Banner
    Holographic Horizons Get Hotter
    By Johannes Koelman | December 17th 2009 08:14 PM | 34 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Johannes

    I am a Dutchman, currently living in India. Following a PhD in theoretical physics (spin-polarized quantum systems*) I entered a Global Fortune

    ...

    View Johannes's Profile
    Three days ago I wrote a blog about a new theory that seems to lead to the conclusion that gravity is an effect emerging from quantum mechanical principles. The blog was inspired by an interview with string theorist Erik Verlinde published two days earlier in a Dutch newspaper. This newspaper article contained little technical details, and as at the time Verlinde hadn't published anything yet, my sole source of information were some equations vaguely visible on a blackboard in the background of a picture showing Verlinde.

    Fortunately, the idea is fairly straightforward, and not so difficult to derive once given a few hints. It all can be summarized in a simple slogan describing gravity as the combined effect of three phenomena taking place at a sub-microscopic (quantum) level:

    Holography + Equipartition + Unruh = Gravity


    Or, slightly more subtle and arguably more accurate:

    Holography + Equipartition = Hot Horizon =  Gravity
    + Unruh

    Is our world a hologram?

    Is our world a hologram?


    Three days have passed, and some interesting developments emerged.

    Today a publication did get submitted to arXiv containing a derivation of gravitational acceleration exactly along the lines as I described in my blog on Monday. However, this paper was not submitted by Verlinde, but by Indian cosmologist and theoretical physicist Thanu Padmanabhan. Verlinde still seems to have refrained from publishing anything.

    What is happening here?

    Could this be a coincidence? A newspaper article announcing a not yet published scientific development, followed a few days later by someone else submitting a paper containing the very same announcement?

    Thanu Padmanabhan

    Thanu Padmanabhan


    Well, this would not be the first time a new development in physics gets progressed (and submitted for publication) in parallel. In any case, the assumption that Professor Padmanabhan does not spend his weekend reading Dutch newspapers is unlikely to be wildly off. Also, Padmanabhan does not indicate that he got inspiration from my Monday blog: Certainly you won't find in his article a citation to any blog. ;)

    More importantly, as was remarked by one of the commenters to my Monday blog, Padmanabhan had already published in this area, and seemed to be on the same track as Verlinde.


    To be continued...

    Comments

    Gravity is a topic in nanoscience, since it's effects intensify on smaller scales. Your idea on quantum effect origins of gravity are relevant, as RQT equations show, and have a paradigm in the model of atomic gravity emissions named the GT integral atomic function. This calculation defines a series of five gravitalon force particles. These recent advancements in quantum science have produced the picoyoctometric, 3D, interactive video atomic model imaging function, in terms of chronons, gravitons, and spacons for exact, quantized, relativistic animation. This format returns clear numerical data for a full spectrum of variables. The atom's RQT (relative quantum topological) data point imaging function is built by combination of the relativistic Einstein-Lorenz transform functions for time, mass, and energy with the workon quantized electromagnetic wave equations for frequency and wavelength.

    The atom labeled psi (Z) pulsates at the frequency {Nhu=e/h} by cycles of {e=m(c^2)} transformation of nuclear surface mass to forcons with joule values, followed by nuclear force absorption. This radiation process is limited only by spacetime boundaries of {Gravity-Time}, where gravity is the force binding space to psi, forming the GT integral atomic wavefunction. The expression is defined as the series expansion differential of nuclear output rates with quantum symmetry numbers assigned along the progression to give topology to the solutions.

    Next, the correlation function for the manifold of internal heat capacity energy particle 3D functions is extracted by rearranging the total internal momentum function to the photon gain rule and integrating it for GT limits. This produces a series of 26 topological waveparticle functions of the five classes; {+Positron, Workon, Thermon, -Electromagneton, Magnemedon}, each the 3D data image of a type of energy intermedon of the 5/2 kT J internal energy cloud, accounting for all of them.

    Those 26 energy data values intersect the sizes of the fundamental physical constants: h, h-bar, delta, nuclear magneton, beta magneton, k (series). They quantize atomic dynamics by acting as fulcrum particles. The result is the exact picoyoctometric, 3D, interactive video atomic model data point imaging function, responsive to keyboard input of virtual photon gain events by relativistic, quantized shifts of electron, force, and energy field states and positions.

    Images of the h-bar magnetic energy waveparticle of ~175 picoyoctometers are available online at http://www.symmecon.com with the complete RQT atomic modeling manual titled The Crystalon Door, copyright TXu1-266-788. TCD conforms to the unopposed motion of disclosure in U.S. District (NM) Court of 04/02/2001 titled The Solution to the Equation of Schrodinger.

    Rabbit hole and a half. If only Albert had hung onto aether physics, the trap of thinking parts have parts to infinity would be a more obvious kind of silliness than it is today. Waves need a medium to wave in, that medium imparts properties to the parts that exist within it. Those properties are dynamic, recursive, subtle and powerful. That medium is why this IS a holographic universe. We are the substance of entangled waves. No matter how far away a photon is emitted it entangles with waves that entangle with waves. Information in a hologram is ubiquitous and super-luminally transmitted into the system the moment it is created. Why waste time on particles that impart properties when you have something as marvelous and sensible as the aether to study? (www.16pi2.com)

    PARTITION OF VACUUM ENERGY REMOVES THE LAST VESTIGE OF ACTION AT A DISTANCE. Curvature of space is replaced in General Relativity, by a departure from equal partition in the Zero Point Energy. Then all of the properties at a point in space are defined by local variables of things that can be locally measured. Action at a distance propagates through space by altering the partition function of the Zero Point Oscillators.

    Equal partition only applies in flat space where there is thermodynamic equilibrium. When space is not flat, then the partition is not equal and the Zero Point oscillators are not in thermodynamic equilibrium.

    Refer to Johannes previous article from 25 May 2009

    http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock_physicist/holographic_dark_uni...

    with my reply from 15 October 2009

    "The only known way to have large energy that does not curve space was published by Peter Bergman. He published a famous book “Introduction to the Theory of Relativity” reprinted by Dover in 1976. On page 206 in equation set 13.34 a solution to Einstein’s field equations predicts that electromagnetic energy counteracts gravity in curvature of space (grs) and time (g44)"

    and my reply from 18 October 2009

    "EQUAL PARTITION OF VACUUM ENERGY unifies cosmology with quantum mechanics, putting an end to 'the biggest embarrassment in theoretical physics'."

    The reader should realize that Johannes has taken the lead in public information about a very important advancement in science that is taking place now.

    Equal partition is not the beginning or end of this story. In fact it is Chapter 4 in my new book on this subject RADIANT GLORY THE POWER OF CREATION, that was registered with the US Copyright Office on 24 December, and published that same day to a limited number of people. Thanu Padmanabhan published his paper 4 days later with a different treatment of the same topic.

    Johannes’ readers had a preview in October.

    Here is a short preview of the next steps in partition of vacuum energy. From Chapter 21 of my new book

    “Equal partition of vacuum energy was covered in a previous chapter. In this chapter the unequal partition will be developed in a similar way. The commonly used Z partition function will be applied to the division of total vacuum energy between gravity potential energy and electromagnetic potential energy in zero point oscillators to show how the properties of space change under stress.”

    “For the unequal partition case this chapter will make use again of the text book by Peter Bergmann. He wrote the first text book on general relativity Introduction to the Theory of Relativity reprinted by Dover in 1976. As was done before in the chapter about equal partition, this chapter will make use of Bergmann's equation set 13.34 on page 206 in a solution to Einstein’s field equations. Bergmann's reporting of results from before 1920 predicts that electromagnetic energy counteracts gravity in curvature of space (grs) and time (g44).”

    “When the same principle is applied to vacuum energy, VE there can be enormous energy in space with a small cosmological constant and little curvature. All that is necessary is that the zero point energy must be nearly equal in partition between electromagnetic potential and gravitational potential, giving ½(1-Z)hf energy to Gravity potential, and ½(Z)hf energy to electromagnetic potential.”

    “A semi classical deterministic model is constructed of virtual particle pairs each of virtual mass m, that may be uncharged or electrically charged with virtual ± q. This model describes an average action per oscillator over a group of 30 or more oscillators to avoid the quantum wave functions and probabilities that apply to single oscillators.”

    “Gravitational energy oscillates between two states, potential and dynamic. There is gravitational potential energy when the virtual pair is separated by one wave length, and dynamic energy when the pair recombines at a center point. All measurements are made in curved space.

    (21.1) m^2G/λ = 2mc^2 = ½(1-Z)hf part of the zero point energy,

    (21.2) λf = c

    (21.3) m^2 = ½(1-Z)(hc/G)

    (21.4) h^2 f^2 = (8/(1-Z)) hc^5 / G

    (21.5) f^2 = (8/(1-Z)) c^5 / hG the frequency squared,

    (21.6) λ^2 = ((1-Z)/8) ( hG / c^3 ) the wave length squared.

