Essay Abstract

The holographic principle and firewall is examined for a Reissnor-Newman black hole. The ambiguity in spatial surfaces extended beyond an observable world means quantum bits are not defined in a closed world. $AdS$ black hole correspondence carries this over to cosmologies. The open world leads to prospects for truncated hyper-computing systems that have properties similar to what what an agent with consciousness or freedom of choice might posses. A necessary condition for teleology is then an open world.

Author Bio

Doctoral work at Purdue. Worked on orbital navigation and currently work on IT and programming. I think it is likely there is some subtle, and in some ways simple, physical principle that is not understood, or some current principle that is an obstruction. It is likely our inability to work quantum physics and gravity into a coherent whole is likely to be solved through new postulates or physical axioms, or the removal of current ones.

Download Essay PDF File

Hi Lawrence B. Crowell,

Here you are proposing a open universe model with Anti de Sitter Blackhole. In your words in page 8... 'It might be that consciousness is also a truncated hyper-Turing machine that approximates the ideal of a completely self-referential system that can jump out of an algorithm, or make a leap of imagination. A truncated system may be able to perform these actions, but not in a complete God-like form. An ideal hyper-Turing machine is able to perform trans-provable operations, which can include choosing between unprovable axioms in order to construct a model necessary for the function of that system.'....

It is confusing that

Blackholes are singularities, and in an open universe energy always goes out. Dark matter detection experiments failed. In this background, you are proposing capabilities of God will be available to the truncated system ... hope you through some more light here...

    This is not about open in terms of flowing matter and energy. This openness is a quantum mechanical openness and the nature of entanglements. This is seen in the analysis on pages 3 and 4. This is where the new physics lies. Here the difference in the qubit content between the inner and out horizon results in the action for topological states. This topological physics emerges because of the two spatial surfaces that an observer in region I may identify data. The observer in region I can't distinguish between them and this leads to a limit on the ability to identify qubit entanglements. This has some analogy with open thermodynamics, where there is a flow of energy in and a dissipation mechanism for the removal of entropy.

    Think of a black body, say the interior of a hot cavity made of oscillators. The radiation is emitted out the small opening, and each photon emitted comes as an entanglement from atom* --> atom plus photon, and this is an entanglement between the atom and the photon. The entanglement entropy of the cavity increases as bipartite entanglements are generated. However, at the half way point, the Page time, most of the atoms are now emitting their second photon that is entangled with previously emitted photons. The entanglement entropy of the cavity starts to decline as a gas of entangled photons has now been emitted to I^+.

    The black hole is different. At first Hawking radiation is emitted in this process and the BH becomes increasingly entangled with the Hawking radiation. However, at the half way point something happens. The the entangled states composing the BH that are EPR pairs with Hawking radiation, which from the perspective of the exterior observer are on the horizon, must now entangle further with more Hawking radiation. This is what is problematic, for it requires a unitary transformation to convert a bipartite entanglement into a tripartite entanglement. That can't be done. Unitary evolution does not create entanglements or destroy them. As a result if the BH continues to emit Hawking radiation it must violate quantum monogamy and further this will lead to the BH exceeding the Bekenstein bound. This is the firewall issue, and AMPS claims the stretched horizon must now have maximal entanglement and will no longer permit anything to quantum radiate or to pass through. The stretched horizon have been converted into a boundary of spacetime or equivalently into a singularity.

    There are then clearly something wrong here. We have in physics the three quantities length, time and mass. With c = 1 we constrain length and time together and with 徴 = 1 we constrain mass with length. So we have one fundamental parameter left, call it length or if we want to work in the Fourier transform space then mass. There is an intertwiner between mass and length however that is a coupling constant. This is Newton's gravitational constant G ~ Area or sqrt{G} ~ length and which we see in the Schwarzschild horizon length r = 2GM/c^2. However, with the firewall something odd happens in that the BH after the page time is an end to spacetime geometry, or equivalently the end of possible entanglement, but yet we have gravitation.

    My essay is in part a possible solution to this. Briefly it is a way of looking at Susskind's ER = EPR according to quantum hair and BMS symmetry. It is a complementary relationship between the EP and UP of GR and QM respectively. It means that an exterior observer looking at a BH will observe Hawking radiation being emitted and conclude that the BH will be a firewall once it has emitted half its mass. However, this BH observed later at half its mass by an observer will have the same assessment made. The firewall is not a signature of the end of physics, but it is the inability to make future predictions on BHs because the universe is fundamentally open. A portion of the RN or Kerr conformal diagram makes this evident as seen in the attachment. The Hawking radiation observed in region I has an ambiguity with respect to the topology of quantum states since the two spatial regions here are not topologically equivalent. There is no homomorphism between the two. Quantum hair or BMS symmetry in supergravity means there is no local method for determining the quantum late state of a BH.

