )
And by contrast, Jack would say that:
1.       Spacetime is curved by the mass energy sources.  Only spacetime itself  “feels” these mass energy sources – a test particle which maps onto the base fibre bundle spacetime does not.

Yes that's Einstein's happiest thought.

2.       The test particle therefore remains on a “force-free” geodesic even in curved spacetime around a source until it encounters something that pushes it off-geodesic, like the surface of the Earth.  It kinematically accelerates towards the COM of the Earth until it is stopped by the surface, but it is still undergoing no proper/dynamical acceleration as it does so.


3.       It is pushed off geodesic by the electrical contact forces from the ground and forced to hover in the gravity field – accelerated “up” wrt to the geodesics.


4.       It reacts back “down” on the ground with equal and opposite electrical contact forces because of gauge invariance – symmetry breaking.

No, the gauge symmetry is not broken there. In fact the obeying of the local gauge symmetry between charge e of mass m and em field A ensures action-reaction locally in contact exchange of momentum hgradS between mv and (e/c)A
From virtual longitudinal near field photons, where S is the quantum phase of the charge e/m.

This is beautiful and it's original with me compared to Jim's Frankenstein and Z's still-born monstrosity stumbling brain dead howling in Spec's Alley. 

5.       Newton’s gravity force is “fictitious” because it is an imagined force working on the test particle – it does not actually work on the test particle, the test particle just remains force free wrt the geodesics until electrical contact forces push it off.  The curving of spacetime by mass energy sources, responsible for the kinematical acceleration of a test particle towards the COM of a field, is something that only spacetime itself feels.

I think that we can simplify the debate to the following statement without doing too much violence to Jack’s and Jim’s positions: “Jack argues that objects exhibit inertial resistance to off geodesic acceleration by electrical contact forces because of symmetry breaking

No, because of internal local gauge symmetry holding! Even in Higgs breaking collective emergent Goldstone modes restore the symmetry (Brout, Anderson )

while Jim argues that objects exhibit inertial resistance to off geodesic acceleration by electrical contact forces because of the force on them originating in a gravitational scalar potential field generated primarily by distant sources in the causally connected universe.”
-----Original Message-----ha
From: Jack Sarfatti []
Sent: January-13-14 6:08 PM

Subject: Re: Michael Berry where is the math?
What Berry does is clear enough and I see where he has made his conceptual mistake the same one you have made.
Let's accept F = (mGM/c^2r)d^2r/dt^2
It is not Newton's 2nd Law
It is Mach effect on the geodesic shape at position of test particle
It's a piece of the Christoffel symbol that appears in the real force free non inertial frame's geodesic equation Newton's first law
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 12, 2014, at 11:19 PM, "" <> wrote:
> Actually, Sciama (in a series of papers spanning the early '50s to the '70s) has the math, as does Berry (though you don't like it) and does Nordtvedt (see the excerpt in the book at the end of chapter 2) and Sultana and Kazanas.  So there's plenty of math.  You just don't like it because you reject the physics of distant matter being responsible for inertia (as it is in GR).  That's not going to change Jack.  So just go ahead and write your review.  You already know what you are going to say.  You've known for years.
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> Subject: Re: Michael Berry where is the math?
> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:51:12 -0800
>> On Jan 12, 2014, at 1:20 AM, wrote:
>> Look at the math.  It's not a standard quadrupole radiative effect.  Polarization of radiated states is not relevant.
> what math? show the math. Berry has no real math in his book about this. Just the intuitve model.
> Is it in your book? Where?
>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>> From: Jack Sarfatti <>
>> To: Jack Sarfatti <>
>> Subject: Re: Michael Berry makes two serious errors in his book
>> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:53:44 -0800
>> Ps also polarizations are all wrong radiation is transverse polarized
>> you will never get a central longitudinal gravitational force from a
>> transverse gravitational wave that's complete stupidity
>> Sent from my iPad
>> On Jan 11, 2014, at 11:29 PM, Jack Sarfatti <> wrote:
>>>> Okay I read the Mach principle section of berries book
>>> It's actually sciama who has made the mistake First you cannot use
>>> Newtonian picture over cosmological distances Jim calls that a trick
>>> which can be fixed by more rigorous methods perhaps so Much more
>>> serious is the naïve assumption that the acceleration is a purely
>>> relative kinematic quantity The proper Acceleration of the mass sources that are far away from the test object cannot be transferred to the test object.
>>> The equation
>>> F' = GMma/c^2r
>>> Is wrong for more than one reason
>>> To say the second law comes from gravity ways from Distant matter is
>>> totally ridiculous
>>> I did meet Michael Berry for lunch in London two years ago and when
>>> I'm in London again in April I will get in touch with him and
>>> confront him on this issue  he is very reasonable fellow and I'm
>>> sure he will admit that Sciama's idea is wrong.