    The other part of the zero point energy is represented by an LC electronic oscillator that exchanges energy between virtual static electricity and virtual magnetic fields, using the same frequency and wave lengths as the gravitational energy.

    (21.7) q^2 / m^2 = 4π ε G where m is given in equation (21.3)

    (21.8) q^2 = 2π (1-Z) ε h c the absolute value of charge squared.

    The capacitance C is defined by

    (21.9) ½ (q^2 / C) = ½(Z)hf maximum capacitor energy

    (21.10) C = q^2 / Zhf = 2π((1-Z)/Z) ε λ = (2π)^2 ((1-Z)/Z) ε λ / 2π

    The inductance L is given by

    (21.11) L = (1/4π^2)(Z/(1-Z)) μλ / 2π = (Z/(1-Z)) μλ / 8π^3

    Reactive impedance is given by

    (21.12) SQRT(L/C) = (Z/(1-Z))( SQRT(μ/ε) )/ 4π^2

    Energy density in vacuum space is calculated as energy U per unit volume V.

    (21.13) U/V = ½hf ^2 / λ^2c

    (21.14) U/V = ½(8^2/(1-Z)^2) c^7/ hG^2 a very large energy field.

    (21.15) UEM/V = ½(8^2Z/(1-Z)^2) c^7/ hG^2

    (21.15) UG/V = ½(8^2/(1-Z)) c^7/ hG^2

    Poynting power flow forward and backward in all four dimensions at the same time is given by

    (21.14) S = ½(8/(1-Z)^2) c^8/ hG^2 a very large energy field.

    (21.15) SEM = ½(8Z/(1-Z)^2) c^8/ hG^2

    (21.15) SG = ½(8/(1-Z)) c^8/ hG^2

    These results can be compared to those in chapter four. The calculated vacuum energy in this chapter, as before in equal partition of chapter four, is very large but not infinite. It is strong enough to hold the properties of space nearly constant everywhere except when over powered by the gravity of a black hole, neutron star, or a very powerful electromagnetic energy source. Calculations of this type have been done since the time of Paul Dirac, with the addition in this model of the partition function between electromagnetic and gravitational potential to give a nearly flat space “

    The next topic in Chapter 22 continues the partition function development as a local rapid variable relating gravity and light speed leading to a prediction of accelerating galaxies and a description of how the properties of space change under stress.

    “This energy partition function Z supports the Dirac sea of energy concept. Gravity and light compete for vacuum energy to support their field strength and continuous propagation of fields through space. At the edge of a black hole general relativity predicts that space is curved into a circle such that light cannot escape. The best alternative to that is this model where the speed of light decreases and approaches zero at the event horizon, but is very nearly constant in the place where we live.”

    “It can be argued that the gradients in properties of space must be locally determined by local variables, even if the cause is located some distance away. Then G and c must be locally described. When c*, G*, r* are measured in distant flat space, local light speed, gravity, and acceleration are given by:

    (22.1) c^2/c*^2 = 2Z where Z is the electromagnetic fraction of vacuum.

    In this way the action at a distance c* is replaced by a local variable Z to describe curvature.

    (22.2) G/G* = 2(1-Z)

    (22.3) G/G* + c^2/c*^2 = 2

    It is argued that light speed c and gravity G must be variables, because an infinite amount of vacuum energy would be required to keep them completely constant. It means that c and G are constant in flat space where equal partition occurs, but c and G vary with Z in curved space.

    (22.4) d(c^2)/dr = 2(1-Z)g = 2c*^2dZ/dr

    (22.5 ) dG/G*dr = - d(c2)/c*^2dr = - 2(1-Z)g/c*^2

    (22.6) dG/Gdr = - g/c*^2 = d Ln(1-Z)/dr

    (22.7) g = MG/r^2 - g0

    Parameter g0 is the antigravity of distant space between clusters of galaxies. The g0 is antigravity of background microwave and other electromagnetic radiation in space related to δ in chapter five.

    (22.8) (g + g0) / g0 = (G/G*)/(r*^2/r^2)
    = ( 2-c^2/c*^2)/(r*^2/r^2)

    (22.9) g0 = MG*/r*^2

    The use of g0 as a local parameter removes the action at a distance from acceleration calculations. Flat space occurs where gravitational and electromagnetic fields are equal. In the equal partition model of chapters four and five, there were different factors multiplied by g, that were small in nearly flat space, but large near an event horizon. In this model the partition function Z replaces the other terms.

    Light speed and gravity are related by a set of field equations nearly the same as in chapter five.

    (22.10) δ = g0r*/c*^2 = MG*/r*c*^2

    (22.11) (c^2/c*^2) = ( 1 - MG/rc*^2 + δ ) = 2Z

    (22.12) (G/G*) = ( 1 + MG/rc*^2 - δ ) = 2(1-Z)

    (22.13) Z = ½ ( 1 - 2MGZ/rc^2 + δ ) for c greater than zero

    Using a linear partition function Z for vacuum energy causes G to approach 2G* near the event horizon when light speed is zero. A series expansion gives the substitution of G* for G with the same form as in chapter five.

    (22.14) c^2/c*^2 = (1 - 2MG*/rc*^2 + δ ) /( 1 - MG*/rc*^2) = 2Z

    (22.15) G/G* = (1 - δ)/(1 - MG*/rc*^2) = 2(1-Z)

    (22.16) d(c^2)/dr = 2(g + δc*^2/r)(1-Z)/(1 - δ) = (g + δc*^2/r)/(1 - MG*/rc*^2)

    (22.17) d(G)/dr = - (g/c*^2 + δ/r)G/(1 - δ) = - (g/c*^2 + δ/r)G*/(1 - MG*/rc*^2)

    (22.18) gr*/c*^2 = MG*/r*c*^2 - δ describing flat space when g is zero.

    (22.19) d(gr/c*^2)/dr = - (g/c*^2 + δ/r)(G/G*)/(1 - δ) = - (g/c*^2 + δ/r)/(1 - MG*/rc*^2)

    (22.20) dg/dr = - g/r - 2dc^2/dr^2

    (22.21) gr/c*^2 = MG*/rc*^2 - δ describing curved space when g is not zero.

    (22.22) d(gr/c*^2)/dr = - (g/c*^2 + δ/r)(G/G*)/(1 - δ) = - (g/c*^2 + δ/r)/(1 - MG*/rc*^2)

    (22.23) dg/dr = - g/r - 2d(c^2)/d(r^2)

    This model can be calculated and tested with the same data as the version in chapter five. Space properties vary in the same model as chapter five:.

    (22.24) h/h* = q^2/q*^2 = (c^3/c*^3)/(G/G*)

    (22.25) f^2f*^2 = g/g* = (c^2/c*^2) = 2Z

    (22.26) m = m*

    (22.27) λ = λ*

    (22.28) μ/μ* = ε/ε* = c*/c

    (22.29) μ/ε = μ*/ε* invariant in curved space of general relativity.”

    The above method was simplified for the level of a high school science student. It can be more elaborate and probably will be in other writings. This version predicts in Chapter 23 that the local neighborhood of galaxies creates flat space at a distance of about 35 mega parsecs from the mass center. Beyond that distance the antigravity of the electromagnetic radiation curves space backward and pushes clusters of galaxies apart.

    My book has other chapters on gravity induction, field effect engines, and response of the Vacuum to the borrowing of energy from it.

    The thermodynamic functions Johannes presented make an interesting exercise, and I believe they are relevant to the topic, but they require the measurement of very small temperature differences in space, where many other radiant heat sources are interfering with the measurement.

    In my method the important variables are directly measured in ways that resist interference from other factors.

    You saw it first on Johannes’ page, and 2 months ahead of the competition.

    "my new book on this subject RADIANT GLORY THE POWER OF CREATION, that was registered with the US Copyright Office on 24 December, and published that same day to a limited number of people"

    When will this book be available to the rest of us?

    “Radiant Glory The Power Of Creation” is a mathematical model of what the vacuum zero point energy is, why it is that way, where it came from, and how it interacts with and controls the observable universe. As such the book provides a path forward toward the next steps in scientific discovery.

    Reply to RasJF, about publication of the book “Radiant Glory The Power Of Creation“, I don’t have a mass publisher at this time, but have been in contact with some of the specialty companies.

    The market for my writing is fairly small, and I usually handle the publishing myself. My new book has been printed in paper back with very small number of copies. It was also distributed electronically to a group of long time friends and associates. I don’t have additional printed copies available at this time.

    If you want to receive an electronic file copy, you can send an e-mail to: elainedecker4d9@sbcglobal.net.

    She is not the author, but has photo credits in the book.