    I would have included more, but the size limit of the contest prevented that. The last section is somewhat speculative, but it is there to advance the idea that an open world system sets up an open system of qubits. The hyperTuring machine is an idealization, and I argue that a real physical system of this sort is finite and limited. This is then argued to carry over to the world at large, not just black holes. There is fundamentally a sort of pink noise to the structure of spectra, and the Fourier transform of this is the autocorrelation function for the structure of signals. I do not go into how this translates into the properties of complex molecules and life, though complexity is woven into this

    LCAttachment #1: Penrose_diagram_for_RN_with_2_spatial_surfaces.png

    Lawrence,

    Firstly, a minor criticism, MS Spellchecker is not the same as a human proof-reader.

    This is a very thought provoking essay. I can only follow about 75% of the material, even after reading several times. I am ignorant regarding deSitter Spaces and such, but I was able to infer that you are basically talking about mapping information between spaces. These spaces could be physically real or they could be abstract.

    To me, the transition from bipartite to tripartite entanglement might be the only example mentioned in any of the essays thus far that could actually be an emergent behavior ... essentially, the universe must create a new rule for a condition that did not previously exist.

    Am I correct to infer that the openness that you hypothesize will allow some information to be outside of what is observable when this is necessary to preserve either the Equivalence Principle or the Unitary Principal?

    I will study this some more and perhaps will have more thoughts/questions.

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

      Thanks for the positive assessment. I am not sure what words I misspelled.

      The point of looking at AdS spacetimes is to argue that what I did with black holes carries over to general spacetimes such as cosmologies. This is rather much a work in progress. What the open world might mean is that two cosmologies with entangled states can swap them. In other words maybe in one with a bipartite entanglement plus extra state and the other with a tripartite entanglelent can swap these. This would give the local appearance of the violation of quantum monogamy.

      To show entanglement conservation suppose we have two quantum states |ψ> and |ψ'> and that we have

      |ψ> = a|+> + b|->

      |ψ'> = c|+'> + d|-'>.

      Now suppose there is a unitary operator such that

      U(|ψ> + |ψ'>) = ad|+>|-'> + bc|->|+'>,

      This is then a singlet state |χ> = |ψ> + |ψ'>, with assumed normalization etc. Now we have a|+> + b|-> = |+_z> and c|+> + d|-> = |+'_z>. This means

      U(|ψ> + |ψ'>) = |+_z>|+'_z>.

      This runs into a problem, for we have a sort of cloning of states here for with normalization if |ψ> = |ψ'> then |χ> = |ψ> and we can with this operation clone states.

      Unitary operations can't create or destroy entanglements. Entanglements have symmetries and these serve as conservation laws that conserve them. They can diffuse of course. Two states that are completely entangled with another state not entangled can evolve into partial entanglements between the three. That can happen by unitary evolution.

      Read the post I wrote to S. Gupta. I give more of an idea what this means. There is a duality of some kind with the unitary principle and equivalence principle. This stems from the breakdown of predictability in this open world.

      Lawrence,

      You did not misspell anything ... that was the point. There were a few places where a word was probably the wrong word ... form vs from is an example although I don't specifically remember that with your essay.

      Best Regards,

      Gary Simpson

      I will see what I can make of it. I can say that often physics or physicists do not like a lot of infinities.

      Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler --- paraphrased from Einstein

      LC

      Dear Lawrence,

      Probably one of the best repackage of string theory's anthropic principle. Trying to explain life in the 3-dimensional universe where we live as a consequence of the existence of the Open World aka Multiverse of hypothesized 10^500 universes out there has been long decried by many capable voices and minds.

      You present the usual lot of string theory's hypotheses as facts: i.e. the complexities of quantum states in a black hole interior builds spacetime. In most other theories, and frankly to common sense, a black hole must be an implosive accident, and where not it is at the very least a singularity (not a regularity) which cannot in any way provide for a building block or elements thereof for the larger spacetime where regularities seem to be the norm.

      Since black holes are dear to the theory, you find that: Quantum hair on a black hole may have mirror or dual relationship with low energy complexity we observe around . If dual relationship, we don't see any explanation of how this dual or physical relationship could possibly develop across the entire spacetime.

