Sunday, October 21, 2012

Do blackholes and blackhole evaporation have TGD counterparts?

The blackhole information paradox is often believed to have solution in terms of holography stating in the case of blackholes that blackhole horizon can serve as a holographic screen representing the information about the surrounding space as a hologram. The situation is however far from settled. The newest challenge is so called firewall paradox proposed by Polchinsky et al. Lubos Motl has written several postings about firewall paradox and they inspired me to look the situation in TGD framework.

These paradoxes strengthen the overall impression that the blackhole physics indeed represent the limit at which GRT fails and the outcome is recycling of old arguments leading nowhere. Something very important is lacking. On the other hand, some authors like Susskind claim that the physics of this century more or less reduces to that for blackholes. I however see this endless tinkering with blackholes as a decline of physics. If super string had been a success as a physical theory, we would have got rid of blackholes.

If TGD is to replace GRT, it must also provide new insights to blackholes, blackhole evaporation, information paradox and firewall paradox. This inspired me to look for what blackholes and blackhole evaporation could mean in TGD framework and whether TGD can avoid the paradoxes. This kind of exercises allow also to sharpen the TGD based view about space-time and quantum and build connections to the mainstream views.

I do not bother to type the text here as html but give link to the first draft of a little article "Do blackholes and blackhole evaporation have TGD counterparts?".


Anonymous said...

Reminded me of TGD.

The resemblance between leptons and quarks is even more striking when we arrange them by how they interact with the weak force. Many physicists suspect that the similarity between leptons and hadrons is not an accident, and that they might be connected somehow. If so, then there could be a new particle that is a little of both—a "leptoquark". Such a thing would be as shocking as the discovery of the platypus, a mammal that lays eggs like a duck yet is furry like a beaver. Physicists have been searching for leptoquarks for years, but have never found one. If they do exist, then they must have a higher mass than previous experiments were able to reach. Leptoquarks could also allow ordinary matter to spontaneously decay, something that has never been observed. If leptoquarks have a high mass, then fluctuations in ordinary matter would rarely reach it and decays would be too infrequent to have been noticed. Both of these considerations point to a high energy scale, so it is worth looking for leptoquarks at the LHC, the highest-energy collider in the world

Read more at:

Anonymous said...

Hei Matti!
Have you considered what the proponents of the electric universe say about black holes,and that the electric force should be taken more in to consideration than gravity?


Anonymous said...

Dear Matti,

I am struggling with CFT. But today my mind jumps to other topics. A question:
In current physics, especially in special relativity definition of time is local, because the measurement of time by clock is local. Therefore if in physics we assign to an object a time coordinate, in really we assign to the center of mass of the object this time coordinate and not to the object as a whole. But in TGD an object is a space-time surface containing smaller space-time surfaces as particles of the object, so one can correspond to each (geometric) moment of whole of the object a time coordinate. In other words the definition of time for an object is nonlocal to a point, but to a whole of the object.
How one can measure this nonlocal quantity for an object? As I think Clock is not appropriate for this measurement because it is a local object.

Ulla said...


Hope everything is well with you. The hard work isn't good for you.

matti Pitkanen said...

Dear Hamed, thanks for an interesting question.

In general relativity one assumes that the time coordinate corresponds to local Minkowski time but the problem is that one cannot uniquely fix this local time coordinate and every point gives in principle different one so that one must try to solve the problem by considering asymptotic regions of space-time.

In TGD the imbeddability of space-time surface to M^4xCP_3 allows to identify Minkowskian coordinates apart from Lorentz boots also as space time coordinates for space-time sheets. This choices makes sense in regions of Minkowskian signature. Therefore the situation is as in special relativity. To which particular point of 3-surface or partonic 2-surface center of mass M^4 coordinates corresponds is not quite clear. If each space-time surface is accompanied by a causal diamond then cm coordinates of causal diamonds could serve as natural space-time coordinates assignable to particle.

matti Pitkanen said...

To Kari,

electromagnetic interactions are central in TGD Universe since magnetic flux tubes are basic building brick already at the pre-bigbang period.

matti Pitkanen said...

To Ulla,

thanks. I am recovering from travel.

I lost my luggages and trying to figure out how to get even contact to British Airways to get some information. Got stress reaction from 27 hours long travel to US by British Airways: it is either "ruusu" (good newas) or "vyoruusu" (bad news).

I continued fighting with the bureaucracies ("Kela", "Sossu", "Tyonvalitys"..):: they take 250 euros too much rent monthly and the attempts to change the situation have now taken for 3 months.

In other worlds: I have made a return to the usual everyday life of a scientific dissident in Finland and try my best to preserve my integrity.