    Please notice that I am not the very famous person with a similar name from Keely Net who publishes many books with considerably different opinions than the ones I support.

    My book is technical with a lot of mathematics for the level of a fairly bright high school science student. There is a companion volume “Commentary on Ezekiel and Related Topics of Modern Science,“ with copyright registered on 1 January 2010, also a bit technical but with almost no mathematics. It covers many of the same topics but with explanations that are more appropriate for the faith based community. The second book contains my recent answers to questions on several public web sites.

    My book does not support the Holographic Universe theory that is popular now, but the book is versatile enough that it can be inserted into a version of that theory if the experimental evidence decides in favor of Holography.

    Holographic Universe theory is the final chance for the main stream of science to avoid accepting the Dirac Sea of energy. Johannes has chosen one of the most important subjects of this moment. It is a very important discovery and might well be stolen or fought over.

    I am concerned about those risks in my own work, and that is the reason I posted a larger than normal review section on Johannes’ page and a few other public places. So I apologize for all the mathematics.

    Thanks for your interest, and thanks also to Johannes for providing this page for public information.

    I've always been a bit jealous of people who could type rapidly without making spelling and punctuation errors.

    In string theory if the strings represent the wavelengths of the Zero Point Resonators, and the virtual particles of Vacuum Energy represent the nodes of string theory, then there is a way to unite string theory with general relativity.

    That doesn’t answer the question about what medium contains the strings or the Zero Point Oscillators. A clue is found in string theory, where 10 dimensions or 26 dimensions are required to describe the different versions.

    If the strings and wave lengths are the intersections between different dimensions in the several string theories, then there is a path forward toward describing the medium in which the Zero Point resides.

    THERMODYNAMICS OF ZERO POINT can be developed and presented as an alternative description of how the vacuum is partitioned.

    Since the fundamental requirement of equal partition is that the system must be in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, then the unequal partition in curved space is a departure from thermodynamic equilibrium. In that case the topic of curvature and every type of energy propagation in space could be described in in terms of a transient departure from thermodynamic equilibrium, and the response of the Vacuum toward restoring the equilibrium.

    Since my previous message, a close associate has assured me that the small temperature differentials of micro thermal actions in space can be measured by some of the brighter graduate students of our time. So I'm accepting the Unruh effect as a ponder motive foundation of the model I presented above in a previous message.

    The Unruh effect seems to be a reasonable extension of special relativity where blue shift and red shift are firmly established for observers at high speed.

    If internal energy U first gains energy, then loses the excess and returns to normal after a wave propagation through a group of Zero Point Oscillators, then the momentary shifting of energy from one mode to another is a reversible departure from equilibrium in response to the momentary excess.

    (A.1) ΔU = ΔQ* - ΔW* = hf ... where f is the frequency of the wave.
    Entropy is

    (A.2) ΔS = ΔQ*/T = ( hf + ΔW*)/T

    but the process is completely reversible so

    (A.3) ΔS = 0

    (A.4) ΔW* = - hf

    In flat space the Zero Point has energy of

    (A.5) U = ½ hf* .... where f* is the Zero Point frequency in flat space, and the ZPE oscillator can gain or lose energy of

    (A.6) ΔU ≤ hf*/ 2π ..... for one cycle or less, during which the difference is reflected in a change of frequency, and an a exchange of energy with the surroundings.

    For most wave propagation

    (A.7) ½ f* >> f .... and there is no difficulty in propagation.

    The situation changes near a black hole or near one of the heavier neutron stars where the Zero Point frequency is very small compared to f* and a wave of frequency f is propagating. There is the possibility of marginal propagation with all of the quantum wave probabilities that go with it. On average for this situation

    (A.8) ½ Sqrt(2Z)f* = f where Z is the partition function for electromagnetic potential in the vacuum.

    Then when the event horizon is approached,

    (A.9) ½ Sqrt(2Z)f* < f

    and there is no propagation of an electromagnetic wave except for the probabilistic tunneling that always occurs for any barrier.

    So I accept the thermodynamic foundation for my model, and you have seen a preview of Appendix A in my next edition.

    The unstressed Zero Point of flat space is resonating in a perfect conservation of energy stored in the oscillator. The propagation of a wave or particle alters the frequency of the Zero Point such that the resonance is not perfect, and the conservation of energy is not perfect. Then the oscillator gains or loses energy until equilibrium is restored.

    HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE REPRESENTS THE OPINION THAT ZERO POINT DOES NOT ACTUALLY CONTAIN ALL OF THE ENERGY THAT IS CALCULATED FROM THE PROPERTIES OF SPACE. Holographic in this sense means that each oscillator in Vacuum Energy is only an image through a view port of all the energy in the universe. In this representation the tiny oscillators do not have to actually contain such enormous energy. They can borrow as much energy as they need at any moment from any place in the universe including forward and backward in time. The consequence is that any oscillator that has been challenged was found to have as much energy as it needs to enforce the laws of nature.

    In my replies I presented the case for non holographic universe, and still prefer that point of view as a more likely vehicle for creation of the universe. With holography there is an energy shortage in the big bang.

    A majority in science is moving toward the holographic point of view, and to avoid the inquisition I can fit my model of energy partition into that small container. Taking the method of Copernicus instead of the method of Galileo, my model could simply describe what appears to exist, not the reality of what is actually existing. Then the partition function could describe the size and shape of the view ports instead of the energy partitions of space. In this case near a black hole, the gravity is strong enough to close the electromagnetic aspect in the view port and open the gravitational aspect. Mathematics is able to do these things even if they don't really happen in nature.

    The continuing difficulty I have with the holographic universe as it relates to black holes, is that to support that theory a great many Zero Point oscillators must each have already borrowed all of the energy in the universe including the future and past energy, for use in different places all at the same time. Mathematics can do that too.

    A more realistic point of view is that holography only provides enough energy in the whole universe to support the curvature of space in the vicinity of one black hole.

    I offered a very simple explanation from a well respected source quoting the page and equation number, that eliminates the need for a complicated holography to reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.

    Then I remembered that Peter Bergmann did not repeat that equation in his later book about Gravity.

    If the universe is not holographic, then there is a power in space that is too dangerous to use on Earth. In Space it is the only source of power strong enough to take us to the stars.

    So the debate is really about whether or not we can ever travel to the stars. I have the opinion that we can,

    ........ or some of us can, and some of us can't.

    HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE IS DERIVED FROM A MISTAKE IN EINSTEIN'S EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY.

    Albert Einstein based his field equations on his claim that a person in an elevator could not tell whether the acceleration in the elevator is caused by gravity or by mechanical force of the lift motors. That claim is easy to disprove by a slightly trained technician. Gravity is always a little bit less at the top of the elevator than at the bottom, but the mechanical acceleration is the same at top and bottom. a few simple measurements inside the elevator can tell how much acceleration is gravitational and how much is mechanical.

    Equivalence of acceleration is valid only for the special case where the elevator has no physical height and it contains no volume even if the floor space is very large.

    Einstein made a second claim to support general relativity. He claimed that when a beam of light comes through a pin hole in one wall of the elevator and strikes the opposite wall, the curvature of the light path is determined by the acceleration of the elevator and nothing else. This claim can also be disproven by a few simple measurements. Curvature of the light beam also depends on the speed of the elevator, not just acceleration. An elevator that is just starting to accelerate from zero velocity would measure a different curvature than an elevator that is undergoing the same acceleration near light speed. A slightly trained observer in the elevator can discover the difference.

    Equivalence of curvature is valid only for the special case where the elevator has no physical width in the direction of the light beam, and the elevator contains no volume even if the surface area of the other wall space is very large

    From these mistakes Einstein created general relativity that is only valid in a two dimensional universe. It is not correct in a 4 dimensional universe except in space that is flat or very nearly flat.

    In strongly curved space Einstein's mistake causes black holes to have no volume and contain nothing but a singularity no matter how large the surface area is.

    Holographic universe theories arise from Einstein's mistake, and the consequences of a two dimensional model of the distant horizon.

    General relativity can be fixed by replacing equivalence by the simple functions that relate gravitational acceleration to mechanical acceleration.

    A lot of major scientists know there is a defect in general relativity and are trying to fix it. At least 30 new theories of general relativity have been proposed by well established research universities. Many of them use the equivalence principle and make the same mistakes Einstein made.

    Einstein's equivalence principle is wrong, and must be challenged and replaced with new formulas.

    Holographic universe theory will need to find a new reason to exist.

    A new article in the Dutch newspaper "de Volkskant" on Januari 2, 2010 says that Erik Verlinde occuses the Indian physicist Thanu Padmanabhan of plagiarism. He claims that the professor would have copied some formulas from a web log and has presented it as his own work on Arxiv.org.

    Johannes Koelman
    Jeroen -- again a surprise development. Very interesting. Do you have more info? Is this newspaper article available online?
     
