| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Mathematics Forum » Susskind-Hawking Debate & Dark Matter
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jack Sarfatti |
 Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Monday, December 29, 2003, at 01:32 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
"The opposite of a profound truth is another profound truth." -- Niels
Bohr
What Rovelli doesn't seem to understand is that this all makes perfect
sense once
you give up strict equivalence and distinguish the background and
physical metrics.
JS: I do not understand this distinction. Please give more details what
you mean.
PZ: In that case you don't understand Newtonian physics either, which
makes precisely
this distinction: you don't understand the Newtonian distinction between
"real" and
"fictitious" forces.
But at least you are honest enough to admit it. :-)
JS: What I understand is that "fictitious" or "inertial" forces are
artifacts of the non-geodesic timelike motion of the local frames of
reference. I understand Coriolis, centrifugal, standing on a scale in an
elevator as "inertial forces". I also understand that LOCALLY there is,
APPROXIMATELY, no way to distinguish the inertial force from a gravity
force or G-force on a SINGLE TEST PARTICLE 1 NOT ON A TIMELIKE GEODESIC
in sense of connection field for parallel transport (Experiment A), IF
one MAKES NO ATTEMPT to measure the relative tidal acceleration between
TWO OTHER TEST PARTICLES 2 & 3 BOTH ON TIMELIKE GEODESICS with ZERO
G-FORCE (Experiment B). My OPERATIONALISM is showing, which you ignore
in your too abstract formal analysis. Therefore, you end up in a false
comparison comparing apples to oranges so to speak by confounding the
essentially different, indeed, complementary in Bohr's sense of "total
experimental arrangements" - even of macro relevance, Experiments A & B.
Further, I do not see how you tie that to "strict equivalence", which,
if I understand you, you say is fundamentally wrong in some way? I do
not understand how you mean "background" and "physical" above. Do you
mean "nondynamical" and "dynamical". The problem is that you introduce
key terms without enough contextual background to understand what you
mean. In many cases an equation would eliminate the ambiguity.
Now if you mean by "strict equivalence" that Einstein did not include
"Experiment B" as a matter of principle in his early formulations, then
if indeed, that is historically correct, then he may have made an error
that was later corrected and is completely corrected in MTW (1973),
which I suppose you say "EEP is a correspondance", which is always the
way I viewed it to begin with. If indeed your history of the evolution
of Einstein's thought on his own theory is correct, I do not know if it
is, then it is a minor footnote only. I am sure similar stories exist in
the evolution of all the great theories of physics from Newton on.
Have you read pp. 112 - 114 that completely demolishes Hal Puthoff' s
use of
dr/dt = c' = c/K radial null geodesic
in his "Tables".
PZ: It does no such thing. I would not even characterize pp 112-114 as
an "argument".
It is simply a sketch of a model in which *everything* is quantized
except the "raw"
manifold.
JS: It shows no intrinsic meaning to Puthoff's r and t as he means it
in his Tables.
PZ: In Rovelli's approach, almost everything is quantized and time
itself has no fundamental
meaning.
So, OK, things are VERY different in Rovelli's theory. No argument there.
He wants to dig down to the raw manifold so he can quantize the stripped-off
Einsteinian chronogeometric structure of spacetime, replete with its
unified metric,
thinking this may be the real solution to the quantum gravity conundrum.
I say he has not properly understood the status and meaning of the
unified metric.
He has simply skated over this. He is trying to run before he can walk.
....
What does he mean by "fluctuations"?
JS: What do you mean by "kinematical g_uv and dynamic gravitational
g_uv" apart from Ruvwl = 0 in the former and not in the latter.
PZ: I mean what it means in Newtonian physics.
JS: Huh? Newton uses forces with action at a distance. He never invokes
any geometrodynamical
replacement of forces the way Einstein does. Newton never talks of a
"metric" so what do you mean?
Do you simply mean again the distinction between inertial and
non-inertial frames of reference?
There are no "fictitious" or "inertial forces" in "inertial frames".
Newton only had implicitly
the idea of a global frame of reference not local frames of reference on
a rigid Euclidean space with a
rigid absolute time.
Einstein in 1905 unified rigid space and rigid time into a rigid
space-time in which space and time separately were no longer rigid.