      I like this one leap that you provide instead: it could be that be consciousness is also a truncated hyper-Turing machine that approximates the ideal of a completely self-referential system that can jump out of an algorithm, or make a leap of imagination. One is not sure if the jump is from the quantum algorithm within the black hole spacetime into our physical spacetime or into another imaginary spacetime. Or you seemingly want the quantum states within the black hole to be entangled so that their wavefunction may decohere into the larger spacetime. Should I remind the reader that quantum entanglement is between two CONJUGATE elements: can one think of separate or dual (let alone conjugate) elements within an environment that is SINGULAR?

      I remind the reader that all these theories of blackhole spacetimes with entanglement states and other engenders have knowingly crashed over the discovery of an accelerating universe with a"ridiculously small"positive cosmological constant. Not to mention the very recent indictment of String Theory by the LHC because the hypothesized super-symmetry particles arising from these views have not been found within their very energy scale. I agree with you that "It is likely our inability to work quantum physics and gravity into a coherent whole is likely to be solved through new postulates or physical axioms, or the removal of current ones". Regrettably, the LHC results seem to be mandating that String Theory be one of those to be removed.

      Even setting the above aside, for all the "beautiful" and prolific mathematics credited to string theory, I do not find this paper to have satisfactorily delivered on the specific question of a mathematical formulation to human cognition. Because you did not relate eloquently enough, if at all, spacetime mathematical formalism to the development of human intentionality.

      And pardon the long post!

        The duality I find is similar to the duality between locality and reality in Bell theorem. That this occurs across spacetime has to do with nonlocality.

        This has connections to string theory, M-theory and the multiverse. I do not particularly appeal to those in the derivation I work here. The openness I appeal to is more of a quantum openness with entanglement swapping that may occur.

        This article is largely about condition that may be necessary for the existence of consciousness. I make no detailed hypothesis on the nature of human cognition. The MH-spacetimes and truncated hyperTuring machines are invokes as something that can exist in this system. In a general open world this may lay the ground work for conscious beings.

        Sorry you are not happy with this. That is the way it goes. We will see how the cards fall in the long run.

        LC

        Hi Lawrence,

        Happy to see you again on fqxi and congratulations for your works.They are relevant mathematically and technically speaking.Good luck in this contest.You merit a prize.

        Best

          Lawrence,

          Thanks for taking a look at my essay.

          Can't pretend to understand the direction of your essay. I wonder why you need a theoretical black hole with mass, a charge, and no rotation to relate the teleological nature of humans in an open world, and how is holographical coding on gravitational differentials involved. It's all new to me.

          Jim Hoover

            Thanks for the good word. It was a bit of a stretch to take my work and bend into this question.

            Cheers LC

            It is all about the open world. In order to have systems that act in some volition you must have an open world. That is the basis from which I argue.

            Cheers LC

            Dear Lawrence,

            I've just had another read-through of your essay. It's simply amazing how many different concepts you draw on, allude to, or mention---AdS/CFT, Wess-Zumino-Witten models, quantum error correction, MERA, ER=EPR, together with Lewisian modal realism, Popper's open cosmology, and many, many more. I'm quite confident in saying that all of these concepts probably never before shared the same environment, as they do in your essay---indeed, they probably never even shared the same mind before.

            And to top that off, you preface the whole thing with a Leonard Cohen quote (and one of the best, too); that alone means I can't be too critical of your essay!

            But while the essay is very impressive in its eclecticism, it's also very hard to follow, and one fears to loose track of the central point; indeed, I'm not completely sure I can articulate what that central point is. In principle, you seem to be saying that there is a necessary openness to physical systems in the world, due to their being long-range entangled with other, in principle arbitrarily distant, systems, leading to topological order.

            Unfortunately, it's not quite clear to me how this openness is connected to goal-directedness, intentionality, etc. I get your point regarding the impossibility of making perfect predictions in an essentially open system, but I'm lost at the point where you connect this to hyper-Turing machines and pink noise as relating to consciousness (?). I'd be grateful if you could elaborate a little.

              I will confess there is a lot here. I was going to sit this essay contest out. It then dawned on me that a secondary interest in MH space I had some years ago might have a bearing upon what I am working on. The main interest I am working on is contained in sections 2 and 3. The connection to MH spaces is made in section 4.