    This is the original article from de Volkskrant of 1/2/2010 (not sure I'm not infrining copyrights here):

    Fysicus beschuldigt collega van plagiaat

    NIEUWE THEORIE De Amsterdamse theoretisch fysicus prof. Erik Verlinde beschuldigt een Indiase fysicus van plagiaat. Thanu Padmanabhan zou enkele formules van Verlinde hebben overgenomen via een weblog en die als eigen werk hebben gepresenteerd op Arxiv.org. Op deze website wil Verlinde zijn nieuwe theorie over de zwaartekracht van Newton publiceren. Daarin leidt hij de gravitatiewet af uit een beschouwing over de manier waarop informatie over een fysisch systeem als een zwart gat verdeeld is over de ruimte eromheen. De Indiër zou zich hebben gebaseerd op een foto van Verlinde in de Volkskrant, waarop de natuurkundige voor een schoolbord staat met daarop enkele van zijn formules.

    Translated with translate.google.com:

    Physicist colleague accused of plagiarism

    NEW THEORY The Amsterdam theoretical physicist Professor Erik Verlinde accused an Indian physicist of plagiarism. Thanu Padmanabhan would have acquired some of Verlinde formulas through a weblog as his own work and have presented at Arxiv.org. Verlinde wants to publish his new theory of gravitation of Newton on this website. It derives the gravitation from a consideration of how information about a physical system as a black hole is distributed over the space around it. The Indian would have based on a photo of Verlinde in the Volkskrant, a blackboard on which the physicist is showing some of his formulas.

    Johannes Koelman
    This is a heavy accusation.

    I have asked Padmanabhan for a reaction. To be continued...
    As I wrote on the other posting, Padmanhaban is repeating Jacobson's work since 15 years, and almost never cites him. His papers are confusing, his ideas copied; so the new accusation fits well in what he is doing since many years.

    Erik Verlinde did publish his paper just now: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

    And yes - Jacobson's beautifully written 1995 paper http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504004 cites Bardeen, Cooper, Hawking and Lee Smolin, 't Hooft, Susskind and Unruh on the underpinnings of his arguments. Remarkably to an outsider like me, Padmanhaban cites... hmmm... Padmanhaban, Padmanhaban and Padmanhaban?

    It is quite sad when an attempt to do 'outreach' to the general public - by allowing a sneak preview and interview about some of the newer developments in theoretical physics - backfires because after it has been more-or-less reconstructed by a smart guy like Johannes Koelman, it winds up in a very confusing v.1 of an article by someone else...

    If I had known it would turn out that way, I would certainly not have commented on this blog.

    ONE OF THE MOST MASSIVE NEUTRON STARS SHOULD NOT BE GREATLY DIFFERENT FROM ONE OF THE LEAST MASSIVE BLACK HOLES. Science describes the two objects in completely different ways and by completely different technologies. The reader is faced with a dilemma of how to describe the conversion of the neutron star into the black hole by the addition of one small mass.

    For example a small stone could find its way into a massive neutron star, with just barely enough additional mass to convert it into a black hole.

    Neutron stars are well described by quantum mechanics and the degeneracy of neutrons. Black holes on the other hand are highly speculative and described by general relativity that is known to have serious defects in highly curved space.

    A neutron star has entropy that is calculated from the predictable contents inside the volume of the star. A black hole in Einstein's field equations has an event horizon that encloses no volume, and contains nothing except one singularity no matter how large the surface area is on the event horizon. The entropy of the black hole is claimed to reside on the event horizon along with all of the mass and all of the information about what fell onto the event horizon.

    It is really not acceptable that one small stone with its feeble gravity and little energy could make a catastrophic change from one large physical system to another large physical system.

    If the reader disagrees, then consider the reverse case where a tiny amount of antimatter is sent into a black hole that has no mass to spare. Is the neutron star regenerated or do we get a nova?

    In either case there are other questions about what large scale physical process must be caused by the small scale incremental amount of antimatter to convert a black hole into any other type of star.

    The answer is that Einstein’s general relativity fails to satisfy the boundary conditions imposed by the structure of super massive neutron stars. Einstein’s mistake in his equivalence principle causes the 4 dimensional space time to be compressed into only 2 dimensions at the event horizon. Two dimensions are the most that can be described by the equivalence principle in highly curved space.

    You can’t fall into an Einstein black hole. It doesn’t have a physical inside. You just get mashed flat on the event horizon. A singularity is not a physical object. It is only an abstract mathematical location in space.

    Holographic universe theory is an elegant and important milestone in physics, built upon the shaky foundation of one mistake piled upon another. The Hologram is a 2 dimensional image of a 4 dimensional universe, resulting from field equations that cannot describe more that 2 dimensions near a black hole.

    WHAT STRUCTURE OF A BLACK HOLE WOULD SATISFY THE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS OF A SUPER MASSIVE NEUTRON STAR? There is an opportunity to make a big advancement in general relativity, by a fairly small modification of Einstein’s field equations to replace equivalence principle by simple functions relating gravity to mechanical acceleration, and gravitational curvature to mechanical curvature. A lot of scientific groups are working on that and many proposals have been made.

    What would a black hole be composed of if it satisfies the boundary conditions of massive neutron stars?
    Old stars are described in a sequence degeneracy by quantum mechanics, the degeneracy of electrons in red giants, the degeneracy of protons in white dwarfs, and the degeneracy of neutrons in neutron stars. So what is degenerate in a black hole?

    In a black hole the only thing remaining to become degenerate is space it’s self. The Zero Point Energy goes degenerate at the event horizon. Einstein left quantum mechanics out of his field equations. So his theory doesn’t have the tools it needs to describe the degeneracy of space.
    Quantum mechanics has the necessary tools. At the boundary between neutron stars and black holes the two types look a lot alike and have very similar structures.

    Just as degeneracy in other old stars is gradual and partial starting in the center or a deep layer and progressing to the surface, so must the degeneracy of space begin near the center of a neutron star and progress toward the surface as the star collects mass from it’s surroundings.

    The final conversion of a massive neutron star to a black hole is a minor event affecting only the surface of the star when the final small mass is added to convert the last remaining neutron degeneracy into the degeneracy of space.

    Antimatter added to the black hole does not convert the entire mass into some other type of star. It is just a minor surface event converting a small part of the degenerate space into something else. What else is there?

    Photons of gamma radiation are created when antimatter contacts matter. In the marginal black hole example the loss of mass to gamma rays is sufficient to disqualify the surface of the star as a black hole. The gamma rays come out greatly red shifted, but still manage to escape from the star. Now the star is unstable. It doesn’t have enough mass to maintain it’s radius. The star expands, regenerating the zero point space of additional surface layers.

    Now the reader can choose between the reemergence of degenerate neutrons in the surface layers (A), the emergence of a new star of low entropy (B), an explosion in which all of the mass is converted into light (C), or some other conclusion from a different theory (D). YOUR ANSWER HERE ===> { ......}

    The answer is important and depends on what happens inside a real black hole, and whether or not the information of entropy is remembered or lost The leading scientists have debated this issue.

    General relativity predicts that time slows down in curved space and stops completely at an event horizon. When the field equations are repaired to eliminate the mistake of equivalence, then the black hole has plenty of room inside and time goes backward. The answer then depends on how long the star was in a black hole status.

    A recently formed black hole treated with antimatter gives off a burst of gamma rays and regenerates the surface of a borderline neutron star, answer (A). An older black hole could possibly regenerate a healthy new star with low entropy, answer (B). If the black hole is very, very old you get an explosion similar to the big bang creation theory, answer (C).

    Richard Feynman created the concept of antimatter going backward in time. How this applies to the time reversal in a black hole is just a guess. The best answer appears to be that matter crossing the event horizon converts to antimatter, and antimatter crossing the event horizon converts to matter. If that is true, the question is answered in a New Heaven and a New Earth, answer (D).

    In any of these events, Holographic Universe Theory will need to be rewritten.

    IF TIME TRAVELS BACKWARD INSIDE A BLACK HOLE, IS THERE SOME WAY TO TRAVEL FORWARD IN TIME? Science is not well advanced on this topic. The time reversal in a black hole is fairly well supported by mathematical models. Time advancement fast forward is not as well supported, except by analogy.

    In the partition of vacuum energy the gravitational curvature of space is replaced by a shift in the partition function such that space has no remaining electromagnetic potential at an event horizon. The reverse can be applied to tempo advancement in forward time.

    The resulting mathematical model predicts that backward curvature of space or an excess of electromagnetic potential over gravitational potential of the vacuum energy, increases the tempo of forward time.

    In previous messages a gravity induction was predicted from interference of electromagnetic waves in which the Poynting vectors were conserved. Interference patterns predict an increase in the tempo of time when the Poynting vectors are also canceled out by wave interference.