Ulla said...

To US? Wau. Work or holiday? But that is nothing I need to worry about. No Sandy storm, however?

Anonymous said...

Dear Matti,

Thanks for the answer.
please say to me every misunderstanding from TGD in the bellow:
As I understood, in TGD there is two kind of absolute spaces or privileged inertial reference frames, one is M4 in M4*CP2 and the other is every space time sheet in respect to smaller space time sheets glued to it.
An important difference between these absolute spaces and the absolute space of newton is that in TGD absolute space is in really absolute space-time, although in the case of M4, this is Minkowskian and not ordinary space-time.
Therefore one can say there are two ways for describing the absolute position and time of a particle that is corresponding to each absolute space.
For example for an object on my hand, I can easily assign to it a space-time coordinates in respect to earth’s space-time. This is an observable quantity and I can measure it easily. But in the case of M4, how can assign to a particle the coordinates from M4? It seems that is unobservable quantity like absolute position of newton?

My another question rose from a big problem of philosophy of physics that is conventionality of simultaneity.
I brought some part of arguments from a lecture of philosophy of space-time at Yale University to ask my question after them:

“Conventionality of simultaneity = Within a single inertial frame, the simultaneity of distant events is not fixed and can be judged in different ways. (Not entailed by the 2 Postulates of special relativity)

How can the simultaneity of distant events in the same inertial frame be established?
Einstein (1905): By setting up synchronized clocks at these events.
• How can distant clocks in the same inertial frame be synchronized?
Einstein (1905): Use light signals.

Assumption of Einstein: Light travels at the same speed c in all directions.
Assumption of Reichenbach's: Light does not necessarily travel at the same speed c in all directions.
(But in both of them the two-way speed of light is c)

Who's right: Einstein or Reichenbach?
- Does light travel at the same speed in all directions or not?
- How can the "one-way" speed of light be measured?
(a)To measure the one-way speed of light, we need synchronized clocks.
(b) But we can only synchronize our clocks if we have prior knowledge of distant
simultaneity, which requires prior knowledge of the one-way speed of light.
Reichenbach deduces that: Given an event A, there is no objective fact of the
matter as to what distant events at rest with respect to A are simultaneous with A. The choice is a matter of convention “
In TGD how can the simultaneity of distant events in the same inertial frame be established? By light? Can TGD solve the problem of philosophy of physics?

Ulla said... synthetic magnetism?

Ulla said... light in knots.

this is the first time that researchers have caused it to spontaneously tie itself up, forming little cores of darkness in bright laser beams.

Ulla said...

Compare to this. Carbon atoms.

Ulla said...

Bah, here I go again :(

Look at this.
Vacuum chamber without any magnetic coils or optics.
Ultracold Bosons in Optical Superlattices
Experiments with ultracold bosons in optical superlattices

we are studying quantum phases and phase transitions in specific condensed matter models as well as questions of quantum many-body dynamics

compare to the light knots with dark centers. Is the darkness the same as zero magnetism? There can be only massless fields.

matti Pitkanen said...

Dear Hamed,

interesting question. I do not find any obvious misunderstandings. I hope that you correct my misunderstandings too!

a) I would say that M^4xCP_2 (or particular causal diamond or CDxCP_2) is in very much the same role as M^4 of special relativity. Absolute space in the Newtonian sense means absolute time coordinate and M^4xCP_2 does not have it. For CD however the light-cone proper time labeling the hyperboloids of delta M^4_+ or delta M^4_- is Lorentz invariant and in this sense defines absolute time and the analog of cosmic time in RW cosmology. Maybe one could assign "absolute" to a particular CD.

b) For space-time sheet there are preferred choices coordinates since by definition M^4 projection is 4-D : one can choose as preferred coordinates of M^4 or of particular CD (that is M^4_+ or M^4_-).

c) How does one know that the coordinates used are M^4 (or CD) coordinates? The problem is encountered also in special relativity. It seems that one identify the values of M^4 (CD) coordinates of distant object by measuring distances of various objects from a given object defining the origin of these coordinates in terms of propagation time for two-way propagation with maximal signal velocity?

Matti Pitkänen said...

I thought that I had sent the answers long time ago. Since the answer had been too long the program had had not added it to the blog.

Your second question concerns simultaneity. How can the simultaneity of distant events in given inertial reference frame be established?

a) What propagation with light-velocity means in TGD framework? Is it defined in terms of particles (moving 3-surfaces) or in terms of classical or even quantum fields propagating along space-time sheets?