              In statistical mechanics a closed system will approach equilibrium and there is from there no prospect for any sort of self-directed system. Closed systems simply die. As a result systems that have some self-directed properties must be open thermodynamic systems. I have been working on how cosmology is a quantum mechanically open system. They are open with respect to entanglement swapping. In the ER = EPR prespective with quantum hair it is then possible that three states in a tripartite entanglement in one timelike region can exchange themselves with a bipartite entanglement plus nonentangled state. This is connected with the firewall problem.

              I could have gone deeper on this in other directions. In particular the duality between the equivalence principle and the unitarity principle, dual in a similar way Bell's theorem indicates a duality between locality and reality, means there may be some connection with Verlinde's hypothesis on the nature of dark matter. The presence of DM may be a signature of this complementarity with quantum gravity and cosmology.

              The subject of this essay debate is huge, and a part of it is that it centers around something that we have a poor understanding of, that is consciousness. I just advanced the argument the foundation requirement of there being an open nature of the universe.

              Cheers LC

              Dear Lawrence,

              You write: Closed systems simply die.

              Are you sure? I thought the laws of conservation required that closed systems, systems with no exchange whatsoever with their immediate environment, that is, would be preserved and enjoy stability. That closed systems tend to evolve into thermodynamic equilibrium, as opposed to open systems. So if life is for you viability, instead of death, and viability a chance for emergence of consciousness, then one would think that you would give preference to closed or stable systems in the pursuit of inception of intelligence.

              I can't make sense of your argument.

              Now of course perfectly closed systems do not exist. And life has developed on the basis of highly stable systems but not "absolutely" stable systems. It is within the "small window" of instability (1% perhaps) that give and take occurs, that which we call metabolism and interaction with the medium mediated by cognition.

              Am I wrong...

              Joseph

                The rule in biology is that equilibrium is death. A system that reaches equilibrium is not at large evolving.

                With gravity there is a subtle matter with the definition of equilibrium. An anzatz involving a black hole in a world with the same background temperature illustrates the point. A black hole with mass M has a Bekenstein-Hawking temperature T = 1/8πM (in naturalized units) will absorb a unit of mass δM or by quantum tunneling emits a unit of mass δM. It is then clear that in the case the black hole absorbs a unit of mass that its temperature is a tiny bit lower than the background temperature and it will statistically more likely absorb energy from the background. Conversely, if the black hole emits a quanta of radiation it will get hotter and statistically be more probable for quantum decaying away. Equal temperature does not mean equilibrium.

                There are open questions still concerning the nature of thermodynamics and certainly quantum mechanics with gravitation. My interest with this has been of late with BPS black holes that have gauge charges. The induced "quantum hair" has consequences for the universe as a quantum open system. Quantum open systems are to open thermodynamics, what Poincare recurrence in classical systems is to the recurrence of quantum systems. It is where the real fun lies.

                Cheers LC

                10 days later

                You are welcome Lawrence.

                I understand,difficult sometimes to resume a general work.Your mathematical plays are always surprising and relevant.Your posts on blogs and forums lack us Lawrence.:)

                Best

                Hi thinkers,

                Lawrence, I have difficulties to accept the reasoning of Verlinde about MOND.The fact to modify our newtonian mechganic is odd,it is also odd that the fact to consider the quantum gravitation like an emergent electromagnetic force.All searchs this weakest quantum force.It is well like that,that boosts and catalyses the compétitions,we have so many interesting works searching answers.But I don't understand why so many scientists insist only on photons and only on this luminiferous aether ???? it is a prison this special relativity and if a main primordial causality has created an universe, I am doubtin,g that it is a prison ??? the aether is gravitational and the universe is more complex than our standard model.It is really odd that all insists in this prison and these chains .Like if in 200 years of sciences we had all understood and concluded ,only the photons exist ??? the cold and heat .....The consciousness and the gravitaztion has nothing to do with our standard model in logic.

                psd verlinde tells that dark matter does not exist in fact and that the reasoning that Zwicky has found in galaxies inventing dark matter is not necessary.So Verlinde wants to explain gravitation in all the sense, entropical this, now mond, and this and that.Well is it a joke ? has he a team of business men behind him??? all the pappers pondered become irrational.Sometimes competition is well sometimes no, and a little of holidays also sometimes is well for the Heath and the pression :)

                Dark matter seems essential ,this matter baryonic permits to balance the standard model when we consider the zero absolute,the cold.

                MONDS OR emergent electromagentic gravity ...are not really universal.

                Best Regards