    That means if two or maybe four radio wave sources are directed toward each other with equal amplitude, frequency, and phase of a standing wave, then the space between the transmitters is advanced forward in time faster than the other nearby space. It is a theory in the early stage of development.

    All of these things require a very large amount of energy that has already been calculated from a small extension of well known science.

    Vacuum energy is the only power source great enough to run any of theses machines.

    So if the universe is Holographic, there is no power supply for time travel or star travel.

    The Holographic argument is vital to human development. Johannes has chosen the best topic at a critical time.

    Holography tells us that our universe will die and there is nothing we can do about. It tells us we can never travel to the stars or go forward or backward in time. Holography is just another way to say we are hopelessly stuck with our present situation and should make the best use of what time we have left.

    These arguments have been around since 1920, and are repackaged occasionally.

    sunu.engineer

    I have been recently reading the two articles about Horizons in this website and I am appalled by the way scientific methodology is being tarnished. I happen to be a student of Prof. Padmanabhan from a while ago and have been discussing these ideas with him and his students and am well acquainted with the long chain of literature that precedes the arxiv paper mentioned by Mr. Koelman. Let me begin by clarifying some of the murkier issues raised in this forum.

    I have had many personal discussions on this matter with Prof. Padmanabhan over the years (as the acknowledgements to me in the review articles where the core ideas are formulated will attest) and specifically recall having discussions with him about the microscopic degrees of freedom and the equipartition of energy  amongst them as early as in 2006. He had explained to me then (in 2006) that the idea of equipartition of energy and derivation of Einstein gravity from it 
    were already present in a paper published in 2004  [
    gr-qc/0308070
    [CQG, 21, 4485 (2004)] in the form E=2S(kT) [which is identical to
    E=(1/2)(4S)(kT)].

    He was seriously pursuing the  idea of generalising these results to a more
    general class of theories called Lovelock models and did not want to
    concentrate on the equipartition based ideas till he could obtain similar
    results in Lovelock models.  He did succeed in generalising his ideas to Lovelock gravity and many more important results followed which are published in several papers and reviews and in the chapter on gravity as an emergent and holographic phenomenon in his forthcoming book ('Gravitation' by Cambridge University Press).  In Oct-Nov 2009, he told me that he will now
    be writing a series of papers clarifying the interconnnections after finishing
    a major review. This is what he has done in his arxive submission of
    arXiv:0912.3165  and I am aware of a sequence of works that are in the pipeline.

    Given this data(which seems to be behind an information horizon for most of the people who have hurriedly commented on this forum!) I would like to stress the following:

    It is ridiculous to claim that a person like Prof.Padmanabhan – a physicist of international repute who was working in this field for nearly seven years and has written numerous reviews and given several plenary talks all over the world - has to base his paper on  the brief expostulation of the simplistic equations on a blog and reported in a Dutch newspaper.  I invite you to read his paper which clearly establishes the  connection with work stretching over many years prior to it, with very explicit references. In addition, the arxiv paper referred to by Mr. Koelman
    clarifies the validity of this result in a class of theories much more general
    that Einstein gravity and goes further to show how Einstein's field equations
    can be obtained from this approach. It emphasises  all the  underlying assumptions and their validity is clearly indicated.

    In fact, Prof.Padmanabhan's arxive paper shows that the key equations in the blackboard – depicted in the blog – are all already there in the 2004 paper!! Given this one may equally well hypothesize that Prof.Verlinde has been following up on Prof.Padmanabhan's ideas of 2004 – not the other way around!

    An accusation of plagiarisation on the part of Prof. Verlinde is difficult to substantiate given that the results were published in a 2004 paper in the peer reviewed journal, Classical and Quantum Gravity ( CQG (21) 4495 - 2004) and have only been restated in this paper in combination with later results to emphasize the connection between the later work and the earlier work.

    I believe that the common practice in case of such disputes in matters of scientific priority is for the scientists in question to communicate, clarify the order between
    themselves and cite each others work as necessary. To resort to the general
    media with an accusation of plagiarisation seems an arbitrary and brutal action
    and against the de facto practices prevalent in the community. It brings to
    mind the famed dispute between Newton and Leibniz over the matter of Calculus.

    In order to analyse the correspondence between Prof. Verlinde's work and Prof.
    Padmanabhan's work, we must access the papers written by them and figure out
    how the results have been arrived at. Until yesterday, Prof.Verlinde's paper was not available which appreared in the arxive today. A quick reading shows that it
    contains equations derivable trivially from the 2004 paper, as explicitly
    indicated  in
    arXiv:0912.3165   (for example, eq 4.19 of Prof.Verlinde
    is identical to the eq 12 of previous paper). In spite of this Prof.Verlinde
    has not explictly cited the 2004 paper but only the review by Prof.Padmanabhan with a “and references therein” comment. 


    While Prof.Verlinde's approach seems different, the mathematical
    structure is identical to the work by Prof.Padmanabhan – and Prof. Padmanabhan
    derives a much broader class of theories from his approach which does not seem
    to be the case with Prof. Verlinde’s work.

    Prof.Verlinde has to postulate the quantisation of entropy in units of 2 \pi k_{B}
    while Prof.Padmanabhan and collaborators have previously derived this
    result in their approach! Once again Prof.Verlinde does not cite this key work.

    I am also unable to discover in Prof. Verlinde's earlier work any result which would logically lead to his present exposition while there is a large number of papers of Prof. Padmanabhan, all referenced in the arxiv paper and in the review articles, which clearly indicate the evolution of the thought and analysis behind the ideas expressed in this paper.

    Given these points, I am disturbed by the accusations levelled against a member of the scientific community by another and supported by the many members of this blog. There seems to be a chain of calumny and condemnation without a deeper analysis of the sequence of work  of which this paper forms a miniscule part.  To publish such an unverified report in a national newspaper also seems
    like an extreme step and against the practices of refined journalism, being
    more in line with the current sensationalist tendencies in general media.

    I do hope that the members of this forum, who do not seem to be  very well informed about the technical aspects of the work in question, would reserve their judgement in a properly scientific manner in detail before publishing corroborative comments attesting to the veracity of the plagiarisation.


    Incidentally, let me also comment on the relationship between the works by Prof. Padmanabhan and Prof. Jacobson (who had published a paper with the basic idea of representing Einstein equation as an equation of state, which is cited explicitly in the 2004 paper of Prof. Padmanabhan)  
    It so happens that there is a significant difference (too technical to elaborate) between
    Prof. Jacobson's initial work and the work of Prof. Padmanabhan's that
    succeeded it, dealing with the formulation of an action principle from which
    the thermodynamic relations are derived and a variational principle where the
    metric is not varied. In recent years their groups have been working on
    separate tracks (again, too technical to describe here) but are in constant
    touch, to the extent I understand.  I suspect that the interlocutor – who is trying a drive a wedge between the two - is unaware of the fact that one of Prof. Padmanabhan's ex-students is currently
    working with Prof. Jacobson as a post doctoral research fellow in these topics! 
    The paper by Verlinde is out:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

    Ah, I just saw the comment on the relation between Padmanabhan and Jacobson. Take any paper by Padmanabhan, and you will see that the quality is one order of magnitude below that of Jacobson. Jacobson wrote one paper in 1995, Padmanabhan dozens of papers since; they are all much more confused, much less clear, and all repeat Jacobson's ideas, drowned in confusing mathematics. (There is no "significant difference" at all. Padmanabhan always writes this in his papers, but it is obviously false.) Of course a student from Padmanabhan will move to Jacobson; that is where the quality and the ideas are! What will never happen, is the opposite, that a student moves from Jacobson to Padmanabhan. You can also check yourself that many papers by Padmanabhan that repeat Jacobson's work in other words, 10 and more years after Jacobson, do not cite Jacobson.

    Johannes Koelman
    All - I would like to suggest that we leave the "Verlinde vs Padmanabhan" issue for both of them to sort out privately. Discussing and arguing here is simply not going to help anyone.

    I have tried myself to get evidence (either against or in favor) of Padmanabhan having written his most recent paper following access to this website. I have been in contact with Padmanabhan  (and later also with Verlinde). Furthermore, I have asked the owner of ScientificBlogging to provide me with IP-address details of access from India. All in the hope to be able to settle the matter.
    This has not led to anything conclusive.

    Although I am sort of a stakeholder in this, I have decided to leave the matter to Verlinde and Padmanabhan who, no doubt are both well capable to sort this out amongst themselves. Also, and more importantly: Verlinde's paper has appeared on arXiv today. I have started to read this paper, and anyone who is doing te same will no doubt agree with me that the key idea presented is markedly different from Padmanabhan's latest paper.

    So over to the physics!