Special Relativity uses a NONDYNAMICAL "background" RIGID 4D space-time
that ACTS on MATTER WITHOUT BACK-ACTION of MATTER on space-time.
Einstein by 1915 corrects that approximation in General Relativity.
Space-time GEOMETRY is now DYNAMICAL in "TWO WAY RELATION" (Bohm and
Hiley, UNDIVIDED UNIVERSE p. 30 & 14.6) of ACTION-REACTION with MATTER
(MASS-ENERGY).
Similarly, nonlocal linear unitary evolving orthodox micro-quantum
theory with "signal locality" has a NON-DYNAMICAL BIT "pilot wave"
relative to its IT "extra-variable". The BIT is of course DYNAMICAL
relative to its ENVIRONMENT via boundary conditions, stochastic pumps,
semi-classical couplings etc. I am only here talking SELF-REFERENTIAL
DYNAMICS of a kind not even recognized in other interpretations of
micro-QM where
IT FROM BIT (Wheeler)
BIT is complete description of micro-quantum reality.
This includes all "collapse" models with the possible exception of
Penrose's "OR" and all many-worlds models from Everett to
Gell-Mann/Hartle to David Deutsch's "multi-verse" and also Cramer's
"transactional".
Shelly Godstein takes a wrong turn IMHO in his Bohmian Quantum Gravity
paper in "Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale" in rejecting a
"source" for the "pilot wave" where it is most important on the vast
scale of the Universe in the FRW limit.
In contrast to micro-quantum theory, MACRO-QUANTUM THEORY is P.W.
Anderson's "More is different" in action IMHO.
MACRO-QUANTUM THEORY is local, non-unitary nonlinear with "presponse"
(Dick Bierman) signal nonlocality in the sense of Antony Valentini's
violation of "sub-quantal heat death".
The nonlocal linear micro-quantum Schrodinger equation in the
configuration space of entangled parts of the whole is replaced by a
local nonlinear MACRO-QUANTUM "Landau-Ginzburg" equation coupled to a
residual micro-quantum Schrodinger equation in the sense of the old
"two-fluid model" of Tiza but now generalized. This seems to go against
some of Lenny Susskind's and t'Hooft's ideas and seems to support some
of Hawking's older ideas on information loss in black holes. However, I
am not sure of that. Lenny et-al seems to want to misapply micro-quantum
theory in the MACRO-domain ignoring PW Anderson's "More is different"? I
could be wrong. We shall see.
The phase-transition from an unstable completely random white zero point
noise micro-quantum vacuum to a metastable MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM with
colored zero point noise controlled by Vacuum Coherence has a lower
q-entropy defined as log of the phase space needed by the vacuum.
Since 2003 with the discovery of both DARK ENERGY and DARK MATTER as ~
96% of the "stuff" of The World, we have been forced by the weight of
FACTS to expand our notion of MATTER as MASS-ENERGY to include VIRTUAL
ZERO POINT ENERGY or "EXOTIC VACUA". Zero Point energy has w =
Pressure/Energy Density = -1. Dark energy is exotic vacuum with
negative micro-quantum pressure and dark matter is the same, but with
positive pressure. All lepto-quarks have dark matter "vortex string"
cores which prevent the distributed electric charge of the IT
"extra-variable" from exploding. This is consistent with J.P. Vigier's
notion of "tight atomic states" and it solves the old
Abraham-Becker-Lorentz self-energy of the electron problem from ~ 100
years ago. The smallness of the cosmological constant is not solved by
string theory as Ed Witten admits, but it is, IMHO, solved by
MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM COHERENCE.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf
Key prediction: No dark matter detector will "click" with "the right
dark stuff" because all dark stuff is "virtual" not "real". Dark stuff
looks like w ~ 0 at a distance but up close it is w = -1 as one day
interstellar space probes using dark energy weightless warp (Alcubierre)
drives will confirm.
What is interesting about Lenny Susskind's theory however is the
connection between black holes and elementary lepto-quarks and gauge
force bosons as merely a matter of the complexity or bit length of the
"strings" in which "string" has dual meaning as "vibrating strings of
energy" and "strings" of computer theory in the sense of algorithmic
complexity and all that. This is already seen in black hole
thermodynamics where
Area/Lp^2 ~ number of bits
and the world hologram idea. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:50 am
|
|