Definition 1): Massless particle moves along light-like geodesics of space-time sheet. In this case light velocity is in general below maximal one obtained for M^4-geodesics since light-like geodesics are only *light-like curves* of M^4xCP_2 and the distance from A to B is longer than along light-geodesics of M^4. There exist evidence from the apparent growth of distance of Moon observed using laser signals suggesting that the velocity of light in coordinates defined by distant objects is below the maximal signal velocity. During last year we talked about neutrinos as objects possibly moving with apparent superluminal velocity. If light-velocity defined for photons would be this velocity, it could have been smaller than this velocity for neutrinos. The experimental outcome was that they propagate with the same velocity as light within measurement resolution.

Definition 2): One could define maximal signal velocity as that for classical fields assignable to special solutions of field equations of TGD. For massless extremals (MEs)/topological light rays - for which the propagation velocity of all induced fields (to be distinguished from the velocity of topologically condensed 3-surface assumed to move along light-like surface of a given background space-sheet) - is maximal signal velocity determined by M^4 along the ray. These could serve as correlates for calibrating signals and the situation would reduce to that in Special Relativity as far as synchronization of clocks is considered. I think that MEs/magnetic flux tubes would quite generally serve as synchronizing signals/their carriers and actually make macroscopic quantum coherence in arbitrarily long scales possible.

b) I am not quite sure what Reichenbach's assumption means. That light can propagate with different speeds along opposite directs of given light-like geodesic? In TGD the velocities are same along opposite directions so that the situation reduces to that in Special Relativity and Einstein's argument applies.

c) In GRT one assumes Equivalence Principle (EP) : one form of this principle is that QFT (and also classical FT) in M^4 applies in a good approximation in a local inertial frame. I feel uneasy with this assumption? This reflects my uneasiness with the assumption that one can use four-momentum and angular momentum as quantum numbers although Poincare symmetry is broken.

In TGD framework however M^4 coordinates arise in a natural manner because Poincare invariance is an exact global symmetry of the imbedding space. The apparent non-conservation of gravitational energy is only apparently in conflict with Poincare symmetry in zero energy ontology: the notion of 4-momentum (four-momentum for positive energy part of state) depends on the size scale of CD.

Note that there is a connection to the firewall paradox discussed in the little pdf article to which this posting links. In TGD framework there is a failure of M^4 QFT approximation as a realization of EP as one goes to the boundary of blackhole horizon at which the signature of induced metric changes to Euclidian. In TGD framework firewall is real but this does not mean failure of EP. The paradox disappears.

matti Pitkanen said...

To Ulla:

Both work and holiday. No Sandy but fog when we went to US: flights were reorganized and British Airways lost my baggage. 24 hours of flight plus long inspection as a person suspected to be a terrorist was quite a challenge:-).

Anonymous said...

Dear Matti,

Thanks for the answer. As I think, those physicists that criticized against special relativity by conventionality of synchronization don’t understand beauty of Lorentz group :).
I haven’t other question about the subject, but something that remains for me very strange is some sentences from Wikipedia at
I summarized basic points:
“What can be experimentally measured is the "two-way" speed of light from the source to the detector and back again”
“The two-way speed of light is the average speed of light from one point, such as a source, to a mirror and back again. “
“Experiments that attempted to probe the one-way speed of light have been proposed, but none has succeeded in doing so. It was later shown that these experiments are in fact measuring the two-way speed.”

Matti Pitkanen said...

Dear Hamed,

what you say seems to be true. Of course, the postulates of special and general relativity imply that the maximal signal velocity does not depend on which direction signal propagates along light-like geodesics. I do not know whether theories assuming this kind of dependence has been proposed.

In sub-manifold gravity of TGD, one can measure the time taken for light to travel from point A to B and if signal interpreted as photons travels along different space-time sheets the times are in general different. It would be nice to observe this effect.

Anonymous said...

OT,synesthetic savant's math art:

Ulla said...

Ulla said...
Nature 491, 19 (01 November 2012) doi:10.1038/491019a

Matti Pitkanen said...

To Anonymous:

Very beautiful pieces of art. Doing mathematics visually as an art and without formulas seems to be also possible.

Matti Pitkanen said...

To Ulla:

In TGD framework the vertices of the generalized Feynman diagrams involve topology changes. Now however vertices are analogous to those of ordinary Feynman diagrams and stringy vertices have different interpretation.

The reduction of solutions to string worlds sheets (and possibly also partonic 2-surfaces for all particle states except right handed neutrino) simplifies enormously the challenge.

The basic mathematical challenges are understanding of topology change for preferred extremals and solving of the modified Dirac equation for the generalized Feynman diagrams.

The work of Wilczek and others discussed in the Nature's article could be seen as an attempt in this direction in different context.