    I hope to finish reading the paper and post a blog entry here today. If not, it will be much later, as I will be traveling to Europe tomorrow.
    FROM 50 YEARS OF READING ADVANCED PHYSICS I WOULD PLACE VERLINDE IN A SMALL GROUP OF THE BEST WRITERS.

    I read the two papers of Erik Verlinde and Thanu Padmanabhan, and found many similarities, but in fact the two papers are not strictly equivalent.

    The obvious difference is that Padmanabhan is using mostly integral calculus while Verlinde is using mostly differential equations. It means that Verlinde’s version is more transportable into general relativity, in the same way that Richard Feynman’s master thesis is transportable, and the Maxwell equations of differential form are transportable, where the closely related integrated forms are not.

    More important is the different ways the two papers handle partition of energy in the emergence of gravity. That is the main topic of both papers.

    Padmanabhan’s statement “The law of equipartition leads to the field equations of gravity” is not strictly correct.

    Equipartition leads to flat space, not curvature, and resides only where there is thermodynamic equilibrium.

    Gravity arises by a departure from equal partition in space that is subjected to stress energy described by a partition function, where there is a displacement from thermodynamic equilibrium.

    Verlinde was very clever and technically correct in the way he handled the partition function. “In the canonical ensemble the force F is introduced in the partition function.”

    In this way Verlinde has out maneuvered Padmanabhan and produced a paper on the leading edge of physics.

    Both writers handle Holographic properties of space the same way, but somewhat differently than is often found in other published work. These two papers treat holography as a concept where the contents of any enclosed space are fully described by the information on the enclosing surface. I believe this is true and is a correct representation of holographic universe theory.

    Verlinde and Padmanabhan did not use the Holography to argue against the Dirac Sea of energy in these papers. Other writers have used holography to argue against Dirac in a way that I have opposed in previous messages.

    So there is no statement made by either writer in these papers that would preclude star travel or CPT reversal, based on gravity induction and displacement of vacuum energy in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

    Padmanabhan related holography to a change in the number of energy states (degrees of freedom) in the Vacuum Energy that describes how information is transferred to a distant place.

    Verlinde related holography to a shift in the partition function of Vacuum Energy to describe how information is transferred to a distant place. This is the concept I support. It is a huge difference and a vital link to many new opportunities for scientific discoveries.

    Verlinde used equal partition but applied it to the incremental energy derived by proximity to a mass resulting in the cause of a thermal displacement..

    “A crucial ingredient is that only a finite number of degrees of freedom are associated with a given spatial volume, as dictated by the holographic principle. The energy, that is equivalent to the matter, is distributed evenly over the degrees of freedom, and thus leads to a temperature“

    At first glance the statement looks a lot like Padmanabhan’s treatment of energy distribution, but on careful reading, Verlinde has a considerably different concept. “Energy usually spreads over the microscopic degrees of freedom according to some non trivial distribution function“.

    I would not assign a low quality mark to the paper from Padmanabhan. Most of the differences could result as a style of writing rising from cultural differences. I do believe he made a mistake about energy partition, maybe the result from being in haste to publish.

    Verlinde gained the high ground by being technically correct, although the paper came a few days later. He covered my concerns about equivalence by treating it microscopically, which is the correct thing to do.

    I like the way Verlinde replaced action at a distance with a localized partition function. That is the path forward in science that Padmanabhan did not provide. The partition function is the physical means by which the information is propagated through space to display on the hologram of any surface that can be constructed of imagined.

    Verlinde coauthored a previous paper in July about holographic neutron stars on the verge of conversion to black holes.

    http://arxiv.org/format/0907.2695v2

    This is version 2. There is a version 3 but it has a file a transfer problem. The paper doesn’t cover the reverse case where a small amount of antimatter converts a marginal black hole to some other type of star. Neutron degeneracy of the neutron star is covered, but ZPE degeneracy of the black hole is not. Eventually the black hole will need to be described in terms of quantum mechanical degeneracy of the zero point energy. Before that happens, a lot of choices have to be made about how to describe the vacuum. There will be some major disputes about those choices.

    Verlinde is very skilful in finding ways to bypass the major confrontations, things like the structure of black holes, and the magnitude of vacuum energy. Very cleverly he shows that he has considered those things and many others, and found a way to represent his work without engaging in those disputes.

    I’m still in opposition to some of the popular treatments of the vacuum energy, general relativity, structure of black holes, and the more extreme versions of Holographic Universe.

    Verlinde has found a way to bypass those arguments. So there is really nothing I object to in his new paper on gravity.

    Next I would like to see his version of what happens when the previously mentioned small amount of antimatter is added to a marginal black hole causing it to become unstable. The gravitational expansion (or contraction) should not display more energy than is contained in the antimatter. So I believe it leads to a very different definition of black holes, and a new general relativity that goes with it.

    Thanks to Johannes for making this topic available to the public.

    CONSIDER TWO CONCENTRIC HOLOGRAMS IN SPACE ONE PLANK LENGTH APART. THE INFORMATION OF THE SURFACES DIFFERS BY THE ENERGY STATES OF EXACTLY ONE ZERO POINT OSCILLATOR PER PLANCK AREA. Considering the ZPE to be described by an eight pole harmonic geometry and spin of four, the holographic information is encoded by the oscillator frequency and the ratio of virtual charge to virtual mass as they relate to the degrees of freedom and the approach to thermodynamic equilibrium. In this representation the hologram becomes the observable quantity of a generally unobservable probability distribution from quantum mechanics, somewhat like the real part of a complex data set.

    For a small sub region in space that contains a stable non symmetrical curvature, but no real mass or electric charge, it is arguable that the total energy within the boundaries is a constant, and the total energy density is also constant over the volume, but the curvature information is expressed by a partition function that describes the frequency of the oscillators and the and the distribution of virtual electrical charges or absence of charges on the virtual masses of the eight pole resonators.

    First it must be said that the gravity in this example is not a scalar field potential like so many writers claim. The gravity has a magnitude and direction at every location, making it a manifold of tensors on the sub space region. The zero point oscillators have to remember all of that information.

    Next it should be realized that the ZPE hardware has substantially more data processing capability than is required by the software to support a holographic segment at the edge of the sub region in this simple. example. The ZPE has a four bit binary code among the virtual particle pairs determined by charged or uncharged pairs. Added to that data is the oscillator frequency that remembers the total energy of the eight pole oscillator. The four bit code tells how the total energy is partitioned into different types of energy.

    At this point it should be realized that a much larger super region could be taken as an example to contain all sorts of physical objects with far more information than the ZPE can process on a holographic surface. Then a conclusion is preferred that the holographic surface does not actually contain all of the information about everything that is contained within the surface, and it has no real physical need to do so. All the hologram needs on the Planck scale is the total energy per oscillator and the net thermodynamic entropy representing the curvature in four dimensions.

    This short description shows how the ZPE relate to the Holographic Universe, the propagation of information over long distances, and the partition of energy between gravitational and electromagnetic energy states.

    A prediction is made that the presence of a rest mass causes the shifting of ZPE potential from electromagnetic to gravitational forms by a decrease in the ratio of charged to uncharged virtual pairs.

    Degeneracy of the ZPE occurs at an event horizon where there are no charged virtual pairs, and no degrees of freedom. Light does not propagate because the degenerate ZPE has no electromagnetic potential.

    The question then arises about what happens if a beam of electron is sent into a marginal black hole. The early work of Peter Bergmann suggests that a large number of electrons can counteract gravitational curvature and open the event horizon, at lest enough for a a burst of beta rays to come out. A smaller number of electrons distribute over the degenerate ZPE to restore some portion of the electromagnetic potential. In this representation a collapsed star with an electrical charge can never be completely black.

    The conclusion is made that a hologram does not have to carry the total information of its enclosed area, only the net information for each type of energy. A hologram does not need to know if it encloses a marginal black hole or a marginal neutron star or the history of the two objects or how much space is enclosed. It only needs to know the net curvature and the net electromagnetic field expressed in one ZPE oscillator per Planck area. For that there is always enough data processing capacity.

    THE MEANS OF PLACING A TEMPERATURE LIMIT ON THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE RELIES ON GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT AND LIGHT SPEED.

    The hologram must transfer information into the enclosed volume as well as out of the encoded volume. The example is made of gravity red shift of a high energy x-ray that originates near an event horizon, and is red shifted to a long wave radio signal at far distance from the black hole. An extreme case occurs when the z-ray originates on the event horizon and results in an infinitely long wave length at a far distance.

    A more interesting situation occurs when a photon originates far away in nearly flat space, and approaches the black hole. Then it is blue shifted gaining energy from curvature. Based upon reversal of the previous examples the photon must approach infinite energy at the event horizon. If that were true the feeble background microwaves would be enough to make the hologram white hot if it was located near the black hole.

    Something is wrong with this description. Infinities do not occur in nature, only in our attempts to describe nature.

    One way to fix the problem is to allow the light speed to vary by a tiny amount in normal space, and by a larger amount in strongly curved space. To prevent the infinity from occurring at an event horizon, the light speed must be zero at the event horizon.

    In previous messages it was shown how the partition function varies with curvature to make Zero Point Oscillators degenerate on the event horizon. Degeneracy of the Zero Point is the same thing as zero light speed.

    Without variable light speed there is no way to prevent the hologram from being incinerated by the ordinary energy in normal space.

    Sunu Engineer wrote: "It is ridiculous to claim that a person like Prof.Padmanabhan – a physicist of international repute who was working in this field for nearly seven years and has written numerous reviews and given several plenary talks all over the world - has to base his paper on the brief expostulation of the simplistic equations on a blog and reported in a Dutch newspaper."

    It wouldn't be the first time a long time researcher has speed-published his views once a general idea is known; in this case Verlinde's talk was December 9, 2009.

    On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785
    Submission history
    From: Erik Verlinde P [view email]
    [v1] Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:45:59 GMT (504kb,D)

    Equipartition of energy in the horizon degrees of freedom and the emergence of gravity
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3165
    Submission history
    From: T. Padmanabhan [view email]
    [v1] Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:36:40 GMT (6kb)
    [v2] Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:52:12 GMT (9kb)

    So, Sunu Engineer's hypothesis that Prof. Padmanabhan did not have to base his paper on "the brief expostulation of the simplistic equations on a blog and reported in a Dutch newspaper" is not needed. There were probably enough initiated folks at Verlinde's lecture to inform Prof. Padmanabhan about the general ideas. And, I am sure that Prof. Padmanabhan is sufficiently well acquainted with the topic in order to generate the article published December 16, 2009 one week after Verlinde's talk. In fact, I find it symptomatic that he has corrected some details, two weeks later. That detail indicates it was not the result of seven years work, rather seven frantic days.

    However, these are pure speculations from my side, and I am sure we will get to know most details in the end. Due to the scientific impact, it may be nastier than any one would care for.

    I would agree with DrNo that the issue looks more like rivalry with the timing of papers more affected than the content.

    The importance is advancement in science to unite quantum mechanics with cosmology. In that regard the two papers have developed Newtonian gravity by somewhat different routes, but from the same fundamental concepts, which I believe is the lasting accomplishment.

    In speaking of Newtonian laws, the reader should be aware that the space under discussion is very nearly flat, and the gravity is very weak. For example in the space where we live the curvature of gravity differs from flat space by only about 3 parts per billion.

    Flat space is the consequence of equal partition. Thanu Padmanabhan’s paper fails to realize the flat space consequence of equal partition. Erik Verlinde’s paper shows some understanding of partition as it relates to curvature, and displays the good judgment to bypass that issue for the moment with a clever maneuver and concentrate on his main topic.

    Padmanabhan presented a number of relativistic equations but didn’t show how to derive them from holographic concepts. He included a cosmological constant but didn’t reconcile cosmology with quantum mechanics about how to define it and how large it is. Padmanabhan showed equations that reduce to Einstein’s general relativity, but without addressing the deficiencies of Einstein’s equivalence that cause general relativity to be in error except in cases where the curvature is very small and space is very nearly flat.

    Verlinde mentioned the items that are likely to become obsolete then avoided them and presented his case for the present work. He left his results in a form that can be extended into general relativity without saying which version of general relativity will prevail.

    The things that are missing from these papers is a discussion about how the entropic energy travels through space from one hologram to another, and which measurable properties of space are altered by that passage of energy. In the previous message I presented a quotation from my recent book giving a prediction of how the missing parts can be described and in a form that can be experimentally verified.

    My main criticism of the to papers is that they take a very careful approach to a topic that on the verge of breaking wide open, then decline the chance to predict something that can be experimentally verified.

    Here is a prediction that can be experimentally verified from my recent book. The first table is a prediction of how the partition function varies with strong local gravity for space near some collapsed stars. The graph looks better but is not supported by this web page, without some file attachments. Partition Z is the fraction of the vacuum expressed as electromagnetic potential. Parameters go is the accelerating factor for galaxies in deep space.

    ...Table 23.23. g-go m/sec2....... Z Partition
    Intergalactic...., -1.0758637E-16 , 0.500000000
    Interstellar......, 3.0250157E-13 , 0.499999990
    Sun.............. 2.7435783E+02 0.499998900
    LB 27 ........... 2.5025355E+06 0.499927609
    HZ 14 .......... 3.1507432E+06 0.499889878
    Neutron Star .., 3.0535893E+08 0.499533175
    Neutron Star.. 1.5238759E+12 0.427843955
    Black Hole ..... 1.5216407E+13 0.000000000

    The next table shows how that same principle predicts flat space to occur at 35 mega parsecs from the mass center from our local neighborhood of galaxies, and the antigravity of galactic acceleration to develop at a distance between 35 and 200 mega parsecs.

    Mpc g/go
    35 , 0.000
    40 , -0.229
    45 , -0.391
    50 , -0.507
    55, -0.592
    60 , -0.657
    65 , -0.708
    70 , -0.748
    75 , -0.781
    80 , -0.807
    85 , -0.829
    90 , -0.848
    95 , -0.863
    100 , -0.877
    105 , -0.888
    110 , -0.898
    115 , -0.907
    120 , -0.914
    125 , -0.921
    130 , -0.927
    135 , -0.932
    140 , -0.937
    145 , -0.941
    150 . -0.945
    155 . -0.949
    160 . -0.952
    165 . -0.955
    170 . -0.957
    175 . -0.960
    180 . -0.962
    185 . -0.964
    190 . -0.966
    195 . -0.968
    200 . -0.969

    By now there should be competing graphs published from the major research universities. Why are we arguing about who found a way to justify Newtonian gravity? Everyone should be predicting things that can be measured. The topic of partition is the key to moving forward.

    Gents,

    Prof. Verlinde has added a discussion to his webpage to clarify the logic of his paper, since it has been misunderstood and misrepresented in blog reports. Please take a look:

    http://staff.science.uva.nl/~erikv/page18/page18.html

    It might answer some of the questions.

    DEPARTURE FROM EQUIVALENCE MUST BE EXPRESSED IN THE HOLOGRAPH TO GET A CORRECT VIEW OF GENERAL RELATIVITY.

    Thanks to Bob Brand for the notice of Verlinde's explanation. It shows a better explanation of partition.

    Albert Einstein expressed equivalence in a way that is usually described in Newtonian form. mechanical acceleration is given by:

    (F.1)....... Fa = ma

    Gravitational acceleration is given by

    (F.2)....... Fg = mg

    Einstein equated the two forces to get a basis for his general relativity, claiming that a local observer could not tell the difference.

    (F.3)....... a =?= g

    Mechanical acceleration can have any arbitrary function, but was given as a constant in Einstein's example, making equation (F.3) false.

    (F.4)....... a = gs

    The best agreement for (F.3) occurs when there is no mechanical force, then equation (F.3) is true for the mass center, but not for each part of the test mass, leading to small scale measurable departures from equivalence even in the best circumstances, except when the system is described by two dimensions or less and radius is constant.

    The statements (F.3) and (F.4) are not generally true and cannot be rigorously constructed for a system of three or more dimensions. Newtonian gravity is given by

    (F.5)....... g = gsrs2/r2

    and gravitational acceleration is not constant with changing radius. This equation is not relativistically invariant. A differential form is required for invariance. Define a differential as:

    (F.6) ....... g' = dg/dr ........ and

    (F.7) ....... g'' = dg'/dr

    Then local gravity changes by:

    (F.8) ....... g' = -2g/r ......... and

    (F.9) ....... g'' = -3g'/r

    The radius must be eliminated for invariance.

    (F.10) .......r = -g'/2g = -g''/3g'

    Invariant local gravity is given by

    (F.11) ...... 2gg'' = 3(g')2

    In this form the local gravity is relativistically invariant, and can be extended to transformations of coordinates for the Newtonian inertial frame. Instead of using equation (F.3), the requirement for transportable Newtonian gravity is met by four equations:

    (F.12) ...... g = 3(g')2/2g''

    (F.13) ...... g = 4(g'')2/3g'''

    (F.14) ...... g = 5(g''')2/4g''''

    (F.15) ...... g = 18(g'''')2/17g''''' ...... all of which are non trivial.

    Equation set (F.12) to )F.15) are repeated for acceleration in each of the four dimensions in which there is a gravitational component. The sequence actually continues for higher dimensionalities, but ends here for a four dimensional reference frame.

    From these equations is shown how unlikely it is that gravitational acceleration can ever be equal to mechanical acceleration for any real test mass. The closest agreement occurs for a microscopic test mass when there is no mechanical acceleration

    Newtonian must be replaced with other functions when the space is not very nearly flat.
    Einstein's field equations are not completely correct either for any situation except for no mechanical acceleration in flat space. For any mechanical acceleration in a gravitating field the stress energy tensor of Einstein's field equations is in error by a factor related to ( g - a ). To describe strongly curved space the vacuum energy must deviate from equally partition.

    A partition function can be derived from the previously mentioned equation.

    (22.7) .......g = (MG/r2 ) - go ........where go is the antigravity of deep space.

    The related partition function for electromagnetic potential in the Zero Point field is

    (F.16) .......Z = 1 -½ ( g + go ) r2/MG* ........where G* is measured in flat space.

    At the boundary condition of flat space
    (F.17) ....... MG* = go rF2........where rF is the distance from mass center to flat space. in flat space.

    Equation (F.16) becomes:

    (F.18) .......Z = 1 -½ ( g + go ) r2/go rF2

    This is not relativistically invariant. A differential form is required for invariance.

    From the previous equations:

    (22.1) ..... c2/c*2 = 2Z ........ and

    (22.4) ...... 2c*2dZ/dr = 2(1-Z)g .........where c* is measured in flat space.

    The invariant differential form is

    (F.19) ...... Z' = 2Z(1-Z)g/c ...... with all locally measured quantities.

    Holographic theory will have to express a corrected general relativity with departure from equivalence if it is going to advance from the flat space in which it presently resides.

    DEPARTURE FROM EQUIVALENCE MUST BE EXPRESSED IN THE HOLOGRAPH TO GET A CORRECT VIEW OF GENERAL RELATIVITY.

    Thanks to Bob Brand for the notice of Verlinde's explanation. It shows a better explanation of partition.

    I apologize for the typo mistakes of mismatched fonts in the previous message. A commotion in my office caused a posting before it was ready. I would like to attribute it to some random anomaly in the vacuum power 200,000 megawatts that circulates to support the gravity that holds me in my office chair, but in fact there is a known cause.

    Here is the correction, although the discussion has moved on to other pages.

    Albert Einstein expressed equivalence in a way that is usually described in Newtonian form. mechanical acceleration is given by:

    (F.1)....... Fa = ma

    Gravitational acceleration is given by

    (F.2)....... Fg = mg

    Einstein equated the two forces to get a basis for his general relativity, claiming that a local observer could not tell the difference.

    (F.3)....... a =?= g

    Mechanical acceleration can have any arbitrary function, but was given as a constant in Einstein's example, making equation (F.3) false.

    (F.4)....... a = gs

    The best agreement for (F.3) occurs when there is no mechanical force, then equation (F.3) is true for the mass center, but not for each part of the test mass, leading to small scale measurable departures from equivalence even in the best circumstances, except when the system is described by two dimensions or less and radius is constant.

    The statements (F.3) and (F.4) are not generally true and cannot be rigorously constructed for a system of three or more dimensions. Newtonian gravity is given by

    (F.5)....... g = gsrs^2/r^2

    and gravitational acceleration is not constant with changing radius. This equation is not relativistically invariant. A differential form is required for invariance. Define a differential as:

    (F.6) ....... g' = dg/dr ........ and

    (F.7) ....... g'' = dg'/dr

    Then local gravity changes by:

    (F.8) ....... g' = -2g/r ......... and

    (F.9) ....... g'' = -3g'/r

    The radius must be eliminated for invariance.

    (F.10) .......r = -g'/2g = -g''/3g'

    Invariant local gravity is given by

    (F.11) ...... 2gg'' = 3(g')^2

    In this form the local gravity is relativistically invariant, and can be extended to transformations of coordinates for the Newtonian inertial frame. Instead of using equation (F.3), the requirement for transportable Newtonian gravity is met by four equations:

    (F.12) ...... g = 3(g')^2/2g''

    (F.13) ...... g' = 4(g'')^2/3g'''

    (F.14) ...... g'' = 5(g''')^2/4g''''

    (F.15) ...... g''' = 6(g'''')^2/5g''''' ...... all of which are non trivial.

    Equation set (F.12) to )F.15) are repeated for acceleration in each of the four dimensions in which there is a gravitational component. The sequence actually continues for higher dimensionalities, but ends here for a four dimensional reference frame.

    From these equations is shown how unlikely it is that gravitational acceleration can ever be equal to mechanical acceleration for any real test mass. The closest agreement occurs for a microscopic test mass when there is no mechanical acceleration

    Newtonian must be replaced with other functions when the space is not very nearly flat.
    Einstein's field equations are not completely correct either for any situation except for no mechanical acceleration in flat space. For any mechanical acceleration in a gravitating field the stress energy tensor of Einstein's field equations is in error by a factor related to ( g - a ). To describe strongly curved space the vacuum energy must deviate from equally partition.

    A partition function can be derived from the previously mentioned equation.

    (22.7) .......g = (MG/r^2 ) - go ........where go is the antigravity of deep space.

    The related partition function for electromagnetic potential in the Zero Point field is

    (F.16) .......Z = 1 -½ ( g + go ) r^2/MG* ........where G* is measured in flat space.

    At the boundary condition of flat space
    (F.17) ....... MG* = go (rF)^2........where rF is the distance from mass center to flat space. in flat space.

    Equation (F.16) becomes:

    (F.18) .......Z = 1 -½ ( g + go ) r^2/go (rF)^2

    This is not relativistically invariant. A differential form is required for invariance.

    From the previous equations:

    (22.1) ..... c^2/c*^2 = 2Z ........ and

    (22.4) ...... 2c*^2dZ/dr = 2(1-Z)g .........where c* is measured in flat space.

    The invariant differential form is

    (F.19) ...... Z' = 2Z(1-Z)g/c ...... with all locally measured quantities.

    Holographic theory will have to express a corrected general relativity with departure from equivalence if it is going to advance from the flat space in which it presently resides.

    First came the underpinnings of time as well as of electromagnetism. A 'natural medium' having nothing to do with space, but from which space itself including matter and energy emerge and consist. Time itself gives rise to space and matter and energy therein; time is not just passive ticks of the clock nor an independant variable, but in fact that which gives rise to all else. However for thermodymics to be obeyed, space cannot be continually fed with matter and energy through continued causal changes, so gravity becomes the mechanism for excess to be absorbed back into the time medium. Matter and energy are not being created nor destroyed, but transferred, as time gives rise to and changes space and particularly all else therein. There is not a space-time, because space itself emerges out of time, as time gives rise to space. This is also why events perceived from within space, appear to "move forward in time", wheras time itself does not have spacial dimensions, but causal dimensions and mechanism by which space both exists and is transformed, including provision and alteration of matter and energy.

    All of you are correct, from a real point of view in this aniostropic, observer dependant universe. The electrical entity is planer or 2-D by all accounts but our senses experience 3-D and our calculation carry us to many orders of dimension more (only 9 apply to material existance however). All this
    from a singularity. In the end there remains only the singularity, all else are our perceptions at play. Consciouness is before matter, matter is made of energy, a non-material entity. Energy can be subtle acoustical or intense enough to emit light. Phonons and photons are simply entities on a continuum of energy that is either subtle or excited. Phonons are inverse to photons in magnetic property only because of subtle vs excited condition. Matter either absorbs or emits light, is either over 1,000 K or below but non-zero.

    Before creation zero point was at zero K, now that condition is forbidden on a universal scale. Information is distributed just as charge and vibration/magnetism are distributed. Sub-space aether connects all things, it is a liquid crystal spin ice entity. I will provide proof of concepts in my book The Next Paradigm Shift. Physics, Consciousness and the Evolution of Humankind. Owing to sine, cosine interferance we have referance and interferance conditions between conscious intention of creator and each entity. Thus all things participate in self reality. Action at a distance owes to Prime referance as first condition, all cross that condition to animate into reality. Reality is shared, we all contribute, we all share in consciosness of the singularity, the precondition of all things. Put down your calculators and open your minds, your so called third eye frontal cortex. In you lies the ability to absorb what you really are. Matter has no hold on us, we have hold on it! Only our thinking makes it seem otherwise. I am willing to be tested. I have seemingly superhuman abilities but really we all have this. Lack of conviction is all that keeps us from commanding physics. Our minds and bodies attenuate or cancel the forces of nature. We can also align with any entity and either speed it up or slow it down. I learned the hard way there are thermal consequences to the flesh but it was worth the proof of concept.
    You are all correct in part. The whole of it owes to layered realities in the aether. Aether wells are evenly spaced above, below, left, right. Planer is real quality of charge but there are more planes above and below (I have seen this in a vision). Charge passes from below upward, breaks at top of plane then reached down to catch next rising cycle in a lovely fluid motion. So much to tell only a book will do.
    Peace fellow seeker, this will all be clear soon, no need to compete, all are valid either in a plane or in mutidimensional frame.